From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 15 01:58:03 2005 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9719216A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:58:03 +0000 (GMT) Received: from hobbiton.shire.net (hobbiton.shire.net [166.70.252.250]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 685A743D41 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:58:03 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from chad@shire.net) Received: from [67.161.222.227] (helo=[192.168.99.68]) by hobbiton.shire.net with esmtpsa (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.43) id 1D0ryV-0006Nl-1z for freebsd-questions@freebsd.org; Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:58:03 -0700 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <1497115560.20050215024836@wanadoo.fr> References: <20050213152331.2B00E16A4D1@hub.freebsd.org> <1722947768.20050215023424@wanadoo.fr> <1497115560.20050215024836@wanadoo.fr> Message-Id: <06433BF9-7EF5-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> From: Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Date: Mon, 14 Feb 2005 18:58:02 -0700 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 67.161.222.227 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: chad@shire.net Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.0.0 (2004-09-13) on hobbiton.shire.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.1 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.0.0 X-Spam-Level: X-SA-Exim-Version: 4.1+cvs (built Mon, 23 Aug 2004 08:44:05 -0700) X-SA-Exim-Scanned: Yes (on hobbiton.shire.net) Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:58:03 -0000 On Feb 14, 2005, at 6:48 PM, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > >> That is laughable. MS IE on Windows has one of the worst reputations >> around for following web standards. Go ask any professional designer. > > I did better. I actually ran the W3C conformance tests against MSIE, > and it passed. At the time, no other browser came close. > > Today, MSIE is not the only browser with good conformance, but it is > still one of the best. Firefox is young and has some security issues > that worry me, but we shall see. Opera has the disadvantage of not > being free, and you don't really get much in exchange for paying for it > that you wouldn't already get with Firefox or MSIE. > You can say all you want. Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the poor state of standards conformance of IE for Windows. And they could document it. MS only has compatibility with itself, and that is it. And since it is the 800lb gorilla, they think they can basically do whatever they want. People I highly respect have done lots of tests of browsers with the standard and conformance to the W3C standards suites and IE Windows does not do that well. Chad