Doh, the real tags are closed (although I'd still be worried if they weren't).
Why would you be worried? Bad HTML is supposed to explode in your face. Just because IE is lax doesn't mean everything that reads HTML is.
ID:188504
 Mar 26 2004, 2:01 pm
|
|
DarkView wrote:
Why would you be worried? Bad HTML is supposed to explode in your face. Just because IE is lax doesn't mean everything that reads HTML is. | |
Jon88 wrote:
Why would you be worried? Bad HTML is supposed to explode in your face. Just because IE is lax doesn't mean everything that reads HTML is. So you're telling me that blank space before a link should be treated as a link (without looking like a link) simply because a tag wasn't closed? | |
Goku72 wrote:
Or, maybe everything else just sucks. =P Or maybe it's people with your attitude that have turned some sites on the net into huge, bloated, unreadable pieces of utter crap. Nobody should have to use IE (the worst browser on Earth) just because some idiot doesn't have enough sense to close his friggin' tags. God. | |
Crispy wrote:
Goku72 wrote: I don't know, I've used Mozilla, and I always close my tags, and it still didn't recognize layers, and other assorted things that IE does. So, in my opinion (since I absolutely love using layers) IE rocks. And, yes...I've done my layers correctly, by the book so to speak. | |
Goku72 wrote:
I don't know, I've used Mozilla, and I always close my tags, and it still didn't recognize layers, and other assorted things that IE does. Layers are an IE-specific concept and not part of standard HTML. Duh! Mozilla can however handle z-ordering of divs, which is correct to the CSS specification. So, in my opinion (since I absolutely love using layers) IE rocks. So you've married yourself to a browser-specific "feature" that is outdone by simple standard CSS? And, yes...I've done my layers correctly, by the book so to speak. That's like saying you ate your sewage with a spoon and a raised pinky. Doing layers correctly is like doing <marquee> correctly--with <blink>. Lummox JR | |
Lummox JR wrote:
Goku72 wrote:Actually, I use div and the correct labels and everything, and it still just blotches it into one big mess. So, I stand with my decision. That, and I don't know why you all hate IE, it's been my favorite for ages. Mozilla's little features like the popup blocker, and the tabbing stuff is "ok" but, I can live without them just fine. | |
You don't need to =D http://www.myie2.com I still use Mozilla to proof my webpages, but my default browser is MyIE2
| |
Lummox JR wrote:
Layers are an IE-specific concept and not part of standard HTML. Duh! I thought they were an NS 4 specific concept. I guess the IE team must have "innovated" them into IE. | |
Goku72 wrote:
Actually, I use div and the correct labels and everything, and it still just blotches it into one big mess. Then you're not using div correctly, because Mozilla does in fact handle them the right way. In fact Mozilla's superiority in terms of standards compliance isn't even questionable; IE still doesn't even comply to the correct float model, doesn't incorporate many parts of the CSS standard, and is falling rapidly out of date. That said, it makes sense to design so that your site will look okay in IE, but its main design platform should be a real browser. So, I stand with my decision. That, and I don't know why you all hate IE, it's been my favorite for ages. Absolutely no comment. Mozilla's little features like the popup blocker, and the tabbing stuff is "ok" but, I can live without them just fine. That's swell. Now all you have to do is design correctly so people who made better decisions don't have to live with the consequences of yours. Lummox JR | |
*Wonders why Mozilla's questionable origin doesn't come to play*
Mozilla is a nice browswer, but it seemed to cluttery to me. Not to mention I never much liked Netscape's layout. I used to use it however, because it seemed to load faster than IE. IE seems to be -ALOT- more susceptible to spyware. | |
SSJ2GohanDBGT wrote:
Mozilla is a nice browswer, but it seemed to cluttery to me. Not to mention I never much liked Netscape's layout Then change it. Mozilla Firefox lets you customise basically everything. =) I used to use it however, because it seemed to load faster than IE. IE seems to be -ALOT- more susceptible to spyware. It does display pages faster, and it is a lot more secure. | |
I personally like the BLINK tag, if it's used for little one-word headers like "WARNING!" or stuff like that.
| |
mozilla does not load pages any faster than IE... IE brings up the page in chunks as its loading whereas mozilla pulls up the page as it comes in
| |
Spuzzum wrote:
I personally like the BLINK tag, if it's used for little one-word headers like "WARNING!" or stuff like that. As long as the person in charge has enough sense to close the tags. Nothing like trying to navigate a blinking website. | |
Mozilla's page rendering algorithm is actually faster than IE's. And the loading-in-chunks thing that IE does makes IE a little slower.
| |
Crispy wrote:
Mozilla's page rendering algorithm is actually faster than IE's. And the loading-in-chunks thing that IE does makes IE a little slower. Come on now...that's unfair to poor old IE. It's been around for ages with little to no upgrades, of course when a new browser comes along, they know of their competition, and use that to their advantage. I'm pretty confident if Microsoft made IE 7.0, they could do much better. | |
Or, maybe everything else just sucks. =P