Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600): >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. >> >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not >> >> compliant, while IE for Mac is. >> > >> >So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if they want >> >to test it out in Windows IE they can find out it's not you who sucks. >> >> It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, >> Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does > >Actually, I beg to differ regarding Flash -- if a technology requires >that the browser utilize a plugin in order to work, I wouldn't call it >standardized. Otherwise, spot on.
You're right, of course. Its pervasive ubiquity and seamless integration make me forget that it's not a browser feature. > [...] > Once my deadlines aren't looming so heavily, I'll try and see if I >can get some of the solutions presented working. Good luck. It might be worthwhile to use a junker loaded with Windows for testing a number of browsers. I've found, for example, that Mozilla, Opera, and BrowseX act slightly different on Windows compared to Linux. And don't forget Mac. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friends don't let friends use Flash. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
