Actual Site Stats - Firefox 2 versus IE 7

[Chris Borokowski]

Aha! No, that wasn't what I was saying at all. It's
tricky and boring and often stupid, but you can get
sites working in both browsers. That doesn't mean the
resulting code is necessarily W3C compliant, or that
you see the same code in IE and FF (I have no stats on
this, but I'd estimate that most websites use
generated code, not static .html files). Sorry for the
confusion.

I spend a fair amount of time making things that work
in both FF and IE, and to me, the whole thing is
stupid. One standard should be picked and kept. I
don't have a side in the OSS versus MS battle, but I
think we should eliminate all tedious and pointless
work if we can.

FF tends to pride itself in being more
standards-compliant, while IE is sort of the new
technology adopter and has often come out before the
finalization of changing standards. Also, MS has
broken some rules in an effort to get some of their
other technologies working, with in my view mixed
results, often positive and equally often staggeringly
stupid.

Here's a reasonable introduction:

http://websitetips.com/css/solutions/

--- Kevin Amery <kevindamery at gmail.com> wrote:

> If I'm reading your statements correctly, that means
> that these sites
> *must* not work in IE (since it sounds like you're
> saying that writing
> pages that work in non-IE browsers makes for sites
> that are
> incompatible with IE).
> 
> Or maybe I'm misinterpreting your point...


User Interface design blog
http://user-advocacy.blogspot.com/
Code::Design::UI::Consulting
http://www.dionysius.com/


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
Get your own web address.  
Have a HUGE year through Yahoo! Small Business.
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/domains/?p=BESTDEAL