«

Els wrote:
> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>> Els wrote:

>>> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
>>> of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of
>>> different sets of rules say?

>> The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust
>> existing sites.

> What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
> feel free to send them my way.

Els, forgive me my ignorance, but what clients do you mean? Neither the
browsers nor the webbuilders are my clients.

--
Nico Schuyt
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/

Nico Schuyt wrote:

> Els wrote:
>> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>>> Els wrote:
>
>>>> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one set
>>>> of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of
>>>> different sets of rules say?
>
>>> The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust
>>> existing sites.
>
>> What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
>> feel free to send them my way.
>
> Els, forgive me my ignorance, but what clients do you mean? Neither the
> browsers nor the webbuilders are my clients.

Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
mouse.

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Els wrote:
> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>
>> Els wrote:
>>> Nico Schuyt wrote:
>>>> Els wrote:

>>>>> Tell me Nico, what is easier: build a browser that does what one
>>>>> set of rules says, or build a browser that does what millions of
>>>>> different sets of rules say?

>>>> The latter is easier than instruct all them webbuilders amd adjust
>>>> existing sites.

>>> What can I say? If you ever have clients who don't understand that,
>>> feel free to send them my way.

>> Els, forgive me my ignorance, but what clients do you mean? Neither
>> the browsers nor the webbuilders are my clients.

> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
> mouse.

Ahh, I see But it's not that I deny the importance of validation and
accessibility (I try to follow the specs concscientious), the discussion is
about a practical approach of all existing non-compliant sites. A missing
alt text for example should be replaced in a browser with alt=""; fixed
fonts should be ignored (or the compromis in IE: fixed unless changed in
accessibility options).
BTW I stopped testing in IE5 and 5.5. In FF and Opera I only apply the
latest version)

--
Nico Schuyt
http://www.nicoschuyt.nl/

wrote:
>
> So your code and css validate at W3C, yet each browser renders
> differently, IE can render the page different to Firefox,
> and Safari on OS X different again.

What are you doing that gives such a result? Are you looking at
pixel-precision, which is a futile goal, or you are attempting something
too complex for your particular CSS skill level?

Validation only means there are no syntax errors. It cannot detect logic
errors, which is often the trouble with rendering issues, especially
when the developer isn't very knowledgeable in CSS.

IE aside, a carefully thought out design developed by someone competent
in CSS should render comparably in modern graphical browsers. It should
also degrade well in other browsing situations.

--
Berg

In article <>,
Els <> wrote:

> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
> mouse.

I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
like. I can tell you, Els, I am swelling with pride here to know
this brave little band... oops I just fell off my chair, swelled
too much to the right...

--
dorayme

Followup-to set: alt.html

wrote :
> Are there any W3C validated browsers?
>
> So if the code and style sheet validate at W3C
> the it will display as intended.
>
> It all seems arse about face, you need compliant
> browsers, or even a compliant, browser before
> you consider code validation.

Perfectly conformant browsers do not exist. They all have HTML 4.01
bugs, CSS 2.1 bugs and DOM 2 bugs. But the best conformant ones are (in
descendant order):

Firefox 2.0
Opera 9.02
Safari 2.0.4
Icab 3.03

HTML 4 Conformance tests:
http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/
http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results

Web browser standards support summary
http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php

Followup-to set: alt.html

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

wrote :
> On 11-Oct-2006, "Paul Watt" <> wrote:
>
>>>>> Browsers have to follow the W3C-specs, on the
>>>>> other hand they need to render sites as much as possible as the
>>>>> builder has intended to.
>
> So your code and css validate at W3C, yet each browser renders
> differently, IE can render the page different to Firefox,
> and Safari on OS X different again.
> So why doesn't valid code render the same on each browser?

For several reasons, valid markup code and valid CSS code may not render
the same layout in each browsers:

1- browsers have often different default css property values for some
elements. Recently, there has been a movement done by browser
manufacturers (Microsoft, Opera, Mozilla, Apple, etc.) to reduce the
numbers of such occurences. E.g.: IE 7, Opera 9, Firefox 1+, Safari 2.x
all have a default 8px margin on the body element... but this was not
the case just 2 years ago.

2- Browsers have bugs. Simple as that. The browsers that have less bugs
are the ones who have established public feedback systems to report
bugs. The longer they've done that, the more correct their
implementations of specifications are.

3- Valid code will have more/better chance to be correctly rendered (as
intended) when the browsers are triggered to use "standards compliant
rendering mode" (document.compatMode == "CSS1Compat"). The browsers
conform more closely to the spec of web languages (HTML and CSS) when in
standards compliant rendering mode.

4- Valid code could still be very complex code, with a large and deep
DOM tree. This is another phenomenon. Sometimes, new comers to CSS give
a class to every element (or so) and they make the DOM tree very deep.
Browsers have a tendency to produce different layout when the dom tree
gets deep and large.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

dorayme wrote:

> In article <>,
> Els <> wrote:
>
>> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
>> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
>> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
>> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
>> mouse.
>
> I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
> sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
> most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
> not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
> website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
> lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
> push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
> the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
> like.

If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html


Not that it's driven by the market either, but I do think the latest
laws wrt accessibility may have something to do with it. Some people
may be scared to run into problems with the law?
http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=67257

Of course this is about the USA, but somehow my British clients also
want accessible websites these days.

> I can tell you, Els, I am swelling with pride here to know
> this brave little band... oops I just fell off my chair, swelled
> too much to the right...

<g>
(vision of a Martian blowfish..)

--
Els http://locusmeus.com/
accessible web design: http://locusoptimus.com/

Els wrote:
> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
> > Els <> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
> >> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
> >> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
> >> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
> >> mouse.
> >
> > I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
> > sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
> > most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
> > not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
> > website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
> > lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
> > push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
> > the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
> > like.
>
> If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
> want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html
>
>
> Not that it's driven by the market either, but I do think the latest
> laws wrt accessibility may have something to do with it. Some people
> may be scared to run into problems with the law?
> http://www.webproworld.com/viewtopic.php?t=67257
>
> Of course this is about the USA, but somehow my British clients also
> want accessible websites these days.
>
Yes, the UK have the DDA (I think that's what it's called, and we have
the DDA here in Aus as well.
You only need to look at the Sydney Olimpics case for details regarding
this.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesign.cjb.cc

In article <bnkfw8zy6pnw$.xhljjz2wkunp$.>,
Els <> wrote:

> dorayme wrote:
>
> > In article <>,
> > Els <> wrote:
> >
> >> Of course not. But your clients just may expect their websites to
> >> a) work in all currently used browsers (that includes oldies like IE5
> >> as well as text browsers and screenreaders)
> >> b) be accessible to everybody, including the blind and those without a
> >> mouse.
> >
> > I would fall over backwards if my clients ever said anything as
> > sophisticated as this. I mean it. It is just not on the radar for
> > most people, I am talking intelligent people here too. I would
> > not be surprised if most clients have to a be persuaded by their
> > website makers to have such thoughts... especially if they were
> > lucky enough to have one like you to educate them. Methinks the
> > push for standards is not driven by the market (proof: look at
> > the state of it!), but by the trail blazers at alt.html and the
> > like.
>
> If that were true, I don't think I would get all those clients who
> want accessible websites. Most of them have never heard of alt.html
>
>

I have never heard anyone wanting a website actually talk about
IE5 or the blind or the mouseless or the mouse-shys or PDA's or
mobile phones without leading questions by me... I have made
websites for people in organizations who have IT depts that have
written specifications recommending or requiring accessibility
criteria, true, but these may as well be double-dutch - sorry Els
- to the particular hirer. And from the look of almost every
other page at these organizations, no one seems to take a lot of
notice of these standards however generally competent and
generally useful these "non-assessible" pages are.

But I work for people who appreciate these standards, who can be
led to see they are good things. Just my experience I guess... So
I was thinking that when most people hire people to make a
website, it would be very few indeed who talked the talk.

--
dorayme