OT: Stop IE

[Fyron]

"How does IE not supporting W3C actually affect you, and why is that actually bad?"

It slows down my development of web sites because I constantly have to remove features that are unusable due to lack of IE support. I can't just develop a standards-compliant site and expect IE to render it. It very negatively affects me because of this increased development time and by virtue of stifling excellent new time saving web technologies. So yes, the lack of 100% w3c compliance does affect me, and all web developers that use more than front page. Of course, the front page users tend to create web sites with some gibberish laced into the html, but that is another issue entirely.

"If you do not like IE, it is simple, use Firefox and stop all the complaints!"

I will not stop exercising my right to protest. I shall continue pointing out the problems of IE at every opportunity so that more people will stop using it, eventually forcing MS to fix IE to stop leaking market share. I am doing my part to make the world of web development better.

"According to the w3c validator site, NOT ONE site is valid! and yet each site works perfectly in IE."

They make the mistake of arrogance, yes.

"Please can you give a few reasons if you had to write a letter to the Director/CEO's of these companies as to why they should go to these standards whilst there website works on every browser that they want it to?"

Industry standards make the world go round. Standards insure interoperability and compatibility. Your PC would cost $8,000 if it were not for companies following industry standards for computer hardware, thus allowing parts from a plethora of companies to work together seamlessly. Your house would have burnt down years ago if electronics manufacturers did not follow the IEEE standards for the electrical power grid, or even the builder of your home. You would not have those fancy USB and Firewire ports that make connecting peripherals to your PC a hell of a lot easier without industry standards. Yes, they were invented by MS and Apple, respectively, but they both have IEEE standards specifications. Following standards is the morally correct thing to do.

Following the w3c standards allows the site to be future-proofed. They are designed in such a way that the standards of 5 years ago are a subset of the current standards. There is no need to go back and fix web sites because of this. This makes the site easier to maintain, which saves time and money. If you take an 8 year old site designed for IE 4 or NS 4, chances are it will no longer work in modern browsers (unless it only used the most primitive tags). This (and cross-platform support) was the entire point of starting the w3c standards in the first place.

Further, the HTML/etc. proposed by the standards is designed to be easier to use and maintain than older methods. Should we not use CSS and go back to font tags et all? This is a prime example of standards making web development and maintenance easier and faster.

In my opinion, excluding 1 user in any arena due to sloppiness is morally reprehensible. 100% user base should be the target, not 99%. This is what adhering to standards allows in general. w3c is no exception.

"It makes no sense to me why anyone should use a standard that does not actually improve anything and using does not give any improvements..."

BS. Max-width is a beautiful tag. So are many other CSS specifications not supported by IE. The w3c standard web languages contain many powerful mechanisms that provide added functionality and/or provide for faster, easier ways to code and manage web pages. The advancing technologies proffered by w3c have always been designed to increase the flexibility and power of web languages. Plus the whole standard thing illustrated above.

Some good reading for those with an open mind:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...=Google+Search

[NullAshton]

Okay, can this topic die already? I think you've beat this topic to death already. Wilhil is making good sites, that work in all browsers, including IE which unfortunatly most people use. I believe everyone here agrees with you, Fyron, in that IE is buggy, and does not follow standards to the letter.

[wilhil]

lol, i want this topic to die, but as long as it is here I feel forced to reply and get my point across!

"Following the w3c standards allows the site to be future-proofed. They are designed in such a way that the standards of 5 years ago are a subset of the current standards. There is no need to go back and fix web sites because of this. This makes the site easier to maintain, which saves time and money. If you take an 8 year old site designed for IE 4 or NS 4, chances are it will no longer work in modern browsers (unless it only used the most primitive tags). This (and cross-platform support) was the entire point of starting the w3c standards in the first place."

I can access sites in IE that are much older....

look, I am not against standards at all, I just think that this standard, as a excuse for why you do not like IE is just such a bad example...

And yes I agree that IE does not follow standards to the letter, personally not buggy, but what I am trying to say is just because it does not follow standards to the letter does not translate to bad...

"Of course, but without the scourge of activeX, it is much less likely that they will accomplish the exploits they have made with IE. MS should use their considerable muscle for good, and deprecate ActiveX in favor of something more secure (isn't .NET supposed to be the answer here? It has much the same capabilities and, from what I've heard, is much more secure). "

correct, .net controls are like activex but much better, personally I thought activex was a wonderful idea, if you understand it from a programming level, it sounds like a good idea, it is a way to run propour applications on a computer and display controls in a web page, it is just bad that a lot of people abused it, and people installed bad controls by clicking ok without reading, but again, if people read through security options, you can actually disable this option.

I personally since the first post see why any site should go for this when as I said, all the top websites do not even use them! we are talking here about websites that have usually been optomised to do everything quicker...

"Industry standards make the world go round. Standards insure interoperability and compatibility. Your PC would cost $8,000 if it were not for companies following industry standards for computer hardware, thus allowing parts from a plethora of companies to work together seamlessly. Your house would have burnt down years ago if electronics manufacturers did not follow the IEEE standards for the electrical power grid, or even the builder of your home. You would not have those fancy USB and Firewire ports that make connecting peripherals to your PC a hell of a lot easier without industry standards. Yes, they were invented by MS and Apple, respectively, but they both have IEEE standards specifications. Following standards is the morally correct thing to do."

Just one thing to say there.... you are correct about in industry how some standards reduce prices due to interoperability, but it would not cost 8k otherwise! and even still, unlike a computer that would probably cost more without standards, W3C is not enforced anywhere and there is no brakedown in the internet, there is no blablabla... everythign works fine, it is like me saying a standard where everyone has to walk on their right... it would just be a nightmare to enfoce, an you would not see a improvment, just a nightmare to try and do! but everything would work fine before the rule would be enforced, and after, meaning that nothing was acctually gained from it...

This is a very stupid thing for me to say now, I do not code like this, but I want to show something..

having the following

Code:

---

  test <b> hello </b>  

---

would make in ALL browsers say test, then in bold hello,

the following :

Code:

---

<html>

<head>

</head>

<body>

<font size = "4">test <b> hello </b></font>

</body>

</html>

  

---

now then, I am missing a lot like I could do css and a hell of a load more.... infact all of this extra stuff actualyl makes the code more so if anything, it would take longer to load on people with a poor connection. I know this is a bad excuse, but I am just trying to show that infact some standards are meant to be a standard, and that is all, speed is not actually a issue if you look at the way they are designed, if I had to create one from scratch I would do things like

Code:

---

 <start>

test <b> hello </b>

</start>

 

---

and have a real language optimised for speed...

""According to the w3c validator site, NOT ONE site is valid! and yet each site works perfectly in IE."

They make the mistake of arrogance, yes."

So you call the site actually working in every browser and the fact that they have no need to follow a stndard is arrogance?

I really cant be bothered to go on saying more, I have so much more to say! it is just so boring saying the same thing over and over again.

anyway... can a mod lock this topic, it is getting so boring..... I am personally not going to make any more replys here no matter how much I disagree with what else gets said!

[Atrocities]

As any one stopped and considered the possibity that Microsft does not want Exploder to be a safe secure browser? Think about it, without a clear and obstructed path for viruses and other nasty programs to enter our computers, companies such symatic would loose profittablity.

Lets face it, spyware, adware, virus, and the like are a nessarry evil, as viewed from the Microsoft position, because they sustain a market dedicated to preventing them.

Now if you suddenly removed the threat, then there would be no need for the security and the anti virus software companies would begin to fail.

The real crux of this debate is about motivation for not complaying with the standard and not that they should or could, but rather that they simply won't because to do so would undermine the entire anti-virus software industry. An industry that Microsoft is heavily invested in.

Why kill the very thing that keeps you in the black?

[Atrocities]

A follow up what Fyron posted about MS and standards.

It has been my forgone conclusion that Microsoft seldom if ever, follows any standard that it did not create. So it can be said without sarcasim that if Microsoft does not set the standard, there is no standard. And Microsoft will never comply with any standard that it does not recognize as a Microsoft created standard. That per Microsft Standard Operating Proceedure.

Microsoft will not yeild to the standard because they want it to fail. After it fails they will buy, adopt, invent, create, a new standard that looks an awfully lot like the old non Microsoft standard and bill it as their own knowning full well that it is far less effective than the old standard. A clear cut example of MOTOS.

[Atrocities]

MODERATOR NOTE:

Fyron, as the originator of the thread, is really the only person who can request that it be locked. However Moderators are free to use their own discresion in such matters and frankly I can see no need to lock a thread that has not violated the terms of service or use as outlined by Shrapnel.

[Thermodyne]

Let’s clear the air a little. MS is a major supporter of w3c. IE6 greatly predates the w3c standards, so does not and can not fully support the rule set. IE7 has been legally castrated by several foreign governments (one of them an illegal cartel under US law) not to mention several years delayed, so who knows what it will support when it is released.

In the real world, you code for IE if you want to make money. That’s the way it has been, is now, and will be for the near future. The OS community has of late begun using w3c as another tool to attack MS. This is their right, but one day they too will need to leave the reverse economy of the university and go out into the real world to earn money. And out there, MS is where the money is.

[Atrocities]

Atrocities said:
A follow up what Fyron posted about MS and standards.

It has been my forgone conclusion that Microsoft seldom if ever, follows any standard that it did not create. So it can be said without sarcasim that if Microsoft does not set the standard, there is no standard. And Microsoft will never comply with any standard that it does not recognize as a Microsoft created standard. That per Microsft Standard Operating Proceedure.

Microsoft will not yeild to the standard because they want it to fail. After it fails they will buy, adopt, invent, create, a new standard that looks an awfully lot like the old non Microsoft standard and bill it as their own knowning full well that it is far less effective than the old standard. A clear cut example of MOTOS.

[wilhil]

ahh, I dont beleive the is true, I know I said I would not reply again, but this is not exactly the same topic about w3c... anyway, I do not beleive this is true...

It is bad I agree about viruses and the whole dark side, but there will always be people wanting to make a name for themselves, and it is just unfortunate, IE's bigness is its downfall, I hate this comparisson, but why did the terrorists strike the world trade center isntead of some house far away...? You always want to target the biggest possible audiance with as little effort.

If I write a virus, would I target something with a small user share or a big one? as I said, if mozilla became really big, I am sure we will start seing holes there.

I do agree with you about how if this was to close, security companies may start to fail, but then again, p2p, IM and loads of other areas exist where people could get viruses, and remember it is not usually about hacking or security, but just money, look how many good or real programs come with bundled applications?

I think there will always be a need for security, but at the same time I do not think it is a conspiracy!

now that has been said! I am done again on this topic, but I may repond to posts like that which are not about the same thing over and over again...

[Markavian]

now then, I am missing a lot like I could do css and a hell of a load more.... infact all of this extra stuff actualyl makes the code more so if anything, it would take longer to load on people with a poor connection. I know this is a bad excuse, but I am just trying to show that infact some standards are meant to be a standard, and that is all, speed is not actually a issue if you look at the way they are designed,

CSS is the most important part of designing websites, from several angles.
Proper usage of CSS reduces the the amount of HTML used in a file, makes easier to read documents and helps seperate design from content.

Usually you reduce the bandwidth of a website by using CSS because the CSS file is only called upon once and then cached for use with other pages in the website, like reusing an image on multiple pages - its loaded once from the website, then read from cache there-after.

HTML code can be kept very clean through the use of CSS. It also allows designs to be radically updated without even touching the HTML. It something well worth looking into and working with.

As for the issue of designing websites for a particular webbrowser - I agree that websites should be designed for the widest target audience. Designing and building on features which exist only in IE limits your target audience. Designing browsers that parse incorrect HTML only breeds problems down the line. There are many positive things you can do when designing a website to facilitate accessibility, and if you are a good webdesigner you should advise these things to clients.

There are laws in most western countries about accessibility. As a business (any business in the UK) you must take steps to makes your website accessible to disabled people.

BTW, consider this CSS example as improving efficiency in a HTML document (no external CSS sheet required).

Code:

---

<style>

p { font-size: 20pt; }

h2 { font-size: 40pt;

</style>

<h2>Joy</h2>

<p>Hello.</p>

<h2>Joy</h2>

<p>Hello.</p>

<h2>Joy</h2>

<p>Hello.</p>

<h2>Joy</h2>

<p>Hello.</p>

---

compared to:
Code:

---

<h2><font size="11">Joy</font></h2>

<p><font size="7">Hello.</p>

<h2><font size="11">Joy</font></h2>

<p><font size="7">Hello.</p>

<h2><font size="11">Joy</font></h2>

<p><font size="7">Hello.</p>

<h2><font size="11">Joy</font></h2>

<p><font size="7">Hello.</p>

---

If you wanted to change the paragraph font size to 10pt, which example would be easiest?
Which example takes up less bytes when uploaded to a website?