On Friday 10 November 2000 16:48, you wrote:
> Those really don't work well. Yes, of course
> IE has a lot of bugs and is slower. Unfortunately
> nowadays IE is more 'standard-compliant' (how
> ironic!).
Actually I think Netscape is slow. Is IE even slower? My impression is that
it's faster, but I don't use it often.
One problem of Netscape is that it doesn't respond to user interface events
while it is rendering. So if a big document just finished loading and is
being formatted in another Netscape window, the window I'm reading cannot be
scrolled.
> > Because that is bad formed html coding. I would suppose that is good
> > thing. I don't like the 'I allow alot of errors' approach from IE.
>
> This is very odd. I think the standard states that
> illegal tags should be ignored, no matter what.
The problem is that IE doesn't ignore illegal tags, but it tries to display
them. And it does so pretty good. But the result is that many people write
bad HTML and think it's good HTML because IE displays it.
Fortunately, in the XML standard it is specified that incorrect syntax may
not be processed.
> > > It seems we are forced to use other browsers than Netscape...
> > > PLease check the FAQ with your browser and report me when it is not
> > > working... (Concentrate on the <PRE> parts, which are especially in the
> > > connector section...)
>
> I suggest cheating the Netscape browser. Perhaps by
> putting a FONT tag somewhere...
Using <TT> is safer, because it's hard to predict which fonts are fixed-width
(that's platform dependant).
Bye,
Maarten
--
For info, see http://www.stack.nl/~wynke/MSX/listinfo.html
