From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 15 09:35:35 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 C8A7716A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:35:35 +0000 (GMT) Received: from mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com (mail.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.192.90]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4E38243D49 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 09:35:35 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) Received: from tedwin2k (nat-rtr.freebsd-corp-net-guide.com [65.75.197.130]) j1F9Zbj48160 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:35:38 -0800 (PST) (envelope-from tedm@toybox.placo.com) From: "Ted Mittelstaedt" To: Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 01:35:37 -0800 Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.6604 (9.0.2911.0) X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478 In-Reply-To: <1497115560.20050215024836@wanadoo.fr> Importance: Normal 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 09:35:35 -0000 > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > [mailto:owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org]On Behalf Of Anthony > Atkielski > Sent: Monday, February 14, 2005 5:49 PM > To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org > Subject: Re: Instead of freebsd.com, why not... > > > 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. > This isn't the problem with IE Yes, IE does pass the conformance tests. The problem isn't that, the problem is that not only does IE digest correctly written HTML and display it, the problem is that it ALSO digest IMPROPERLY written HTML and displays whatever it damn well pleases. In short, there's no way to know how an incorrectly written HTML page will display on IE. By contrast it's easy to know how an incorrectly written HTML page will display on Netscape - it displays a blank page. As a result of this, people that create web pages (and I am NOT polluting the title 'web designer' by lumping every moron that writes a web page into that group) and only look at them with IE usually end up making lots of mistakes. They fix these by layering on even more bandaids and mistakes until they get something somewhat resembling what they are after. Is is of course only displayable in IE. Needless to say this is a VERY bad thing for the Internet because it undercuts the standards as it enables the proliferation of websites that don't follow them. By contrast the Netscape browser tends to reject bad HTML and displays nothing. And naturally what's sauce for the goose isn't sauce for the gander with Microsoft - since the homepage for MSN is made sure by the MSN designers to be perfectly displayable on even older versions of Netscape, which are the most intolerant of bad HTML. Whether or not IE really is failing compliance by doing this is arguable - it is pretty difficult to test for non-compliance when the way that the browser is non-compliant is because it is accepting incorrect HTML in addition to correct HTML. However web designers who are far more understanding of this have in fact created example web pages that display what some of the more obvious problems are. > Today, MSIE is not the only browser with good conformance, but it is > still one of the best. That depends on your definition of "best" Ted