Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
Christian Montoya wrote: I'll probably be using conditional comments for the next five years, and everytime I use them I think to myself, this would just be easier if IE worked the same as FF/Opera/Safari. It sure would, but would IE be 'MSIE' then? :-) Besides, I think someone will have to fix and stabilize FF/Opera/Safari a bit more before we regard their rendering as 'standard'. At the moment they are just 'so much better' than IE. The rest of your comment sounds just fine. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
On 10/13/05, Peter Firminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knewexactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems.Don't look at me. I don't want to see an M$ bitch session develop here while Microsoft areseemingly trying very hard do the right thing (at last). Obviously we haveto wait and see what the final release does.I respect MS for what they are doing. I just want them to go about it the best way. At that point, I really hope you're (general) not going to charge yourcustomers if you have to fix up bugs (hacks) that you knowingly induced into their websites if you didn't make it clear to them at the time that hackingmay require rectification in the future.I've never had a client. :-) Sorry for the smug told you so, but many people including myself have madethis very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame.Are you trying to make anyone cry? -- - C Montoyardpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
If you don't use CSS hacks you have 2 options. 1. Avoid CSS that is buggy in a browser. 2. Use other hacks like conditional comments. (Conditional comments *are* hacks, there just intentional ones) Number 1 is simply not an option unless your willing to look like useit.com or something. Number 2 is hardly any better because when future browsers come out either they will have fixed their CSS implementations (and then life is happiness and glee) or they won't. With CSS it's likely that you will have to do touchups but with conditional comments you have to write another css file all together. Also I don't want an M$ bitching session either. IE7 may not be perfect, but it's a step towards interopability and standards (which is a really big thing for Microsoft). I think we should encourage it all we can. Peter Firminger wrote: If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems. I don't want to see an M$ bitch session develop here while Microsoft are seemingly trying very hard do the right thing (at last). Obviously we have to wait and see what the final release does. At that point, I really hope you're (general) not going to charge your customers if you have to fix up bugs (hacks) that you knowingly induced into their websites if you didn't make it clear to them at the time that hacking may require rectification in the future. Sorry for the smug told you so, but many people including myself have made this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. Peter previously comment=I'm really sick of html emails on this list I second :) It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. /previously ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
Peter Firminger wrote: If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems. ... Sorry for the smug told you so, but many people including myself have made this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. Since you don't yet know how many CSS bugs will be fixed in IE 7 you really don't have any cause to be smug yet. If the IE team fix the CSS hacks and also fix the bugs the hacks are used to work around (as I think they originally mentioned they would), then the hack users will be fine. And if not, then it's no worse than having to update your conditional statements anyway. Because I bet you don't yet know which of your conditionals will have to change to !--[if lt IE 7] and which to !--[if IE] cheers, Geoff (who uses very few hacks btw, so I'm not defending myself here) ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
On 10/13/05, Peter Firminger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems. A hack is a hack is a hack. Calling a hack a conditional comment doesn't magically make it something else. And conditional comments don't have any more forward compatibility than any other hack; if I use, say, if IE gte 6 to get the supposed forward compatibility of conditional comments, and IE7 introduces bugs that aren't in IE6, then I'm traveling up the waterway without a paddling implement. My only option, then, is apparently to code a separate ruleset for each and every version of IE (and possibly each Windows Service Pack, depending on how MS decides to go with bug fixes) and use conditional comments keyed to those specific versions. The nightmare of maintainability thus created will make the dark ages of separate Netscape and IE code look like a walk in the park by comparison. So. How, exactly, is this a step forward again? Sorry for the smug told you so, but many people including myself have made this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. So long as there are bugs in any browser which require hacks in order to get certain parts of CSS or any other standard to work in that browser, forward compatibility will be a serious problem. All the smugness and I told you so comments in the world won't make it otherwise. -- May the forces of evil become confused on the way to your house. -- George Carlin ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
That's not really true, Alan. A site without CSS hacks does not necessarily have to be ugly. I develop table-less ASP.NET sites using CSS and I have never used a single CSS hack or conditional comment, yet my sites are still clean, good-looking and functional in the leading browsers (IE, FF, Safari, and Opera). -- Francesco Sanfilippo Web Architect and Software Developer http://www.blackcoil.com [EMAIL PROTECTED] 402-932-5695 home office 402-676-3011 mobile Professional web developer and Internet consultant with 10 years experience. Specializing in ASP.NET, C#, SQL Server, CSS/XHTML, and digital photography. Founder and developer of URL123.com - now serving 2 million clicks per month. On 10/13/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If you don't use CSS hacks you have 2 options. 1. Avoid CSS that is buggy in a browser. 2. Use other hacks like conditional comments. (Conditional comments *are* hacks, there just intentional ones) Number 1 is simply not an option unless your willing to look like useit.com or something. Number 2 is hardly any better because when future browsers come out either they will have fixed their CSS implementations (and then life is happiness and glee) or they won't. With CSS it's likely that you will have to do touchups but with conditional comments you have to write another css file all together. Also I don't want an M$ bitching session either. IE7 may not be perfect, but it's a step towards interopability and standards (which is a really big thing for Microsoft). I think we should encourage it all we can. Peter Firminger wrote: If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems. I don't want to see an M$ bitch session develop here while Microsoft are seemingly trying very hard do the right thing (at last). Obviously we have to wait and see what the final release does. At that point, I really hope you're (general) not going to charge your customers if you have to fix up bugs (hacks) that you knowingly induced into their websites if you didn't make it clear to them at the time that hacking may require rectification in the future. Sorry for the smug told you so, but many people including myself have made this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. Peter previously comment=I'm really sick of html emails on this list I second :) It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. /previously ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
On Oct 13, 2005, at 12:55 AM, Geoff Pack wrote: If the IE team fix the CSS hacks and also fix the bugs the hacks are used to work around (as I think they originally mentioned they would), then the hack users will be fine. And if not, then it's no worse than having to update your conditional statements anyway. Because I bet you don't yet know which of your conditionals will have to change to !--[if lt IE 7] and which to !--[if IE] This is only true in certain circumstances when the hack does not make use of a deliberate feature that is not changed. For example, this scenario is common: - IE 5.x has a natural box model problem - put IE 6 into quirks mode so it emulates this problem - use * html to fix the problem in both IE5.x and IE 6 Now, we know that IE 7 will support quirks mode and will not support * html. New problem. In fact, a problem made more difficult by deliberately putting IE 6 into quirks mode, perhaps with a comment before the DOCTYPE, because this is a deliberate feature in IE. How many of these developers put that comment in a server-side include function, so they can remove it easily? My guess is none, even the ones that put all of their CSS calls in some sort of include. A better, more forward-thinking approach would be: - IE 5.x has a natural box model problem - IE 6 and IE 7 in standards mode do not have this problem - use conditional comments with [if lt IE 6] to fix the problem in IE5.x - use conditional comments with [if lt IE 7] to fix other IE 6 problems - use conditional comments with [if lt IE 8] to fix other IE 7 problems Then you place whatever is needed into whichever stylesheet is appropriate. As a general rule, Only hack the dead. The only safe bug to exploit is one that is fixed in ongoing generations of the product, or will never be fixed because the product is dead. All other necessary targeting should use features, not bugs. (Some may ask what the difference is. The answer: features are supported.) On Oct 13, 2005, at 7:27 AM, Francesco Sanfilippo wrote: That's not really true, Alan. A site without CSS hacks does not necessarily have to be ugly. I develop table-less ASP.NET sites using CSS and I have never used a single CSS hack or conditional comment, yet my sites are still clean, good-looking and functional in the leading browsers (IE, FF, Safari, and Opera). However, if you read about the Slashdot upgrade problem in the blog post, you'll see a point that is tough to navigate around without targeting browsers: 1. HTML validator requires a legend tag inside a fieldset (although I can't find that requirement in the spec) 2. HTML spec does not declare whether an empty element should render or not (according to the blog post -- not sure about this) 3. IE and Gecko choose to render empty elements differently. It would seem to me then that without targeting browsers you cannot achieve the goal layout in both of these browsers unless you drop all fieldsets, forms, etc. The spec is not complete. If you bump into one of these un-specified areas, then it seems your layout is subject to the will of the browser makers. Sometimes this is ok. Sometimes this means the client goes shopping for a new developer. -- Ben Curtis : webwright bivia : a personal web studio http://www.bivia.com v: (818) 507-6613 ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
Ben Curtis wrote:
As a general rule, Only hack the dead. The only safe bug to exploit
is one that is fixed in ongoing generations of the product, or will
never be fixed because the product is dead. All other necessary
targeting should use features, not bugs. (Some may ask what the
difference is. The answer: features are supported.)
Agreed, although I'm not sure if the dead are in need of much hacking if
we care about the living.
Regarding IE7, note that the following scenario is also quite common,
and isn't creating any new problems:
- IE 5.x has a natural box model problem (not that I care anymore)
- put IE 6 into quirks mode so it emulates this problem (and behaves better)
- use * html to fix the problem in both IE5.x and IE 6 (not really
needed, but is quite convenient)
- Use !--[if lte IE 6]
- Use an ?xml declaration to keep IE6 in quirks mode, and rely on the
fact that IE7 will skip the xml prolog [1] and use the doctype - as it
should. Time to upgrade the W3C site on that point[2], I think.
Then we can introduce our !--[if IE 7] commented/hacked/cheating
stylesheet to get around all the old and new bugs and shortcomings.
Should be pretty future-safe.
Now, we know that IE 7 will support quirks mode and will not support
* html.
Oh, but it will - in quirks mode[3].
New problem. In fact, a problem made more difficult by deliberately
putting IE 6 into quirks mode, perhaps with a comment before the
DOCTYPE, because this is a deliberate feature in IE.
It may become a problem, but only to those who have used 'comments' as
switch.
However, if you read about the Slashdot upgrade problem in the blog
post, you'll see a point that is tough to navigate around without
targeting browsers:
That case is easiest solved as was suggested in the original IE-blog.
legend {display: none;}
Shouldn't make much of a difference across browser-land.
Georg
[1]http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/15/467901.aspx
[2]http://www.w3.org/International/articles/serving-xhtml/
[3]https://blogs.msdn.com:443/ie/archive/2005/09/02/460115.aspx
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
MS have fixed the * html hack for IE7, which isn't a bad thing provided the rest of the engine comes up to scratch. I think the article acutally makes a pretty good case for throwing IE into quirksmode and developing for one (lousy, but reasonably predictable) version of IE instead of four (5, 5.5, 6, 7). Which is what I have done for the last few sites I've built. You don't even need a hack to do it, just include an xml declaration, a comment or blank line as the first line in your page. kind regards Terrence Wood Alan Trick said: I personally think that this will be unrealistic for the time being. But it's nice to hear that the IE team is starting to take a stand agains the problems their buggy software created. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
On 10/13/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally think that this will be unrealistic for the time being. Butit's nice to hear that the IE team is starting to take a stand againsthe problems their buggy software created.It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for.The worst part is that they are condeming hacks, but promoting conditional comments. This is not the way to go! They should be eliminating the need for conditional comments entirely. -- - C Montoyardpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
what do you mean by conditional comments? It seems to me, that css hacks are not really a good thing since they are called hacks. The language should just work regardless of browser or computer. I think thats what standards are for aren't they? So that the language is standard for everyone?? Making it easier to maintain for future proof? Buddy Christian Montoya wrote: On 10/13/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally think that this will be unrealistic for the time being. But it's nice to hear that the IE team is starting to take a stand agains the problems their buggy software created. It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. The worst part is that they are condeming hacks, but promoting conditional comments. This is not the way to go! They should be eliminating the need for conditional comments entirely. -- - C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
Did you read the blog post in the link? The writer insists that developers use conditional comments, and even shows how to use them. What I am saying is that IE should be eliminating the need for both conditional comments and hacks. I'm not saying to take their functionality away... it's a nice option to have, just stop making IE so inconsistent with other browsers. I'll probably be using conditional comments for the next five years, and everytime I use them I think to myself, this would just be easier if IE worked the same as FF/Opera/Safari. On 10/13/05, Buddy Quaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what do you mean by conditional comments? It seems to me, that css hacks are not really a good thing since they are called hacks. The language should just work regardless of browser or computer. I think thats what standards are for aren't they? So that the language is standard for everyone?? Making it easier to maintain for future proof? Buddy Christian Montoya wrote: On 10/13/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally think that this will be unrealistic for the time being. But it's nice to hear that the IE team is starting to take a stand agains the problems their buggy software created. It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. The worst part is that they are condeming hacks, but promoting conditional comments. This is not the way to go! They should be eliminating the need for conditional comments entirely. -- - C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- - C Montoyardpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com
Re: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
I read the first part and even went to the websites of the hacks it gave references to. I thought that was the end of the post and then only saw the conditional stuff after I had posted so I apologize for that. Yes, exactly... IE needs to play nice like all the other browsers. Buddy Christian Montoya wrote: Did you read the blog post in the link? The writer insists that developers use conditional comments, and even shows how to use them. What I am saying is that IE should be eliminating the need for both conditional comments and hacks. I'm not saying to take their functionality away... it's a nice option to have, just stop making IE so inconsistent with other browsers. I'll probably be using conditional comments for the next five years, and everytime I use them I think to myself, this would just be easier if IE worked the same as FF/Opera/Safari. On 10/13/05, Buddy Quaid [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: what do you mean by conditional comments? It seems to me, that css hacks are not really a good thing since they are called hacks. The language should just work regardless of browser or computer. I think thats what standards are for aren't they? So that the language is standard for everyone?? Making it easier to maintain for future proof? Buddy Christian Montoya wrote: On 10/13/05, Alan Trick [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I personally think that this will be unrealistic for the time being. But it's nice to hear that the IE team is starting to take a stand agains the problems their buggy software created. It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. The worst part is that they are condeming hacks, but promoting conditional comments. This is not the way to go! They should be eliminating the need for conditional comments entirely. -- - C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** -- - C Montoya rdpdesign.com ... liquid.rdpdesign.com ... montoya.rdpdesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list & getting help **
RE: [WSG] IE team says no to hacks
If you've gone against all sane advice and used CSS hacks then you knew exactly what you were in for with future browsers and potential problems. I don't want to see an M$ bitch session develop here while Microsoft are seemingly trying very hard do the right thing (at last). Obviously we have to wait and see what the final release does. At that point, I really hope you're (general) not going to charge your customers if you have to fix up bugs (hacks) that you knowingly induced into their websites if you didn't make it clear to them at the time that hacking may require rectification in the future. Sorry for the smug told you so, but many people including myself have made this very clear over the whole life of WSG. You only have yourself to blame. Peter previously comment=I'm really sick of html emails on this list It sounds more like they are taking a stand against the designers who tried to work around those buggy problems. They aren't cleaning up their own act, just making it harder to hack around them. IE 7 still has some of the quirky implementations that make older versions of IE so difficult to design for. /previously ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
