i cant see why u really wouldnt be using xhtml
u can always throw in an old browser script that directs them to the firefox dl
;)
most ppl still have it in their heads that updating their browser is still a 3
day download not a 4mb one
-- Original Message -
Ben Rogers wrote:
>> XHTML 1 Transitional and CSS 2.1, tested in Firefox, IE 6, Opera
>> and Lynx.
>
> Out of curiosity, do you test on earlier versions of Internet Explorer or
> anything that uses an earlier version of the Gecko engine?
No.
> What I'm really
> curious about is how well the old
> XHTML 1 Transitional and CSS 2.1, tested in Firefox, IE 6, Opera
> and Lynx.
Jochem,
Out of curiosity, do you test on earlier versions of Internet Explorer or
anything that uses an earlier version of the Gecko engine? What I'm really
curious about is how well the older engines handle XHTML. If
Jim McAtee wrote:
>
> So, what browsers, versions, (and to a degree, platforms) are you testing
> and supporting for general access public web sites?
XHTML 1 Transitional and CSS 2.1, tested in Firefox, IE 6, Opera
and Lynx.
Jochem
~
and Internet Explorer. We don't check functionality, just general
layout.
Ben Rogers
http://www.c4.net
v.508.240.0051
f.508.240.0057
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:59 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: W
we have the luxury of only IE 6+ accessibility, as its a requirement
we make VERY clear in our pre-sales efforts.
--
tony
Tony Weeg
macromedia certified coldfusion mx developer
email: tonyweeg [at] gmail [dot] com
blog: http://www.revolutionwebdesign.com/blog/
cool tool: http://www.antiwrap.com
> So, what browsers, versions, (and to a degree, platforms) are
> you testing and supporting for general access public web sites?
#1 Firefox.
#2 IE 5.5+.
Beyond that, I'm not that fussed. I have a Mac and I occasionally check
my work but I've not seen enough difference between its rendering and
We only support version 5+ browsers.
BTW, a properly structured site will require minimal tweaking to make it work
consistently across browsers and platforms. Solid knowledge of CSS is required,
though.
>I'm guessing that some good comments on my question are buried somewhere
>in that 500 po
On Thursday 09 Dec 2004 02:59 am, Jim McAtee wrote:
> So, what browsers, versions, (and to a degree, platforms) are you testing
> and supporting
I don't support a browser, I support and write to (a set of) open standards.
Day to day testing is performed with a recent Firefox, and double checked i
I said that about 8 months ago. Then I got reamed for it by visitors.
People using NS 4 are still around, though they seem to be generally
good natured about having ugly sites, as long as they work.
We'd switched to a JS/CSS menuing system that works like a champ, but
not in NS4. We changed to
u should just load up this
http://www.chrispederick.com/work/firefox/webdeveloper/
great extension!!
-- Original Message --
From: "Paul Vernon" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Thu, 9 Dec 2004 07:45:42 -
>We pretty much do w
I apply a policy that anyone using Netscape 4 gets what they deserve and the
site should work in just about anything else, much as has already been said.
~|
Special thanks to the CF Community Suite Gold Sponsor - CFHosting.net
htt
We pretty much do what Barney has already said...
Develop using Firefox.
Turn off the stylesheets persistantly and re-test in Firefox.
Before we test in any other browser, we validate the site using the CSE HTML
Validator Pro We develop our sites in XHTML 1.0 Transitional usually.
Test and
i do write for firefox which general works great on most all non ms browsers, i
use firefox, mozilla, netscape, opera, konqueor
then lastly go back and fix the ie bugs
then slap a browsehappy.com logo on bottom! :)
oh and also put that the website was optimized for firefox 1.0
-- Origin
Best bet, as far as I'm concerned, is to develop using FireFox (or any
Mozilla), then tweak for IE6 (because of it's hosed box model, among
other things), and then ensure that the site is still "functional
enough" if you turn off CSS and JavaScript. You're not going to get
quite the same consisten
oh and also i write in in xhtml not html. makes a big diff if trying to view on
periferals
and no reason to use html anymore.
-- Original Message --
From: "Jim McAtee" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:59:08 -0700
>I
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 19:59:08 -0700, Jim McAtee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> My feeling is that you can't test _everything_ so you gauge the use of the
> more popular browsers and then you draw a line somewhere. I also realize
> that like most things, it's a matter of how much time and money you (or
-0500, Jim Davis
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > -Original Message-
>
>
> > From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:59 PM
> > To: CF-Talk
> > Subject: Which browsers do you support for -public- web sites?
>
> -Original Message-
> From: Jim McAtee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, December 08, 2004 9:59 PM
> To: CF-Talk
> Subject: Which browsers do you support for -public- web sites?
>
> I'm guessing that some good comments on my question are buried so
I'm guessing that some good comments on my question are buried somewhere
in that 500 post thread on Browser Stats, but I really don't have the
energy to sort through all the OT and all the bickering.
My feeling is that you can't test _everything_ so you gauge the use of the
more popular browser
20 matches
Mail list logo
