Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > If there were no browser bugs...

Reply
Thread Tools

If there were no browser bugs...

 
 
e n | c k m a
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
this?

If so, do you think that major browsers (namely Micro$oft) intentionally add
buggy code so that at least the developers will "use" it for testing
purposes?

I love a good conspiracy

Nicko.


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
e n | c k m a
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
Sorry, forgot to add the [OT]


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Leif K-Brooks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
e n | c k m a wrote:

> If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
> CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
> this?


No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.
 
Reply With Quote
 
e n | c k m a
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
> No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.

True, but hypothetically, what if they exhausted all the possibilities of
user features?


 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby A Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
e n | c k m a wrote:

> If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
> CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
> this?


No. Differences in rendering between browsers are not always as the result
of bugs.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?id=132

 
Reply With Quote
 
Kris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
In article <Tehpb.176128$(E-Mail Removed)>,
"e n | c k m a" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
> CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
> this?


I disagree. There is more to a browser than adhering to the written
standards. This is were variety is comes in; after all, your preference
is probably different than mine. And don't forget there are people with
special needs, for who special browsers exist. "One browser fits all" is
an utopia, IMO.

Also, competition among browser makers forces them to improve the
product, which will benefit the user. It is typical that MS has not
tried improving their browser for a long time (security patches are not
what i call improvements), now that they have come to dominate the
browser market. I anticipate only growth for other browsers.

--
Kris
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed)erlands (nl)
 
Reply With Quote
 
Steve Pugh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
"e n | c k m a" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>If there were no browser bugs (in terms of standards compliancy and the way
>CSS is rendered) then we'd only have use for one browser. Do you agree with
>this?


Only if that browser was the perfect choice for all users on all
paltforms. It would need to be the perfect browser with the perfect
user interface for everyone, regardless of whether they used its
output on a braile device or a pda or on a TV, etc., etc.

I find it very unlikely that the same browser would ever give the best
performance for someone surfing the net via their TV and someone
surfing via an aural interface.

Even if there were no bugs there can still be massive differences in
hwo pages are rendered.

>If so, do you think that major browsers (namely Micro$oft) intentionally add
>buggy code so that at least the developers will "use" it for testing
>purposes?


No. By definition a bug is accidental.

Many of the non-standard 'features' of browsers were added during the
'browser wars' to make their browsers more attractive to developers
("Look you can make text blink in our browser!"). And many of them
were retained and/or copied for reasons of 'compatability'.

Anyway, why would a browser manufacturer want their browser to only be
used for testing purposes? Where's the return on investment in that?

Steve

--
"My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

Steve Pugh <(E-Mail Removed)> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Morris
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-03-2003
"e n | c k m a" <(E-Mail Removed)> writes:
> > No. A browser is more than a rendering engine.

>
> True, but hypothetically, what if they exhausted all the possibilities of
> user features?


Then there'd be a need for a browser that could be configured without
going through 100 layers of menus and didn't take up Gb of HD space.

--
Chris
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Can there be any doubt at this point that queries were a bad idea? David Mark Javascript 32 03-06-2010 06:01 AM
If you've taken 70-290, were there questions on.... JohnB MCSA 10 05-11-2008 08:01 PM
VB.Net- 0 Build Errors, but I am prompted that there were build errors? Lance Wynn ASP .Net 1 02-03-2008 12:20 AM
venkman and firebug loading source code for a page without sending the params that were sent when the browser made the call Eyal Javascript 0 11-08-2006 10:52 AM
Were there any messages for me while I was out =?ISO-8859-1?Q?R=F4g=EAr?= Computer Support 11 07-11-2005 09:57 PM



Advertisments