<gripe>
*Cries* As a web developer I want to kill anyone else who produces a none
standards compliant browser. Already we have to test multiple versions of
Netscape, Mozilla, and IE on Mac, Windows, (and for Netscape and Mozilla
in Linux) as well as testing in Lynx to try to check usability issues for
those who can't see pictures, tables, etc (blind people for instance), and
we're probably going to start testing in Opera too. We don't even do
anything fancy like Javascript and there are still a crapload of issues to
work through. I like Mozilla the best so far but even it still has some
issues and the fact that the majority used browsers are Netscape and IE
means we must check them too. In all about a dozen platforms between the
two of them that we watch. Netscape I can forgive since Mozilla is their
effort to be more compatible across multiple platforms but what is with
IE! IE5 has been a total nightmare for us on all platforms and it acts
differently on Win95, Win98, NT, and the Mac. We haven't even gotten to
testing Win ME (what a dumb name.. almost as bad as WinCE) or Win2000. :P
</gripe>
If Konqueror is making a shot at being a browser I sure as hell hope they
work hard to be 100% standards compliant. For that matter why don't they,
if they don't, use the Mozilla gecko rendering component?
*^*^*^*
Have the courage to take your own thoughts seriously, for they will shape
you. -- Albert Einstein
On Thu, 7 Dec 2000, Adam Many wrote:
> CNN.com looks fine to me, using Konqueror. I find Netscape (IE's not
> really an option under Linux) less than adequate when it comes to speed
> and privacy.
>
> Adam
>
> On Wed, 6 Dec 2000, Abraham Pinzur wrote:
>
> >
> > For those of you who are as picky as I am, Konqueror is less than adequate
> > in rendering typical HTML. By typical, I mean stuff that works in IE and
> > Netscape 4.7. Compare, for instance, http://www.cnn.com/.
> >
> > - Av -
> >
> > --
> > Abraham P. (Av) Pinzur
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://www.crispgraphics.com/~newav
> >
> >
>
>
