MaxCoderz

Opera is too fancy for me, and a lot of people that use it really piss me off on a regular basis.. maybe biased, but I have reasons to not like Opera. Second, I have problems with IE, and never have problems with firefox. I'm just one of those exceptions *shrug*.

There is a little error in their argument though: IE does break pages after every version change. Every version renders things differently, as if they were completely unrelated products.

CoBB wrote:There is a little error in their argument though: IE does break pages after every version change. Every version renders things differently, as if they were completely unrelated products.

I find that odd. I've found some things work the other way [JScript changes, for example - so older browsers choke on things like GMail] but never found a page that looks different in 5 or 6.

I did a little experiment just to see if you're right. Let's check out www.msn.com for starters. First of all, they are using various hacks that depend on their own browser's bugs to work (the CSS is rather gory). Standards, I know. Let's see a neat rendering trick at the bottom of the page:



Oh yes, just one or two pixels, but these pixels do count for a web designer on a suprisingly large number of occasions. It seems to be optimised for IE6.0 from its looks. I can assure you it looks horrible in Firefox and Opera too, in two novel ways compared to those on the screenshot clip above.

Firefox is equally bad for aligning things - if you have a textbox and then an image of the same height just after it it appears to "float" like your shot for IE5. I have no idea why. Surely one object followed by another of the same height should line up vertically?

So suddenly Firefox is just as good/bad as IE. How come?

I'm just illustrating that you can't rely on the next IE rendering present pages they way you intended, and your assertion of it being consistent with itself is simply false. It's funny that it was enough to check out exactly one page on one site to do that. I wonder how this MSN page will look with all its hacks when the new version appears...

EDIT: Let's check out the following piece of HTML:

<input type="text" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; height: 20px"><img src="iemsn.png" style="margin: 0; padding: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px">



I'm really sorry, but I fail to see the vast superiority of IE here.

Yes i hate it how different browsers reder pages differently. When it comes to such things i am a bit of a perfectionist and i really hate it when things dont line up properly.

I make a page and everything lines up fine in Opera ... then its out in IE ... you just cant win :S.

i got an idea...

let's make our OWN browser


and then...TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!

Hehehe a MaxCoderz Browser .

Or don't make sites which show up badly in different browsers? Stay away from tables and fancy aligning-dependent layouts and let the sites feel "free". That way people won't see that some browsers break your sites.

We could do what Opera did once, when you went into MSN.com, it would translate everything to: Bork Bork Bork!

Firefox is equally bad for aligning things - if you have a textbox and then an image of the same height just after it it appears to "float" like your shot for IE5. I have no idea why. Surely one object followed by another of the same height should line up vertically?

Take note that most sites for the web are specially tailored to IE6 specifications. I wouldn't be surprised to find some rendering errors in mozilla/firefox. That's because people are making them to render correctly in IE.
Maybe I should have also brought this up in our little "lovely chat", SP2 does fix some holes and some vulnerabilities but that does not mean IE is still safe. There are still unknown holes out there. and when Microsoft integrated IE with Windows, it creates even more vulnerabilities since any malicious program can (possibly) screw everything up (assuming everything is rendered with IE. Hell even the desktop is)

coelurus wrote:Or don't make sites which show up badly in different browsers? Stay away from tables and fancy aligning-dependent layouts and let the sites feel "free". That way people won't see that some browsers break your sites.

Is it possible to make orderly and structured pages like the MC website (please don't talk about it's HTML ) or the forum without tables?

Kozak wrote:

coelurus wrote:Or don't make sites which show up badly in different browsers? Stay away from tables and fancy aligning-dependent layouts and let the sites feel "free". That way people won't see that some browsers break your sites.

Is it possible to make orderly and structured pages like the MC website (please don't talk about it's HTML ) or the forum without tables?

You can use divs, but tables are generally a lot easier and less problematic.

If a page is very hard to create and maintain without breaking it in the browsers you expect the guests are using, then there's not much to do. Either modify the page or write the perfect browser

To use divs on a very organized page which would require extensive tables, one could write a script that generates pages from XML layout-sheets with blocks of text that you merge with decorations etc. A sort of layer between the designers view and the ugly world of mid/low-level implementation. That's a rather hefty project I admit, but you know my interest for solving things in cool ways I dunno how the site creation utilities work that I've heard about, maybe this is what they do?