[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Wednesday 12 July 2006 14:27, Ben Goodger wrote: > Obviously I cannot do that. > > [snip] > > It doesn't really matter whether IE was superior or not in 2001 - I believe > it may have been superior in 1998 - but it is most definitely inferior now, > and that's very important. that's exactly my point. > However, I can prove that IE is inferior now and that Jesus does not exist > now in the same way as I, you, and my coffee cup do. Indeed it is. Which is why i pointed out (and you took great offence in) that IE 7 will cause more problems for open source software, as it will support all the standards you are banging on about, thus removing the need for people to want to move to firefox. on the same note: Wow, http://sillydog.org/narchive/ heheheh, i forgot how great NN3 was. weeeeeeee. > Recommendation, and XHTML 1.1, which predates IE6 by about six months, and > DOM, whose dating I have been unable to determine. FYI DOM1v1 was oct 1st 1998, and DOM1v2 was oct 2 2002. XHTML back then? you're kidding right?!! > Anyone wishing to use CSS with IE must ensure that they hack their way > around its bugs, or contrain themselves to CSS1. indeed, because the browser is 6+ years old. > Then there is the MIME bug. "The" mime bug? I'm sure there are lots of bugs. There are lots of bugs in KDE, and GNOME, and Windows, and, infact, ANY software product. It's the nature of human programming. Do you not remember we paid for Netscape until v6 (or 7, i forget)?! And it really was a great big pile of pooh compared to IE 6, buggy as hell. Yet i don't hear anyone saying "Netscape were EVIL!!" I don't think there is any question in anyones mind that IE won browser war I fair and square, looking back. (although i can argue both sides of the fence with that view.) So now we're onto browser war II. or at least, in the cold war before the war. Both have a chance of winning. One has massive support and a talented set of developers, the other has dominance (and a talented developers). who knows how it will unfold. I've seen strange things happen over the last 10 years, and we're sure going to see a whole lot more happen. This time though, i think google will have a big role to play. I wonder how long it is before a whole lot of you start bashing google, too. Just because they're big. must be evil, too! > [other complaints] Probably the main reason is that IE 6 is currently *the* mainstream browser - whatever you think, it is. ffx is getting a higher percentage all the time, but that's no reason to not support something that is still "mainstream" (ie, has a majority share), and supported by the vendor. Of course, there are exceptions. Closed user groups which have a identifiable target, or control of the desktop the application run one, fine - devleop just for ffx (we do, because our users use OUR desktop machines for accessing the software). > Similarly, I don't think Firefox et al should have to bloat themselves to > work around bugs in code. I agree entirely. ~ Theo 1 - incedentialy, can anyone provide a good definition of "mainstream" for me? I have failed to find one. -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html