OT: Stop IE

[wilhil]

il translate my above post...

I thought I would keep out of this topic for a while, but im coming back!

I like internet explorer, I personally have security settings set to high, and I have never had one single problem.

A lot of people on so many diffrent forums complain about IE being bad, but if you ask why do YOU not like it, hardly anyone actually knows apart from saying the same crap like, it doesnt support CSS or Standards... as if that even affects most people!

As for spyware and everything else... come on! if firefox got a 99% share of the market, do people really think that people will not start to hack that instead of IE?

see ya all later!


---

anyway about your last post, you keep saying all this, but since post number one I made, I just do not agree and you keep going around in circles.

I would now like to ask you a question.

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

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

And a little correction to one of my earlier posts where I said about why I do not program for w3c...

As far as I think, I simply create webpages, I want a big target, I program how I have been doing for years and like to do it the best, I program and make sure it is compatible with IE because then I know that nearly all of my customers will be able to see it, I then have a look from mozilla and some other browsers to see if the site works, and 99% of the time it does, or I make a couple of changes, I do not go out of my way to make changes though.

I want a new standard called IES (internet explorer standard) for sites that are compatible with IE, other browsers can live up to it if they want, but to date it is the largest standard with many websites supporting it!

According to Alexa results of websites most visited, the top ones are (in order):

www.yahoo.com
www.msn.com
www.google.com
www.ebay.com
www.passport.net

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

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?

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 apart from being able to say I am W3C compliant, and if a site can work 100% fine in all browsers without using it.

If IE came out tommorow and was W3C compliant, I can not see a reason why everyone would start using it.

[Sivran]

As for spyware and everything else... come on! if firefox got a 99% share of the market, do people really think that people will not start to hack that instead of IE?

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).

No browser, security measure, operating system, or any other software will protect a stupid user from himself. There already is spyware running around in XPI form to infect Mozilla browsers. Some of it actually simply uses XPI as a springboard to launch those IE exploits which don't even require IE to be running. None of it, however, installs itself without user intervention.

[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.

[Baron Munchausen]

Imperator Fyron said:

This has absolutely nothing to do with blind hatred. It has to do with well-founded, insightful, knowledgable hatred. I have absolutely no blind hatred for Microsoft. Please do not be so prejudiced to believe that anyone that dislikes a product of Microsoft is blind. Thank you.

LOL!