OT: Stop IE

[Fyron]

over half the sites out there are probably not w3c fully compatible, but look, the internet is not shuting down, failing, or anything. IT WORKS! get used to it!

Ok, let me give you this power adaptor for your PC. I am MS, so I ignore standards. Unfortunately, your house was built with standards in mind, so the adaptor shorts out and burns down your house. Now do we see why standards are important?

...if png was THAT popular for websites, I am sure everyone would start using it, and then microsoft would make it compatible...

PNG is a popular format, and is rising all the time. It will never be ubiquitous, and never should be. For images with low numbers of colors, GIF is better because it creates smaller files with no quality loss.

The problem is alpha transparency (blended level transparent pixels for smooth integration with the background instead of the on/off of traditional transparency). This is an awesome feature of PNG that web designers can not use because IE still can not render it after half a decade. Once again, the crappiness of IE stifles innovation. This is a huge problem... There are many excellent features of the w3c standard sets for CSS, HTML, XHTML, etc. that we can not use because IE is poorly implemented.

I see you did not quote el_phil saying:
Frankly if the site doesn't support IE it's the sites problem, not the browser. If you don't support the 85%+ market leader your stuborn or stupid.

Actually, I did. Please refer back a few posts.

do I really care about designing for w3c standards, NO! I will develop for what is popular, and as long as that is internet explorer, I have no reason to change.

This is frankly a rediculous argument that always comes up, I have no problem with IE, and why should I change something that works fine, and I have no problems with, just because you are saying IE does not comply with standards that I do not need to use as my site works with IE, and other useless points...

*cringe* There is little point in addressing the rest of this (especially since you missed the point entirely and I would just be repeating myself). Please do the world a favor and stop designing buggy web sites. Thank you.

[wilhil]

ok, now then...

if microsoft designed a power adapter and burnt down my house, I would be annoyed, but when it comes down to it, I do not design my websites with standards in mind, I design for what works in IE, and it also works in mozilla, so why should I care if it is a standard or not when it works? Why should I comply to a standard when it already works in multiple browsers? something like a power adapater, fine! it can go wrong if you do something wrong and do not comply to standards, but as I said, internet is not shuting down because people do not comply to standards as most people use IE and there is no problem, which is why I simply said, why not make a new standard called IE compatible? already there is more websites who have this standard than w3c, and then make mozilla and other browsers IE compliant!?

I do not see why I should stop designing my websites with IE in mind, IE is a huge % of the internet, and frankly, my sites work in mozilla and other browsers, my site is not w3c standard. I created it in visual studio, I copied to my webservers, it works in both IE and mozilla, but is not w3c standard.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

[Fyron]

Compatibility with all browser and OS environments is the entire purpose of the w3c standards. IE is not a valid standard bearer.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

IE supports part of w3c. You can design fully w3c-compliant web sites that work in both IE and the rest of the world. IE also has a lot of junk code that it supports that must be avoided. Do you at least run sites through http://validator.w3.org/ to avoid major errors?

[Thermodyne]

And while we are on the subject of web standards. The linked site is in violation of several laws regarding access by people with disabilities, and as such Mr. Obrien could be needing to make use of that insurance that he probably doesn't have. If someone knows him, they would be doing him a favor by letting him know that many of his link tags don’t work.

[Fyron]

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht....stopie.com%2F says it is valid. All of the links save 3 have titles, all of the images have alt tags.

[Thermodyne]

I see 7 in the code. The US law allows for none, and is currently being much abused by the legal establishment. It really doesn’t make any difference to me, I just found it ironic that a site that was speaking so much to the state of internet standards would be in less than complete compliance with one of the few that have actually be legislated.

[wilhil]

Imperator Fyron said:
Compatibility with all browser and OS environments is the entire purpose of the w3c standards. IE is not a valid standard bearer.

I feel we are moving away from the main point here, and it is becoming more a flame war, the main thing I can say is, my non w3c standard site works in both IE and it works in mozilla, which means that mozilla supports not w3c sites, so in reality, how is this diffrent from IE?

IE supports part of w3c. You can design fully w3c-compliant web sites that work in both IE and the rest of the world. IE also has a lot of junk code that it supports that must be avoided. Do you at least run sites through http://validator.w3.org/ to avoid major errors?

I always run through a number of validators so I can check for major errors, I just dont both doing the little things that will not change performance and will allow me to say w3c compliant as I see little use for this.

As I said, mozilla supports non w3c standards for the reason, so they can run non compatible sites, for the same reason microsoft runs them. I just honestly can not see a argument here for saying IE is bad and you should switch, I like IE, I have not hard one problem, and I simply have no reason to switch, yet I do not go around forums saying SWITCH TO IE... and go on about things. personally I like it, and to date, I have not hard one problem.

If you have security issues, put it in high security mode. I have not had one problem.

[Captain Kwok]

All browsers have advantages and disadvantages.

For example, I've being using Firefox for the last year or so and I've experienced more problems with it than I did using IE before - particularily when it crashes and deletes all my bookmarks. I still prefer to use because most it's security features are on by default, so it means less fiddling for me.

I don't follow computer things too closely anymore, but I do find it ironic that many of the programmers who are putting together free software in their spare time are in a way destroying their own future job prospects if their programs take off and replace commercial programs.

[El_Phil]

Imperator Fyron said:
Ok, let me give you this power adaptor for your PC. I am MS, so I ignore standards. Unfortunately, your house was built with standards in mind, so the adaptor shorts out and burns down your house. Now do we see why standards are important?

Hence why MS does bugger all in hardware and long may that continue. Seriously though you have to provide the users a reason to switch. As has been shown no-ones bothered about how bodged it is or how much extra work it is for the web monkeys

So as a serious question, if all this CSS and XML could be fully implemented on websites what would I notice? Not behind the scenes or less bodges for the writers, but what you see upfront, because I genuinely don't know.