Paul B. Gallagher wrote: >I'm no advocate for Micro$oft, > False--at least by proxy, you are.
>but I recognize when they do something well, > Clueless. Internet Exploder was designed to BREAK the 'Net. >and coping well with coding errors >counts as "doing something well" in my book. > Your book is clueless. The reason the junk looks better in Internet Exploder is because it is often built using M$'s crappy development tools and obviously was "verified" using M$'s browser --and tweaked "until it looked right" there. This is a throwback to the bad old days days of "This page best viewed with _____". These are ignorant people using broken tools and incorrect methods, thus producing crap. If they were plumbers or electricians, they would have had their licenses revoked. JUST BUILD YOUR DAMNED PAGES TO BE **STANDARDS-COMPLIANT**. Those will then work with *any* browser. If you then need to make tweaks for BROKEN browsers (version-to-version, M$'s junk won't render the same), do that AFTERWARDS. If you need to sniff, sniff for the *edge* cases --the BROKEN, NON-COMPLIANT browsers. This is not rocket surgery. _______________________________________________ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
