From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Tue Feb 15 13:45:20 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 49A9D16A4CE for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:45:20 +0000 (GMT) Received: from alpargata.net (alpargata.net [67.18.172.202]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0360E43D31 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 13:45:20 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from nospam@illusionart.com) Received: from [192.168.1.100] (dsl081-061-217.dsl-isp.net [64.81.61.217] (may be forged)) (authenticated bits=0) by alpargata.net (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j1FEAJ96048652 for ; Tue, 15 Feb 2005 08:10:20 -0600 (CST) (envelope-from nospam@illusionart.com) Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v619) In-Reply-To: <20050215062758.C523816A4D4@hub.freebsd.org> References: <20050215062758.C523816A4D4@hub.freebsd.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed Message-Id: Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit From: Vonleigh Simmons Date: Tue, 15 Feb 2005 05:45:12 -0800 To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.619) X-Virus-Scanned: ClamAV 0.80/624/Thu Dec 9 13:01:06 2004 clamav-milter version 0.80j on alpargata.net X-Virus-Status: Clean 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 13:45:20 -0000 >> no they did and could point out specific problems and likely >> intentional changes. > > Where can I see a list of these? Here are just a few: A very basic one is the box model problem. Basically if you define the width of a box to be 100 pixels, and you put in a padding of 10 pixels, the total box size should be 120 pixels (100 pixels plus the 10 pixels on each side for the padding). However, explorer decided to take the width as the total size, so in the above example the box is only 100 pixels wide instead of 120. It would be ridiculously easy to fix it and behave as the standard dictates, however, they refuse to do it. This is a major problem and can completely destroy a design. Another major thing that would be easy to fix is the handling of transparent pings. This would allow great versatility in site design, and many times I would've loved to use it. What Explorer does however is not just disregard the transparency, which would make it workable, but puts a light blue background behind the whole transparent image; a behaviour that makes no sense. Not only that, using proprietary IE code is the only way to make transparency work, and it doesn't work with repeating images (so the code is there to make it work, they just make you use IE only code for it to work). And these are just a few examples, on every single site I've designed I've run into new issues. Explorer is the worst browser when it comes to standards compliance, I have spent too many hours hacking up my code that works beautifully in every other browser, just so it works in Explorer. > It did better than any other overall. Next time STFW (really, google turns up many pages describing problems web designers have with IE), or at least don't talk about something you have no idea about. Vonleigh Simmons