Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: gutfeldt.ch

Stories and comments across the archive that link to gutfeldt.ch.

Comments · 8

  1. Gecko has an "almost standards mode" by tepples · · Score: 1 · on IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test

    It doesn't require a Strict doctype: http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html for a chart. The chart you mention was "Last updated: 21 February 2003" and only goes up to IE 6, Opera 7, and Gecko 1.2. The Article is about IE 8. I was extrapolating from Gecko 1.8, which makes a slight distinction between Transitional and Strict doctypes. I took ScytheBlade1's unreferenced statement to mean that IE 8 makes a larger distinction: render documents with no doctype or an HTML 2/3 doctype like IE 6, render documents with Transitional documents in an "almost standards mode" like IE 7, and render documents with Strict doctypes like IE 8.
  2. Re:Strict vs. Transitional and by juiceCake · · Score: 1 · on IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test

    It doesn't require a Strict doctype: http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html for a chart.

  3. This site optimized for arguing with customers by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0 · on Microsoft Behind $12M Opera Settlement
    They could just as easily expand their market 10-20% by supporting web standards.

    By making it hard for customers to use your site, you're in effect telling them to take their business elsewhere. See an old discussion on the theme of you never win an arument with a customer.

    Or as Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the WWW, puts it,

    " Anyone who slaps a 'this page is best viewed with Browser X' label on a Web page appears to be yearning for the bad old days, before the Web, when you had very little chance of reading a document written on another computer, another word processor, or another network."

  4. Don't confuse the two! by JimDabell · · Score: 5, Insightful · on Developing a Standards-Compliant Web App?

    What are you aiming for - compliance with the W3C specifications, or separation of content and presentation?

    You can use all those nasty <font> elements and still adhere to the specifications. Use HTML 4.01 Transitional or XHTML 1.0 Transitional (following Appendix C).

    The benefits of adherance to public standards means increased compatibility with present and future browsers, and reduced business risk.

    Separation of content and presentation is slightly more risky, due to buggy browsers, particularly Internet Explorer. If you are going to do this, make sure you have somebody familiar with CSS first that knows the limitations of the various browsers.

    You may want to do it in two stages - first separating out the minor styling, such as fonts and colours, and then getting rid of the table layouts when you've laid the groundwork.

    Older browsers like Netscape 4.x will almost certainly cause you major problems. The normal technique these days is to hide stylesheets from them using their bugs against them. That way, they get the plain, unstyled HTML page (which should still be functional if you are doing things right).

    Newer browsers have something called "doctype switching". Make sure you trigger standards-compliant mode so that they are at least trying to do the right thing.

    Don't rush headlong into CSS if you've not spent much time with it before. There are plenty of things you can do to screw up a page (e.g. pt or px-sized fonts) that aren't immediately obvious to the newcomer.

    Luckily, the things I'm working on are fairly new, so we'd need a pretty strong reason not to use the relevent specifications and separate content from presentation.

  5. Improvement in IE6 by crisco · · Score: 3, Insightful · on KDE 2.2.1, On Win32/Cygwin
    It has a W3C standards compatibility rendering mode, triggered by the proper DOCTYPE declaration. More info here and MS own pages on it (described as 'CSS Enhancements' by MS). From my perspective that is significant, though too long in coming.


    You're right though, choice is good, more browsers are good, standards compliance is good.

  6. Re:Native OS widgets cannot be used if you want CS by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2 · on Netscape 6.2
    Can you name a single specific example of a CSS requirement that can't be met by native widgets on Windows and Mac?
    Not personally, no. I'm basing my assertion on comments I have read from both Opera and Mozilla developers. I have nothing but a passing familiarity with native widgets on Windows from a programming sense and no familiarity at all with the Mac.
    If you can, you'll be the first since these discussions started, over two years ago IIRC.
    Can everything at this site? Another issue is future CSS requirements. There's little point in going down the native widget path if you've got to throw the whole lot out and start again when opacity (for example) turns up in a recommendation.
  7. Re:Native OS widgets cannot be used if you want CS by Chuck+Chunder · · Score: 2 · on Netscape 6.2

    Well, as an app developer (at least if you develop gui apps on Windows) you may be in a better position to tell me :) Can everything here be done with native widgets for example? On the whole Mozilla seems to render the widgets on that page better than IE. Opera, which does use native widgets, misses most of the CSS stuff, though you can see they've mapped colours etc to the native widgets where the native widgets allow.

  8. Re:Link Toolbar by ChristTrekker · · Score: 2, Informative · on Netscape 6.2

    Lynx has had it almost forever. Mosaic had it. Even though I'd been using <link rel="author"> since I started making web pages, I first realized the possibilities when I saw it in iCab. There are a few others. Here are a few good articles about it.