Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: where can i get IE for os x?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: where can i get IE for os x?

 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
To further the education of mankind, Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)>
vouchsafed:

> If you have to 'hack' the HTML to get IE to behave correctly then odds
> are you are not writing to the standard.


That statement is misleading. One might be able to create a small html-
primary, css-minimal page that IE would parse acceptably, but the chances
are quite good that any normal, styled, even halfway-comprehensive document
will indeed need an IE-specific "hack" to work as it should.

> It is better to write to the standards and KISS.
>
> The biggest problem IMHO is the fact too many people use WYSIWYG web
> designing programs or word processors which barf out HTML guacamole.
> The fact something like Amaya exist shows that you can write a program
> that produces compliant HTML.


I very much agree with that as a problem, although the _biggest_ problems
to me are differing and/or non-confirming browser interpretation of css and
even some html, and the vagueries and inconsistencies of css itself.

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
To further the education of mankind, Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)>
vouchsafed:

>> > > Would you and Bruce Grubb please refrain from offering these
>> > > simple-minded nostrums?
>> >
>> > But the solution to HTML problems IS simple. Write to the standard
>> > and KISS.

>>
>> Do you think that repeating this unargued idea will make it true?

>
> Do you argue the sky is blue or the sun is yellow? The obvious need
> not be argued.


You're not married, are you?

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Alan J. Flavell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, kchayka wrote:

> If you're suggesting that we shouldn't bother trying to get IE to
> play nice, you must not be dealing with any kind of business
> venture. Ignoring IE is fine for a personal site, but that's not
> really an option for anything else.


Well, I'd give that a definite maybe.

> While KISS may be highly desirable, it's a competitive world out
> there.


A pity that so many folks who are commissioning web sites refuse
to pay attention to that.

> Simple doesn't always cut it.


IMHO, simplicity and specification-conformance works well for the real
end users. They're not, in general, looking for TV-on-the-web, or
some online guessing game[1]: they're looking for a well-organised and
well-indexed site where they can find what they're looking for.

The problem is that those who commission web sites don't show much
interest in what works for their end users - but rather, what geegaws
happen to appeal to them personally. Well, speaking on behalf of end
users: hell mend them. If I'm feeling generous, I would try to do my
best for them, in spite of themselves. If I'm not feeling generous,
I'd pay them back by doing just what they asked for (while insisting
that my name appeared nowhere on the site!!!).

h t h

[1] and even when they are, they want a straightforward path for
getting to it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, kchayka <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Bruce Grubb wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > "Paul Watt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> Write for standards, hack for IE. best of both worlds

> >
> > It is better to write to the standards and KISS.

>
> If you're suggesting that we shouldn't bother trying to get IE to play
> nice, you must not be dealing with any kind of business venture.


Standard HTML and KISS should "get IE to play nice". The less complexity
you have the less that can go wrong.

> Ignoring IE is fine for a personal site, but that's not really an option
> for anything else.
>
> While KISS may be highly desirable, it's a competitive world out there.
> Simple doesn't always cut it.


Simple is a relative term. Take a look at <http://www.w3.org/> which
validates as XHTML 1.0 Strict - three columns of varying width and height
with several different colors. <http://webpagesthatsuck.com/> is another
XHTML 1.0 Strict compliant site that is fairly complex. But note niether
usea drop down menu or other needless eye candy that really doesn't add to
the '20 second window' but does add to the complexity.

Sadly too many web designers see 'competitive world' as a excuse to throw
the latest eye candy up on a web site. This results in the HTML Hell Page
<http://catb.org/~esr/html-hell.html> and/or yet another Web page that
sucks <http://webpagesthatsuck.com/>

Of course if you have somebody producing YAWPTS following the standard is
not going to help any. But I have found odds are if the site is SNAFUed
visually then its HTML is bad as well. Which give somebody who want to fix
the thing a great tool to take the site out if its and everybody's misery.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed). ac.uk>,
"Alan J. Flavell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, kchayka wrote:
>
> > If you're suggesting that we shouldn't bother trying to get IE to
> > play nice, you must not be dealing with any kind of business
> > venture. Ignoring IE is fine for a personal site, but that's not
> > really an option for anything else.

>
> Well, I'd give that a definite maybe.
>
> > While KISS may be highly desirable, it's a competitive world out
> > there.

>
> A pity that so many folks who are commissioning web sites refuse
> to pay attention to that.


That is the whole point of the Web pages that suck site
<http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/>

The 2006 contender is <http://www.globalaigs.org/> No it is not a tribute
to Monty Python but it is an example not only poor HTML but brain dead site
design.

> > Simple doesn't always cut it.

>
> IMHO, simplicity and specification-conformance works well for the real
> end users. They're not, in general, looking for TV-on-the-web, or
> some online guessing game[1]: they're looking for a well-organised and
> well-indexed site where they can find what they're looking for.


"You should be able to look at the home page of any site and figure out
what the site is about within four seconds. If you can't, your site has
failed." (Vincent Flanders, www.webpagesthatsuck.com)

<http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com/biggest-web-design-mistakes-in-2004.html>


> The problem is that those who commission web sites don't show much
> interest in what works for their end users - but rather, what geegaws
> happen to appeal to them personally.


See point one of the above page. Oh Powerhouse appears to have followed
the write to IE idiocy and lost at least one sale because of it. They got
off that bandwagon real quick when they learned about it. If they had
written to the standard instead of some IE spawned bug they would have not
lost the sale.

On validators, take their results with a grain of salt. They are very
tempermental about line breaks and other stuff browsers don't generally
care about.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan J. Flavell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006, Bruce Grubb wrote:

> On validators, take their results with a grain of salt.


In HTML terms, a "validator" (properly so called) gives a definite
answer to a definite question: "is this syntax valid according to the
DTD?". That's all.

If you use one (I'd recommend it), you need to know what the answer
means, and what it doesn't mean, in terms of the practical WWW.

> They are very tempermental about line breaks and other stuff


Oh no, they carry out a defined task, and return a clearly specified
answer. If they didn't do that, they would forfeit the right to using
the term "validator". "temperament" does not come into it.

> browsers don't generally care about.


which is why you need to understand what the result means (and what it
doesn't mean).

If you're not prepared to tackle that, then you'd be wasting your time
trying to use one.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
Bruce Grubb wrote:

> But the solution to HTML problems IS simple. Write to the standard and
> KISS.


And IE will screw it up regardless.

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
Bruce Grubb wrote:

> If you have to 'hack' the HTML to get IE to behave correctly then odds are
> you are not writing to the standard.


On most non-trivial pages, IE (for Windows) will not cope with
standards-compliant HTML. It really is that rubbish. In many
situations, the problems will be very minor, and it is sometimes
best just to ignore IE's discrepancies.

In other situations though, the standards-compliant page will suffer
from major display/behaviour/usability problems in IE, so one is
forced to add a few hacks to compensate for it. (Of course, one
tries to avoid punishing browsers that actually obey the standards
here!)

For example, your standards-compliant HTML page might have an <IMG>
element that loads a standards-compliant PNG image with alpha-
blended transparancy. While most modern browsers will display this
with ease, IE's default rendering path doesn't support alpha, so
one might choose to use a hack to serve IE a GIF file instead.

e.g. http://examples.tobyinkster.co.uk/gimme-that/index.html

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me ~ http://tobyinkster.co.uk/contact

 
Reply With Quote
 
Greg N.
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
Bruce Grubb wrote:

> Do you argue the sky is blue or the sun is yellow? The obvious need not be
> argued.


The sky is black at night - about half of the year. During dusk and dawn
hours, the sky is often red. When it's cloudy, the sky is grey or
white. Where I live, we have about 130 sunny days a year, and even on
sunny days, there are some clouds more often than not, so not all of the
sky is blue.

Bottom line, the statement "the sky is blue" us about 80% wrong.

And the color of the sun? I'd call it bright white, not yellow. When
kids draw a sun in kindergarten, they use yellow, that's about all trhe
truth there is to the statement "the sun is yellow".

--
Gregor mit dem Motorrad auf Reisen:
http://hothaus.de/greg-tour/
 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> "You should be able to look at the home page of any site and figure out
> what the site is about within four seconds. If you can't, your site has
> failed." (Vincent Flanders, www.webpagesthatsuck.com)


*******s. It is simply untrue that people should be able to look
at the home page of any site and figure out what the site is
about within four seconds. This is just stuff that someone made
up and you are swallowing it whole.

--
dorayme
 
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
Wireless can get internet but can't see network -- can when wired 02befree Computer Support 0 12-24-2007 09:10 PM
Hi I have one web application and i want to get the number of users who are currently accessing the application. Also I want to get the user details of each user, which is stored in a database. How can I do this? Pls help. Getting No: and anu Java 11 05-12-2005 03:25 PM
How can I get attribute values to not get converted from &apos; to ' or &amp; to & or &lt; to > ? Sammy XML 12 05-06-2005 10:14 PM
Javascript can get time, can it get milliseconds, or actually just tenths of seconds? Guy Javascript 2 12-05-2003 04:00 PM



Advertisments