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 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 some unpredictable way.
I don't think you should "code for firefox" though. That's no better than "coding for IE" since you're just coding for a specific browser. A much better way to operate is "coding for standards compliant browsers" (or at least those browsers with the strongest standards support). I would recommend you broaden your initial testing to include Opera and Safari as well - they generally agree anyway but it's better to be thorough. If your boss really questions this you can always point out that building and testing in the better browsers is much faster. Most people find it is more efficient to get things working in the good browsers then do one round of hacking at the end for IE. I know I find it more efficient that way. You just have to get clients/etc to do their previews in something other than IE :) cheers, Ben -- --- <http://weblog.200ok.com.au/> --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson ******************************************************************* List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *******************************************************************
