[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
paul sutton wrote: > > am I correct here, and also correct in thinking that IE is MS standards > complient rather than fully W3c standards complient. Very little software ever complies with relevant standards when those standards are as complex as the CSS 2.1 standards. IE conforms with less than Firefox as there has been virtually no development (unless you count twiddling with ActiveX kill bits, and fixing buffer overflows) for half a decade (excepting stuff not yet in wide use). However there are some bits of the CSS standards that IE implements and Firefox doesn't (okay obscure bits but we hit one, I suspect IE may not have it right, but at least it tried), and bits that neither Firefox nor IE get right. IE gets harsh press in part since people assume not complying with the standards is some sort of MS policy. So the method is write to standards, and hack for the most common browsers and rendering engines (which will depend on how much time or have), whatever those browsers may be. And it will likely stay that way forever, even if the most common browser selection changes. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html