On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 8:55 PM, David McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> For a while now, I've been operating on the principle "Code for Firefox,
> hack for IE".
>
> That is, writing CSS for the most standards-compliant browser, and then
> making adjustments for non-standard behaviour.
>
Some of the many comments about the proposed new Google browser...
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2008/09/fresh-take-on-browser.html
http://blogoscoped.com/google-chrome/
http://blogoscoped.com/archive/2008-09-01-n47.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17939_109-10029914-2.html
http://www.readwrite
From: "willdonovan" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
I thought that was the case but does it render the same.
FF renders quite differently I find across PC, Mac and Lynx.
Safari does have some bugs (what browser doesn't?) but, in my experience,
the largest area of concern for certain types of layouts, is
I thought that was the case but does it render the same.
FF renders quite differently I find across PC, Mac and Lynx.
William
Nathan de Vries wrote:
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 22:09 +1000, willdonovan wrote:
I do find that Opera can give a good idea of what might be happening
with Safari if y
On Mon, 2008-09-01 at 22:09 +1000, willdonovan wrote:
> I do find that Opera can give a good idea of what might be happening
> with Safari if your a PC user...
Safari has been available for Windows for a little while now.
--
Nathan de Vries
*
I came upon this -
http://www.kryogenix.org/days/2008/08/27/facebook-doesnt-really-support-ie6
If Facebook (or the new¹ Facebook look) is doing this, maybe it will really
start to move IE6 out the door ...
One can only hope anyway!!
+++
Susie Gardner-Brown
blog: http://susiegb/blogspot.com
we
You need to put the doc type before the HTML and HEAD tags. Also your css
file isn't pointed correctly when you go to the locations page needs the
good old .. to make it look back a folder.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On
Behalf Of kevin mcmonagle
Se
Hi,
the doctype belongs outside the and tags.
also you probably won't get it to validate with tags wrapped around
individual elements of a definition list
cheers
Luke
kevin mcmonagle wrote:
Hi im developing a site and have a couple problems.
www.pattersonskitchens.ie
First I cant get t
Hi im developing a site and have a couple problems.
www.pattersonskitchens.ie
First I cant get the doctype to validate, not sure why
2nd: cant get the expanding/repeating background div on left hand side
to work in ie.
theres a few other issues but these are the two that have me stuck.
-be
On Mon, 1 Sep 2008 20:55:07 +1000, David McKinnon wrote:
>
> For a while now, I've been operating on the principle "Code for Firefox, hack
> for IE".
>
Interesting thread.
I learned CSS from "Eric Meyer on CSS" books. He gives several ideas
for avoiding browser bugs and related hacks altogether.
I will be out of the office starting 02/09/2008 and will not return until
03/09/2008.
For Content Requests contact Jason Rhodes. For all other queries, contact
Wendy Pryor
**
Department of Innovation, Industry and Regional Dev
My 2 cents:
I've been coding CSS layouts since 2003. I've probably laid out several
hundred sites at this point.
Today, I always code on FF first (yes for the tools). Yes, Opera
renders a little more accurately. Once you learn little CSS tricks to
stabilize floated items, their containers
I think that I've read about this in Andy Clarke's Transcending CSS book.
Maybe it's under the Progressive Enhancement approach.
On Mon, Sep 1, 2008 at 9:24 PM, <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi David,
>
> I wouldnt say that I code for Firefox, more that I code in immaculate
> standards compliant c
Hi David,
I wouldnt say that I code for Firefox, more that I code in immaculate
standards compliant code and that it seems to work best in Firefox,
Safari and Opera ;)
You are right though - make for standard complient browsers and then
use conditional statements for IE. Most of the time
On 1 Sep 2008, at 12:27, Ben Buchanan wrote:
I use basically the same approach, but I code for Opera; checking in
Firefox and Safari. Then hack for IE at the end. On very large
builds I do the occasional check for IE as well just to make sure
things haven't gone really badly wrong in IE in
I started learning hacks, and now don't use them at all.
I find that if I'm attempting to make the site cross browser, try not to
make the CSS too complicated.
William
David Storey wrote:
If coding for the most standards compliant browser, then hack for IE,
then you wouldn't code for FF firs
I would have to agree with the others here.
Coding for / with FF is easier because of the debugging tools (i.e.
Firebug, Web Developer Toolbar, etc)
Otherwise I have atleast 4 other browsers open, all the popular IE's
(5.5, 6, 7 & soon 8) and Opera.
I do find that Opera can give a good idea
David McKinnon wrote:
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle "Code for
Firefox, hack for IE".
Is this the way anyone works?
Apart from that I "code for the most standard compliant browsers
(plural) at present time, and then hack for various IE versions", I
think I'll go along
I would say code for standards at the end of the day, because standard is
really the minimum requirement, once that's ticked off then code/hack for
other browsers. Can't say I've read it anywhere but my web sites certainly
look, work and load a lot better since I've started following that process.
I have also read and believe that you code correctly and, yes, the browsers
that are web standard compliant should not need any hacks. However there will
most likely be the need for IE6 hacks.
--- Original Message ---
From:David McKinnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent:Mon 9/1/08 6:55 am
To:wsg@websta
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle "Code for Firefox,
> hack for IE".
>
That is, writing CSS for the most standards-compliant browser, and then
> making adjustments for non-standard behaviour.
>
Is this the way anyone works?
>
Is it the best way to work?
>
I use basically the sam
If coding for the most standards compliant browser, then hack for IE,
then you wouldn't code for FF first. Maybe third.
It however comes with the best developer tools on the market, which
makes it easier to developer for, and that comes from someone that is
working as the product manager f
This is how I work, but mainly for pragmatic reasons:
Better JavaScript de-bugging tools in FireFox.
Better CSS support, therefore fewer problems out of the box, and better
stylesheet analysis tools.
Finally, the one good reason: anything that needs to be fixed for IE can
be done with conditional c
Hi David,
Good question you raise.
This's how I've been working for years - design for the most
standards-compliant browser, FF.
Could it be that we code for FF because it's easier to debug (Firebug)?
Or perhaps, that most designers hear of/read articles about IE hacks
assuming that it's the leas
Hi,
For a while now, I've been operating on the principle "Code for
Firefox, hack for IE".
That is, writing CSS for the most standards-compliant browser, and
then making adjustments for non-standard behaviour.
I said this in a meeting last week to argue a point and my boss said
"who says?
Hi Mike (and all),
I also find "outline : 1px dashed #f00;" very useful as, unlike 'border' it
doesn't add any extra pixels. (However, It doesn't work in IE, of course.)
Bob
www.gwelanmor-internet.co.uk
- Original Message -
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sen
I think you will find that this has no direct effect on accessibility.
As I am sure you know, if you rely on these methods for navigation, or
if that select isn't made keyboard-friendly, then that is a problem, but
inline JavaScript on its own is fine. In some circumstances it is better
to have it
Many people have some sort of reset stylesheet, that turns on a border
for every div or every element. The 'perfect' version of this idea can
get very complex, but something as simple as setting a border on all
divs can often show you where something is stretching or floating where
you were not exp
28 matches
Mail list logo
