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?

 
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eberhard Lisse <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:

> Interesting is that IE is not IE -O
>
> It bombs occasionally when trying web sites that require (a modern
> version of) IE.


Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the
decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
down again.

In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
coffee people.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-30-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
> standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
> x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
> same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
> total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the
> decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
> is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
> down again.
>
> In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
> share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
> had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
> coffee people.


These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
with. It's no use trying to defend the policy you began with (you
know, the one where you stick your head in the sand and write
nice mark up that is nice W3C to the nicest strictness with no
wary eye on IE). When you start to feel some heat about this, you
turn up the volume on facts about the falling use of IE.

The Third Reich was very dangerous right till the end and it
would have been foolish for anyone to go around saying they
should not worry about it as it was a doomed regime...

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
bgrubb@zianet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006

dorayme wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
> > standard - what work great in version x.0.1 may go pear shape in version
> > x.0.2 and totally bomb in version x.0.3. Also all the number point to the
> > same picture - IE is loosing marketshare. In same areas the browser is in
> > total freefall (Japan it hit 70% and is still falling) while in others the > > decline is progressing at a good clip (Europe saw IE at 89% in 2004 and it
> > is still falling) taking a brief upswing in Sep 2005 at 85% before going
> > down again.
> >
> > In Jan 2006 a Dutch Web metrics firm tried to say IE was gaining market
> > share while everybody else said they were still falling and their numbers
> > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell the
> > coffee people.

>
> These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
> with.


Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
reasonally
website maker should be concerned with. Doing otherwise is stupid. The
reality is bugs change but the standard (ISO/IEC 15445) remains just
that - the standard. And yes ISO/IEC 15445 is more strick about things
than vanilla HTML 4.0.1 but if the browser is SNAFUing HTML 4.0.1 it is
certainly is going to FUBAR the standard.

And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
Bruce Grubb wrote:

> Which is the whole problem with trying to HTML for IE rather than the
> standard


You seem to be trying to position yourself as the sole crusader against
writing "for IE", but has anyone in this thread actually *recommended*
writing code specifically for IE?

From what I've read, most people have recommended writing HTML to the
standards, but then (if needed) adding a few extra kludges to make it
work in IE (yet only in ways that don't break it in standards-compliant
browsers!).

In my experience this is a sensible route to take because:

a. initially developing for standards compliant browsers
is far easier than initially developing for IE, which in
certain cases can cause ones head to bleed; but

b. although IE's market share is dropping, it is still high
and most sites will need to cater for it for the foreseeable
future.

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

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-01-2006
In article
<(E-Mail Removed). com>,
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > were still falling and their numbers
> > > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell
> > > the
> > > coffee people.

> >
> > These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
> > with.

>
> Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
> reasonally
> website maker should be concerned with.


You don't give up do you? You are like the Black Knight that just
keeps at it when his arms and legs are chopped off...

> And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
> standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.


Adhering to standards is not the issue. It is about the need for
most website makers to cater to IE.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Jonathan N. Little
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2006
dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> dorayme wrote:
>>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
>>> Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> were still falling and their numbers
>>>> had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell
>>>> the
>>>> coffee people.
>>> These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
>>> with.

>> Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
>> reasonally
>> website maker should be concerned with.

>
> You don't give up do you? You are like the Black Knight that just
> keeps at it when his arms and legs are chopped off...


Err...just a flesh wound!

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2006
To further the education of mankind, dorayme
<(E-Mail Removed)> vouchsafed:

>> Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something
>> any reasonally
>> website maker should be concerned with.

>
> You don't give up do you? You are like the Black Knight that just
> keeps at it when his arms and legs are chopped off...


....And battling with an undersized weapon may indeed be the problem!

--
Neredbojias
Infinity has its limits.
 
Reply With Quote
 
bgrubb@zianet.com
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-02-2006

dorayme wrote:
> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed). com>,
> "(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > dorayme wrote:
> > > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >
> > > > were still falling and their numbers
> > > > had IE at 80.9% US market and 85.8% world wide. TIme wake up and smell
> > > > the
> > > > coffee people.
> > >
> > > These are still big numbers for website makers to be concerned
> > > with.

> >
> > Yes 15% to 20% of the Marketshare that does NOT use IE is something any
> > reasonally
> > website maker should be concerned with.

>
> You don't give up do you?


Nope. Argued with sheff over in sci.archeology about his stupid
'challenge' regarding if Jesus was a historical person for six months

> > And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
> > standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.

>
> Adhering to standards is not the issue.


Yes it is. Adhering to the HTML standards (there are actually four of
them: 2.0, 3.2, 4.01 and the ISO one) means there is less chance for a
particular browser to do something royally stupid with the HTML.


Writing to the standard and avoiding those part of CSS you know are
going to cause you grief though prevents web "designers" from doing the
"What a clever coder am I" idiocy that often produces Web pages that
suck.

 
Reply With Quote
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
In article
<(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"(E-Mail Removed)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > And in the case you still think I am crazy for insisting on the
> > > standard go to <http://webstandards.org/> and get yourself a clue.

> >
> > Adhering to standards is not the issue.

>
> Yes it is.


No it isn't.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-03-2006
http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/(E-Mail Removed) wrote:

> Yes it is. Adhering to the HTML standards (there are actually four of
> them: 2.0, 3.2, 4.01 and the ISO one)


According to yourself, ISO is the only one of them that's actually a
standard.

And you forgot about HTML 4.0.

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

 
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