-- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800): > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: > > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I > > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably > > would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your > > purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards > > compliant development). > > Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? > If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than > it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o)
Because IE has around 90% share of the browser market -- if it doesn't work on IE, you lose your audience. And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one browser, than[sic] it'll work anywhere." Not all browsers implement standards the same or correctly -- and, with the number of older browsers out there, you have to be worried also about graceful degradation of the code so that bugs in older browsers don't make a site unreadable. For instance, I recently ran into a bug with IE 5 whereby setting a margin (using standards-compliant CSS) on an unordered list caused it to float top left in the window, overlapping the rest of the content; had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have known it could happen. (Those interested in a solution, google for "tantek hack".) So, basically, the more browsers and platforms I can view a website in, the more information I have for making sure it displays in a reasonable fashion. (Which does *not* mean looking the same everywhere! I simply mean that all content is visible and readable.) This is the whole point of trying to get at least *a* version of IE up and running on my machine. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
