Slashdot Mirror
CSS Support Could Be IE7's Weakest Link
Ritalin16 writes "Many web developers may be disappointed to hear that Microsoft decided to hold off on full CSS2 support with IE 7.0. As said by Microsoft-Watch: 'One partner said that Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a flawed standard and that the company is waiting for a later point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3, before throwing its complete support behind it.'" More commentary available from ZDNet. Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test thrown down by Opera.
Support CSS 2.1. We're really not picky. Anything is better than nothing.
"One partner said that Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a "flawed" standard and that the company is waiting for a later point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3, before throwing its complete support behind it." If MS were so concerned about quality standards, they would embrace the best thing we have: CSS 2. And then, when 2.1 or 3 came along, they'd support that promptly.
I Want To Believe
Well, it probably does *help* to be doing acid when trying to get IE to work properly ...
See, that's the problem. It's just like Microsoft to say "We'll wait til later ( point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3) before throwing our complete support behind it" I don't understand! You have to plan for the future, no plan after the fact!
"I cannot think of any need in childhood as strong as the need for a father's protection." -- Sigmund Freud
Certainly not slashdot, it seems. In fact, they don't seem to be adhering to any standards at all.
Funny how that open source superiority give slashcode cruddy HTML code and horrible, outdated design.
Even when you design a standards compliant webpage you still need to use hacks to get things to work and validate correctly. And because of IE who refuses to fully support CSS it just makes life more miserable for web developers wasting time on figuring out how to hack together their code to display correctly on all web browsers. I hope companies start designing webpages for Firefox only and it will display a message when you try to access the site in IE saying please use firefox to access this website.
This specification defines Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 (CSS2). CSS2 is a style sheet language that allows authors and users to attach style (e.g., fonts, spacing, and aural cues) to structured documents (e.g., HTML documents and XML applications). By separating the presentation style of documents from the content of documents, CSS2 simplifies Web authoring and site maintenance.
CSS2 builds on CSS1 (see [CSS1]) and, with very few exceptions, all valid CSS1 style sheets are valid CSS2 style sheets. CSS2 supports media-specific style sheets so that authors may tailor the presentation of their documents to visual browsers, aural devices, printers, braille devices, handheld devices, etc. This specification also supports content positioning, downloadable fonts, table layout, features for internationalization, automatic counters and numbering, and some properties related to user interface.
more here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
Microsoft has once again decided that it's going to go its own way, and I'm sure this means more crippled MS pages that other browsers can't read. I'm going to start making it very clear to my customers now that MS has no intention of playing nice on the web, and recommending Opera or Firefox.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I guess that's not THAT bad.. Sure it would be nice to have CSS2 support, but security seems to be the #1 thing everyone bitches about around here and is probably more important.
Then again, I can't really see why they don't do both...
MS complaining about broken standards.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
Agreed, CSS needs some work, but its a hell of a lot better than nothing at all (or flawed support, anyways.) What gives?
-dave
http://millionnumbers.com/ - own the number of your dreams
Yesterday I had to make a page.
I made it in firefox with no problems. Then, I looked at it in IE and it was terrible. If I code to standards why can't microsoft make their products support standards?
We consider the standard to be flawed. So instead we will continue with our flawed support of the previous standard.
room101 -- how much can you stand before they break you?
(they always break you eventually)
We don't want to support your flawed standard so we can have a chance to push our own flawed standards.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
People will use IE7 because windows update will automatically put it in place of IE6 one day. It will fix some bugs and create others. It will not change how web developers create sites, it will not derail Firefox, it will not make people salivate for Longhorn.
What a load of crap! CSS3 builds up upon CSS2.1, and even though CSS2.1 is still a candidate recommendation, it's being pushed as the standard by the W3C (as evidenced by the fact they are linking to CSS 2.1 in the navigation menu of their CSS page)
Of course, some people are actually in favour of IE not supporting CSS any better than it currently does - with IE7 being unavailable on platforms older than XP, and any attempted improvement to CSS being likely to add more than it's share of CSS bugs, it would just make another browser developpers need to work around. The evil we know might just be better...
Karma: Could be worse (could be raining)
What. Just because their products have their own flaws means they should adopt all technologies that are flawed?
"Ideas without action are worthless."
Once upon a time, this would have worked. Take the emerging layout standard that doesn't use your bizarro extensions and strange layout tactics, decide not to support it, and force everyone who wants slick new layout features to write for either you or everyone else, or else write every page twice.
But I'm not so sure this is a good idea now. The fact is that more and more people are getting to the point that they would rather write for everyone but IE rather than just IE. I think falling behind on standards while steaming ahead with the next generation of crappy proprietary extensions just isn't going to work again. In fact, I think this might accellerate the death of IE.
Bottom line: bad move. The correct response to more competition is to compete, not to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!"
adam b.
I just hope all those people who "defected" to firefox wont go "back to daddy" because "they've fixed it all"...
Didn't MS introduce their own "standard" for stylesheets at one point? Perhaps they're just gunning to introduce a new "MS standard" to blow off browsers using the real standard?
Let's put two and two together:
Perhaps the new microsoft motto will be "IE's not done till Google doesn't run"
This won't be a huge problem since Google can simply update their code. However, I wouldn't be surprised if alot of JS functionality that would be very useful to google either now or in the future is simply "missing" on IE7
There has been alot of talk of Google launching a new era of computing with the web as the OS. But Microsoft controls the web (through IE), and they won't allow the web to become a competitor to Windows.
Rename CSS2 to CSS2.1 or CSS3
It doesn't matter what's inside the documents.
MS only supports what it want's to support.
Think about it!
Grundgesetz * 23. Mai 1949 - 30. November 2007 - http://www.vorratsdatenspeicherung.de/
I read the title and thought, "CSS will be IEs weakest link? Something doesn't sound right."
This sounds like typical Microsoft logic. "Just wait a bit longer and something better will come out." CSS2 is here now and people are using it. Support it instead of forcing web designers to put in loads of ugly hacks just to make your bloated software work as it should in the first place.
Yeah, I'm bashing Microsoft but it is deserved in this case.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
"I'm Microsoft, and I'm a big monopoly, so I'm arbitrarily deciding not to support standards I don't like. For no other reason than I don't like them. Secretly, it's just because I don't want to adopt standards that compete with my own, but my managers have told me to tell everyone I just think it's a buggy implementation. I never make any of those..."
Someone should start an organization that publicly hands out awards to companies that severely hinder the progress of technology. Microsoft would win every year. The web has been held back for seven years now because IE won't properly support CSS2. That's like someone developing an improved version of gasoline that costs and pollutes less, and then none of the gas stations adopting it for close to a decade even though it's cheap and available. You look back and shake your head that all this time, people could have been saving money and polluting the air less and they have no idea.
The general public doesn't even realize the web would look and interact much better than it does now. We should have been visiting more advanced websites years ago. But the web still looks and functions the way it did in 2000, because the majority browser IE doesn't adopt technological progress. It's times like these I wish I was rich enough to run public service commercials that stated all this, just to inform people how they're being hindered without even knowing it.
Someone should make a ie "plug in" that handdles ccs. We have a couple open rendering engines (geko/khtml)..
Could this be done?
Why was I modded "flamebait?" Internet Explorer's broken support of CSS2 has hindered its full adoption for years. Microsoft now controls the standards of the Web unless web developers speak out VERY loudly to drown out their press releases.
Can we get the parent modded up? It's ridiculous for any employee of Slashdot to be criticizing anyone for their lack of support for web standards.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
I'm surprised it hasn't been said:
Wouldn't supporting CSS 2.1 or CSS 3 imply support for CSS 2? These standards are backwards-compatible, right?
Just sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. I just thought the irony was intresting is all.
Wouldn't a company who owns over 90% of the market essentially dictate what is an what isn't a standard?
If Microsoft doesn't back CSS2 then CSS2 has no chance of becoming a standard.
I dislike CSS because it makes the most common layout formatting (columns) hard to implement. I also dislike that it has no inheritance. Just as an arbitrary illustration, I get sick of writing:
instead of, say:
Great concept, mediocre execution. This "flawed standard" garbage, however, is just a lame excuse.
My username does not make me Apathetic. It's irony, get it?
well, if they supported it properly web designers would have easier job of making the pages look the same on all browsers.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Many web developers may be disappointed to hear that Slashdot has decided to hold off on full CSS2 compatibility in the Slashcode product line....
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
I've decided that from here on out I will invoice my CSS time for IE seperately. Being that I create most browser interfaces in XHTML and all layout is 100% CSS, I will now isolate the huge chunk of time I must spend on each project for IE compatability. I will also make it clear UPFRONT by making an accountance in my proposol for just how my design time will be devided up and how much time I estimate to spend on IE compatability vs supporting the rest of the world.
Why single IE out on my invoices and proposols? To let companies know where that extra $2,000.00 went for 20-30 hours of my time. That's why. And in hopes that they will opt not to engage in that expenditure.
I'd urge all other UI designers and developers to do the same.
And if the client decides that they wish not to support IE, a small victory shall have been won.
It was fine 5-6 years ago to say "Ooops -- you're using that Netscape piece of shit, please come back using a real browser"
I say it's time we start doing this again, but for IE and for the exact same reasons.
Picture a web page that is full screen at any resolution. With a layout that is dynamic and easy to change based on user input without refreshing the page. Text that dynamically increases size for the user. A single web page that looks correct printed, on a web browser, a text mode browser, or even to a blind person. With multiple layouts that a user can choose (low bandiwth, high bandwith, no images, etc)
All that can be done with css, and its very easy to do. And all without any tables.
check out www.csszengarden.com or do some googles.
It's "flawed" because (A) it isn't in their patent portfolio, (B) they didn't invent it, (C) they don't make money off of it, and (D) it doesn't improve their marketshare or "mindshare". In other words, it's "flawed" because it isn't a Microsoft product.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
Who are they to talk about things being 'flawed'?
I am a webdesigner.
And I am SICK of IE having half- CSS support. It is a struggle to contstantly hacking CSS to fit IE needs. I like my layouts to have some fire, some pizzaz. But if IE can't display CSS right, all my simple CSS ideas turn into ugly hacks so they display right in IE.
CSS 2 is flawed??? Since when is MS have the almighty power to judge W3C?? The Pot is Calling the Kettle Black...
ooh im steamed...
What I do is build the site in Firefox so it renders perfectly. I know it'll likely render fine in Mozilla (obviously), Safari and Opera. But IE is likely to screw up positioning.
So I then add extra lines: * html div#content { top: 100px; /* hack for IE */
}
just after the correct code to move things
around on IE. IE is broken and interprets
the "* html", whereas other browsers correctly
ignore it.
In a very few cases I simply disable features in the IE version until it works - IE users get a slightly less nice looking site, but that's their problem.
Rich.
libguestfs - tools for accessing and modifying virtual machine disk images
My favorite: Support for different media. E.g. it's pointless to have form buttons etc. on a printout - CSS2 lets you remove them. Also, to turn a web page into a presentation, just add rules for the "projection" media type, e.g. make stuff around the "slides" invisible, use large fonts etc.) So far only Opera supports it, but then again there is a lot of the CSS standard that only Opera supports...
A main features list someone made.
People tend to assume that every Microsoft action is part of some evil master plan. The truth is that they're stumbling around in the dark a lot. The software development effort is conspicuously out of control, and many of their projects are a total mess.
Okay, let's now start tossing out possible reasons Microsoft wouldn't want to support CSS properly.
I'm guessing it, in some way, has to do with Market edge. More specifically, since a great deal of web sites design their pages to work with [flawed] MSIE rendering, all other browsers might be perceived as broken or inferior by the end user. "It worked fine under MSIE... let's just go back to it."
Essentially, I believe this demonstrates harm to the internet community at large and an effective hijacking of internet standards. Perhaps it would be considered a frivolous lawsuit in the end, but perhaps the W3C should file some sort of suit against Microsoft over the matter. It's the only thing that they and the public at large seems to understand really. "Why is Microsoft being sued again? Breaking the internet? Crap!"
Keep web sites simple and clean? Forget about the fancy crap and let me get to the information I need ASAP? Just a thought.
Isn't proper CSS support one of the weak links in all of the Internet Explorer browsers? Even simple things like:
used to create a navigation using list items for links (since the navigation is a list of links), displays fine in Firefox (anchors fill their block), but displays funny in IE (where the anchors fill their block, but with a gap on the left where the list marker would be)Bottom line is, Microsoft has just shown, once again, that the only standard they care about is their own. Hopefully, the sheep who continue to support them will be shown the light, and learn that there are alternatives.
Overrated / Underrated : Moderation
This seems contradictory with comments by Chris Wilson, IE Developer, on the IE web log last week:
"We will continue to improve our compliance under strict mode even when it breaks compatibility"
and
"Microsoft does respond to customer demand; web developers are our customers."
See http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/10/15/243074 .aspx.
Even the devs want it to work right... if only they could get these ideas through to execs
(Sorry I think /. is breaking the link, you'll want to copy and paste)
People have already done this for free - demonstrating huge file-size savings (translating directly to money for whoever runs this site, anyone there? !?), not to mention making it far easier to change the style of the site, adjust colours etc etc etc. I can't be bothered to dig up a link but there are several sites about it.
:
I imagine it's more to do with this
the code base could be such a huge mess
There is a reason that deadlines are pushed back (repeatedly). MS is at this point such a behemoth and so ambitious in promises/updates, that I can pretty much guarantee something will suffer.
If CSS suffers on IE in favor of a more secure browser, that's 100% fine with me. If XMLHTTP is modified significantly, I will take serious issue, because I can see that as the future. And no, web devs are NOT being held back by IE's quirks, but rather few know how to code good UI on the web. Coding C/PERL is one thing...developing an intuitive UI is quite another.
I'm frankly more worried about MyLifeBits as far as privacy and Indigo for security. But, with feature creep undoubtedly underway, this may be an issue in 2010 or so...
This sig donated to Pater. Long live
As a web developer, I am sick and tired of Microsnot knocking the standards instead of embracing them.
Other browsers have embraced Web Standards, the developer community has united and pushed for browser developers to embrace web standards, and yet Microscrap still doesn't get it. And so, I have to include in my CSS code "hacks" to get around IE's disobedience to the Box Object Model, etc.
So what do we do about it?
Boycott IE.
The Technical How-to:
Developers can exclude IE altogether by using Javascript to sniff-out IE, and only render CSS tags in non-IE browsers. Site visitors would still see content, but they would also see a "...this site boycotts IE because..." message that is normally hidden to non-IE browsers.
The Business How-to:
Show your project managers how much time is wasted trying to get an ordinarily simple design to work with CSS in IE. Then show them how easy it is in Firefox, Safari, and other "compliant" browsers. Then slam a copy of "Designing with Web Standards" by Jeffery Zeldman on their desk and tell them to read it. (While we're at it, send a copy to Bill Gates and tell him he should read it too, the big fat...ahem....)
If sites everywhere were suddenly replaced with bland layouts for IE users only, and a message stating why, both Microsnort and users would get the message.
I know this will never happen because of business rules, because so much of the corporate world kisses Microshafts' butt, and for a gazillion more reasons, but still -- it feels good to get it off my pasty-white chest.
I love your qualifier of "quite reasonably" when talking about how well Slashdot adheres to HTML 3.2. Since we can't check at the W3C's Validator due to the fact that Slashdot doesn't want us to check, we'll have to use something else like Validome.
And what do you know, it fails even 3.2 validation.
Forget the whales - save the babies.
Kudo's to you -- Modd this one Way UP!!!
The beauty of this is its simplicity. It is a great way to show PHB's the fact the IE is flawed, and not all the other browsers out there. I would just add that you may want to have a plan for the PHB's arguement over the extra charge.
PHB: What is this $2,000 charge for?
Developer (pulling out 2 images of page without IE hacks): here is what your page looks like in IE, and here what it looks like in all other browsers.
Developer: (pausing for effect) And this would have only cost you X dollars.
I design webpages as a hobby, as an activity for enjoyment. (I am a High School Math teacher by trade) I have created (what I find) to be some wonderful designs, only to have them F'ed up by I.E. when I try to show them to a friend or colleague. Then spend hours fixing it in IE and trying not to break it in everything else. I have mostly given up on IE.
Kind Regards
"A few great minds are enough to endow humanity with monstrous power, but a few great hearts are not enough to make us w
There are RUMORS people. The fact is, MS hasn't made any definite statements about IE7, except for announcing that there will be one. They've been very tight lipped about it, even within our internal-only IE discussion lists. Lets not waste our breath discussing this 'issue'.
I think that the latest incarnation of CSS may be the "standard", but since IE is by far and away the most popular browser its method of rendering pages is actually the de facto standard.
I don't know how many times I've read this statement from other people - "I like Firefox/Mozilla, but it doesn't render my bank/news/etc site correctly so I have to use IE." Or "I would use another browser but I support IE at work." A lot of people are stuck with IE because of its poor interoperability.
Now why would MS decide to spend money on extra development effort on a project that earns no revenue in order to increase interoperability, thereby incouraging web developers to fix their web sites so that competing browsers can render them correctly? This loses them both dollars and marketshare.
Just make sure that the target platform wasn't IE all along before you go and do that. Charging extra for compatibility with the primary target platform would be a bad move. ;p This would be like me writing an application for MacOS X then charging the client to port it to Win32 when the target platform was Win32 all along.
If a page doesn't adhere to standards, but renders well in popular browsers, what's the problem?
The problem, IMO, is that you don't know why or why not things render well.
By conforming to standards, you have a (debatably) clear set of rules that define certain behaviours. For example, you will know that if you want to have some number of pixels pad your elements, then you will not have to resort to ugly hacks to get the same layout in BrowserX as you do in BroswerY. Why? Because each browser will reference the rules for adding the specified amount of padding to an element, in the right place, and in the right proportions.
By not supporting standards, you have a number of problems:
Imagine whipping up a simple page to test out a new design idea in your browser of choice. Everything looks good. Now you try to use it on your production page. Something looks wrong. Is it because you've included it in a tag that overrides your specifications? Is it because you've arranged it next to an element whose properties are spilling over into your space? Is it because you tested it inside of a tag, for which the specification holds, but have erroneously tried to apply it to a tag that does not support it? How will you know, unless your browser developers tell you -- assuming they know themselves?
For me, that's why CSS is useful. For the most part, it's pretty clear as to what things support what attributes.
Since your post was originally about Slashdot's (non-)adherence to CSS and other web standards, here's one major incentive to switch over: bandwidth. Does anyone really like throwing money away?
What they only support their own flawed standards?
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
Even if they wanted to support thin clients and make IE better, they would not want to support standards. Why? Well as soon as they support a standard that allows websites to do more good things, then there will be websites that do these good things. If more websites do more good things based on standards, then suddenly it becomes a lot easier to switch from IE to Firefox or Opera, or for that matter from Windows to Linux or OSX. However, if websites can only get some "cool" functionality by using either ActiveX/DHTML/MSXML or by using CSS 2, then of course they will pick the MS option because there are so many more IE users. And of course that will make it impossible for users of said website to switch from Windows/IE to anything else.
You have to put in INCREDIBLE amount of effort to do make even the simplest things work. Ever tried centering a block object on the page _without_ using tables? I use CSS2 in my work, and it's suitable for simple things like borders, colors, fonts, etc. Unfortunately, for a lot of design tasks it's more pain than it's worth, even if you code for just Firefox.
"he only reason Microsoft doesn't support CSS properly is that they don't OWN it."
Considering Microsoft has sucessfully patented CSS, I don't see how they don't "own" it. Even if they have given W3C a license to it.
Burn Hollywood Burn
Fuck that, i'd rather have a flawed standard followed to the letter on all major browsers than 10 totally incompatable half-hearted implementations of the same format making even simple tasks such as positioning a box on the screen a fucking nightmare. Microsoft should follow the standard in their 'strict' mode and do whatever they want in the other modes.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
The real reason why Microsoft does not fully embrace W3C standards is because they want to move away from browser-based application. This is also the reason why they let IE development go into the tank.
In the browser-based application model, MS does not control the desktop. They have competitions from Firefox and Opera. More importantly, MS also does not control the server. They have competition not only from Apache, but also Google, Amazon, eBay, AOL, and anyone who publishes a web application.
Microsoft's aim is to control both ends of a network application. And the way they are going to do this is to replace HTTP web servers with IIS and Exchange Server and to replace web browsers with Outlook. The .NET platform is just a step towards that goal. If you accept IIS/Exchange and Outlook as a server/client network application platform, there is no need for W3C standards. It also eliminates any competition, or at least make the competition dependent on Microsoft technologies.
Therefore, any effort that Microsoft expends into making "the web" more usable, such as CSS compliance and updates to IE, only enhances the browser-based application model and hurts Microsoft in the long run.
I guess this explains why you think it's a good idea to snub customers.
In what way is he snubbing them?
As important as web standards are, cross-browser site compatibility is NOT the customer's problem to solve.
It becomes their problem when they have to pay extra to have a website that works in Internet Explorer. They have to pay extra because it's more work. It's more work because Internet Explorer is extremely deficient in a number of areas.
To give an analogy, let's say you were paying a moving company $2000 to move your stuff from Chicago to LA. Then they say that it will take a month instead of 2 weeks unless you pay $1500 extra because one of the stretches of highway is rough and doesn't have nice rest/gas stations. Are you going to start lobbying and writing to state officials for highway improvements or simply find another moving company?
If the analogy were accurate, the other moving companies would simply charge the extra without telling you why.
Other web developers don't magically take less time to work around Internet Explorer's problems just because they don't list it as a separate line item on the invoice.
I'd be happy to compete with the original poster for his business by using internally available and re-usable tools/techniques to solve the compatibility problems.
You can't solve the compatibility problems, only Microsoft can do that. Things like Dean Edwards' work goes a long way, but is dependent upon Javascript, which is unacceptable for many purposes.
I guess we should just step up evangelizing other browsers. We should compare IE to paint, and other browsers (like firefox, opera, etc) to programs like photoshop and psp. If IE had under 50% market share, I'd bet 10 to 1 they'd be supporting CSS, and IE7 would have been out by now.
Here are some interesting things to consider:
So, if Microsoft is refusing to attempt proper support for a standard that's been around for close to 7 years, and is waiting for a standard that's already been floating around for a year, why should anyone expect them to support anything whenever it's actually released?
I know this isn't a big suprise, but it's further evidence that they could honestly care less about standards unless there's something they can get out of it. When CSS3 is eventually released, we probably won't get support for another 5 years!
I'm against picketing, but I don't know how to show it.
Why would anybody want to use display: inline-block. The article I link to says "The real use of this value is when you want to give an inline element a width. In some circumstances some browsers don't allow a width on a real inline element, but if you switch to display: inline-block you are allowed to set a width." How many times are people going to run into a situation to need this?
*snip*
For a long time I've been trying to get a list that will appear like a table. You can make a list set them to display as inline. It works, but then you can not set a width, which then makes it useless.
I find it funny that the example you used to document CSS's failings is solved by a modification that you profess nobody needs.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
Having spent the last couple MONTHS trying to get a Web site to:
1) Load external content using iframes or object tags in four different browsers;
2) use CSS to emulate frames in four different browsers (all current - forget about the older ones entirely);
it is clear to me that the Web industry is screwed up beyond all recognition.
Big surprise - it's a part of the IT industry...
First, the Web was never intended to be either an application platform or a desktop publishing platform - which seems to be what a lot of Web site designers and standards committees want to achieve.
Sorry, the technology simply isn't there in HTML, CSS and JavaScript to do this.
Second, the industry has as usual spent all of its time producing dozens of browsers - NONE of which support the standards in their ENTIRETY and ALL of which are incompatible with every other browser in existence in at least some respects.
Microsoft of course, as usual, is the worst offender. Web designers talk about the "IE factor" - the incompatibility and bugginess of IE with respect to virtually every standard which adds twenty percent or more to the development time for a Web site.
The industry has a LONG way to go to get the same functionality as client-server approaches to app implementation.
And as long as Microsoft is in the game, it ain't ever gonna happen.
My advice:
1) Stop trying to make your Web site FANCY (which is not the same as making it LOOK GOOD) and start trying to make it USEFUL to people.
2) If you want a "Web app", use other technology than HTML, CSS, and JavaScript.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
Implementing a new template doesn't require touching any Perl code. The submitter simply needs to provide a new set of Template Toolkit templates.
The problem stems from the fact that slashdot's pages are generated from tons of little bits of template, and so taking someone's hack of a static front page doesn't really get you very far to having a working implementation.
This is exactly what we've seen time and time again.
1. a standard exists
2. good products support the standard
3. Microsoft creates their own proprietary "standard" and uses it instead
4. because IE has the largest marketshare, websites are designed to render properly on IE
5. customers try a standards-compliant product, only to find that their sites don't render 'properly'
This is deliberate anticompetetive behavior, plain and simple.
> if(isset($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"]) && stristr($_SERVER["HTTP_ACCEPT"],"application/xhtml +xml"))
;)
This is a common mistake. You really should parse out each entry and select based on q-values. What happens when the client says application/xhtml+xml;q=0 ("XHTML is unacceptable"), or even text/html;q=1.0, application/xhtml+xml;q=0.6 ("I prefer HTML, but I can handle XHTML to some extent")? Or is it ok to ignore one spec if you kinda follow another better?
Oh, and don't forget to switch your <link rel="stylesheet"> bits with <?xml-stylesheet ?> when you're serving as XML.
Personally, I tend to just stick with HTML 4.01. If I'm going to use XHTML, I like to use an XSLT to transform it to HTML 4.01 for naughty little browsers, which also handily enforces well-formedness in a way that allows for degredation to text/html-served broken XHTML instead of a browser-level parse error.