Matt,
> "Real" web developers use weblint, not Voyager, to make sure
> their code
> is sane ;)
I know, but the web is also a place where many 'amateurs' (as opposed to
professionals) make web pages. They don't use weblint or any other
'development' tools, they're happy if their browser 'shows the page'. That's
all I meant.
> IE supports Javascript - and it's better than Netscape
> Javascript in that
> you can check Voyager against IE without IE crashing and burning like
> Netscape does ;)
>
> Considering that IE either follows precisely or adds to the
> JS specifications,
> and Netscape couldn't even be bothered to iron out the bugs
> in their own
> language implementation, I'd rather use IE.
I haven't had NN crash more or less times on me than IE, but that's probably
the 'your mileage may vary' category.
> > follow it's own standard completely). Testing written
> scripts is one thing,
> > having to try 5 different 'JavaScript standard' methods to
> see if one works
> > in IE so you can get the functionality you want is something else.
>
> I've never had that problem, I always code for IE - with
> knowledge of what
> Netscape can and can't do in the back of my head so that
> hopefully I don't
> execute IE specific code on Netscape.
>
> Really, why cripple yourself these days anyway? As long as you use
> document.getElementById() and the other W3C DOM1 support functions,
> your code can access any object on the DOM and work in IE, Mozilla
> and Opera instantly.
Regarding the JS stuff, I wanted it to work on an Amiga browser as well. I
usually have some server side things like CGI or whatever at my disposal, so
I use that and try to keep the browser side simple. I got the site to work
in IE, NN, Opera and AWeb v3.3 (it's the Amiga browser with the most
complete JS support) with JS from the specs and no browser compatibility
checks.
> Then why say that Microsoft have ruined the browser by making it
> forgiving, and implying that it is some nefarious tactic?
I didn't say they ruined the browser. See the comment about 'amateur' web
developers above.
> You don't look hard enough: Word outputs fully compliant XML
> code (in that
> XML *is* 100% strict, so non-compliant code would fail) and
> Frontpage no
> longer uses non-HTML4.x constructs and attributes seeing as it favours
> the use of CSS.
Like I said, 'They must have cleaned up their act a bit then'.
> So what *is* your post about? All I saw was a "there's good reason for
> browsers to be strict!",
No, I provided a possible reason. An explanation. I did not say whether I
considered it a good reason or not.
> "Microsoft suck"
Again, didn't say that. Like I explained, the JS stuff I wrote was more
difficult to get to work in IE than NN, Opera or Aweb. That's my experience.
> "strict browsers RULE!" type monologue.
See above.
> Are you just trying to be clever, because there's no point
> to your post if it's not a suggestion for stricter compliance
> in V, for "developers" if noone else..
That was exactly the suggestion. "developers", with quotes. Because there
are way more of those than ones without quotes. That's all.
Wouter Lamee
_____________________________________________________________________
Voyager Mailing List - http://v3.vapor.com/
Voyager FAQ....: http://faq.vapor.com/voyager/
Listserver Help: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=HELP
Unsubscribe....: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Subject=UNSUBSCRIBE
