Most of those who make websites make them for people. This means working around software bugs for their benefit.
And when a browser has 93% of the market it's misleading to call it an isolated technology. Even standards get depreciated (or however it is that you spell that).
IE has invented its own CSS transitions (ie, fades/blinds/blur/etc). It has smart-tags (off by default). The marquee tag - well, I guess that existed in IE3 so that doesn't count. Is IFRAME part of the standard?
And, although it's not a new example, the box model in IE4-5 was broken enough in that it subtracted the paddin/margins from the width - causing CSS rendering problems in other browsers (if you were to code to IE).
Some browser (can't remember which one) doesn't like style tags unless there's type="text/css" as an attribute.
Are you saying that it applies only one of the styles - and that combined with the default colour scheme makes the page unreadable?
Either way - don't use background-color. According to the CSS.chtml file I have there were browsers that only supported 'background' initially, and not background-color. So do background:black; instead.
Then try bgcolor/background/text/link/alink/vlink for many many - you rude boy. It's ridiculous that emphasis and strong are taken as the non-presentational equivilents of italics and bold. Em/strong aren't even particularly semantic. Take it this way, what information is clearly strong, and not emphasis? What information is clearly emphasis, and not strong? There's no reasonable distinction aside from how they happen to be rendered.
If a browser finds itself unable to display valid and compliant content, they'll quickly fix their browsers.
Doubtful.
Any fresh download will get a good enough browser. It's the legacy of browsers that's the problem, and the issue.
WaSP do not deal with legacy. They have average teachings and average implementations of standards that are yet to be implemented. As they do not deal with legacy they are not about 'what works' they are about doing what they believe is best for the future.
No I didn't. I was under the mistaken impression. Interesting story though - thanks. Did they want the source because of their platform, or to modify, or what?
Weblog software is based around entries for a time period (posts from last week, etc.). Most Knowledge Bases aren't time-based, they're topic based, so there's no immediate fit. Also, weblog software isn't really about editing someone else's posts to improve the information like most KB's are.
Go for a Wiki. I can recommend MoinMoin
(sorry if there are any spelling mistakes, My goddamn fonts are broken and I can only read this back in this bizarre roman/metropolis thingy)
Under the Visual Studio.NET eula you are not allowed to write GPL software (they don't mention the license specifically, only the usages defined under the GPL as being forbidden).
Slashdot Mirror
And when a browser has 93% of the market it's misleading to call it an isolated technology. Even standards get depreciated (or however it is that you spell that).
And, although it's not a new example, the box model in IE4-5 was broken enough in that it subtracted the paddin/margins from the width - causing CSS rendering problems in other browsers (if you were to code to IE).
Are you saying that it applies only one of the styles - and that combined with the default colour scheme makes the page unreadable?
Either way - don't use background-color. According to the CSS .chtml file I have there were browsers that only supported 'background' initially, and not background-color. So do background:black; instead.
Damn - are those back/foward history links new? They need to be far closer to the icon they're beside. Don't make me think.
(can they do that?)
Software will always have bugs. Newer standards will come. Upgrades are necessary.
Could PHPA become part of the base PHP distro? Have such a thing ever been proposed or considered? Why is the sky blue?
Then try bgcolor/background/text/link/alink/vlink for many many - you rude boy. It's ridiculous that emphasis and strong are taken as the non-presentational equivilents of italics and bold. Em/strong aren't even particularly semantic. Take it this way, what information is clearly strong, and not emphasis? What information is clearly emphasis, and not strong? There's no reasonable distinction aside from how they happen to be rendered.
Any fresh download will get a good enough browser. It's the legacy of browsers that's the problem, and the issue.
WaSP do not deal with legacy. They have average teachings and average implementations of standards that are yet to be implemented. As they do not deal with legacy they are not about 'what works' they are about doing what they believe is best for the future.
What they preach does not work best in browsers.
o \
\
o \
\
It's a foggy seperation at best. HTML still has many many elements that are presentation based (ie, i, b, br)
Tables were intended for layout in the past (see html 3.2). Current x/html standards don't though.
Yeah - just like search engine robots *sigh*
Also a body border of black on the left and right. But the border on the right goes outside the scrollbar on IE5 - spook!
>The poster simply made a typo.
No I didn't. I was under the mistaken impression. Interesting story though - thanks. Did they want the source because of their platform, or to modify, or what?
Go for a Wiki. I can recommend MoinMoin
(sorry if there are any spelling mistakes, My goddamn fonts are broken and I can only read this back in this bizarre roman/metropolis thingy)
Visual studio .NET restrictions on what licence you can release software under
Under the .NET CLR I'm not sure. Sorry.