From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 15 13:40:05 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 8007116A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:40:05 +0000 (GMT) Received: from smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com (smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com [66.163.168.184]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with SMTP id AD6A243D41 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:40:04 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from krinklyfig@spymac.com) Received: from unknown (HELO smogmonster.com) (jtinnin@pacbell.net@64.173.27.163 with login) by smtp805.mail.sc5.yahoo.com with SMTP; 15 Feb 2005 13:40:04 -0000 From: Joshua Tinnin To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:40:04 -0800 User-Agent: KMail/1.7.2 References: <20050213152331.2B00E16A4D1@hub.freebsd.org> <06433BF9-7EF5-11D9-B134-000D933E3CEC@shire.net> <8310509120.20050215063232@wanadoo.fr> In-Reply-To: <8310509120.20050215063232@wanadoo.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <200502150540.04787.krinklyfig@spymac.com> cc: Anthony Atkielski 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 13:40:05 -0000 On Monday 14 February 2005 09:32 pm, Anthony Atkielski wrote: > Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC writes: > > You can say all you want. > > Thank you. I feel better about it knowing that it's okay with you. > > > Every professional designer I have ever talked with lamented the > > poor state of standards conformance of IE for Windows. > > They probably never actually tested the browser. > > > And they could document it. > > Excellent ... where can I find a copy of their documentation? > > > MS only has compatibility with itself, and that is it. > > It interprets HTML correctly according to W3C standards, and it > handles CSS correctly as well. What other compatibility do you > require? > > You can find test suites here: > > http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/Test/ (HTML4) > http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/ (CSS) > > > And since it is the 800lb gorilla, they think they can basically do > > whatever they want. > > They know that some criticism of what they do has no basis in fact, > and that people without emotional investment in a hatred of Microsoft > may actually check the facts and invalidate the criticisms. > > > 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. > > I've done the tests myself, instead of believing what others say, and > MSIE does fine. The URLs are above. I worked as a professional web developer and designer from 1996-2002. You have no idea what you're talking about. Not only have I done the tests, I've worked with it for a living. Knowing whether it was compliant was part of my job. A huge part of my job was spent hacking existing sites that were perfectly compliant as written so that they would work properly in IE. Talk to *any* web developer, and they'll tell you the same thing. MSIE at one time was getting better with compliance (around when NS 4.7 was the most popular, a horrible time for compliance in general), but it still wasn't very compliant, and the spec has changed since they last updated it years ago. MSIE's CSS2 support is pathetic, and CSS isn't very good as it is. It allows - and encourages - sloppy markup. They need to do more than push out security fixes. - jt