So I can't have selectors. At all. And everything looks different. And it doesn't handle different resolutions well. Anyone else feel like just throwing in the towel?

I use as much CSS as I can, and I don't have that many problems with IE. Start out by making sure that your html syntax and your css validate in the w3c's validators (HTML Validator (http://validator.w3c.org) CSS Validator (http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/)). If (like me) you learned html in the 90's, you might have some stuff to un-learn too (like me) ;)

IE's implementation of CSS is very buggy, but it's far from unusable; whats the trouble?

B

Well, I've been learning over the past few years so I'm up to date. I almost always validate first-try so I'm fine. My problem is that I need to use lots of odd techniques along with loads of selectors, but IE only supports bare-bone stuff, so I have to touch down my code a bit for it. It's like an abridged version of a book.

meh' If make sure your code it up-to-date along with your browsers you shouldn't have problems.

Originally posted by DanX
IE only supports bare-bone stuff, so I have to touch down my code a bit for it. It's like an abridged version of a book.

??

IE's css is buggy, but it supports more of the current standards than it doesn't - it's definitely not "bare bones."

By the way, IE isn't one browser...d'you mean 5.0? 5.5? 6? Windows? Mac?

I don't get it.

B

As much as I'd love to write code that conforms to W3C's recommendations and validates well against the validators, I've found it a pain in the neck to do so. On a couple of projects, I specifically sat down with the intent to get rid of as many errors as possible in the report I got when I validated the file. (The design was done in Photoshop by my partner and he sliced and exported it as images and HTML). When I first ran it through the validator, I believe it said about 67 errors. I set about fixing them one by one. By the time I had gotten down to the single digits, the effect was the total opposite. The site looked horrible in IE, and not so bad in Netscape. Since there are still a great number of IE users out there, I don't do this anymore. I don't care about the validators anymore. I have a couple computers with different browsers on them that I use to test the sites. I also use a few computers at my University to check again on different OS. This gives me better results than trying to fix the errors pointed out by the validators.

At the end of the day, IMHO, it's what your customers see that matters. Hardly anyone goes round checking if a certian host's site matches W3C standards, and if it does, sign up with the host.

Originally posted by speedy007h
...Since there are still a great number of IE users out there...

It's a shame isn't it... :D

One thing that might help with regards to slicing: don't let the application do the slicing, the optimization or the html generation. I love Fireworks for web graphics, but I do not let it generate html. Even though it can be configured to make layout tables in a couple of different ways (i.e. "single table no spacers"), as far as I can tell they are always more complex than need be.

I don't know which browsers you are using, but if you want to start producing code that both works and validates you might find this a useful process:

-get to know your doctype: learn what, in particular, the standard you code to allows and prohibits (doesn't necessarily matter which standard)
-get to know your target browser: learn IE's quirks, and prevent the problems before they happen...
-code in a stricter browser than IE (with respect to standards): Mozilla/Firebird is a good choice. Usually if you get a working, validated site in Firebird or Mozilla, IE 6 will not trash it too badly, IE 5.5 may f*** it up and IE 5.x on the Mac may too. But it's usually easier/faster to start with a standards compliant page and, if necessary, debug for IE than it is to go the other way. If (for example) you're using html 4.01 with layout tables, sliced graphics and CSS text, you should be able to have it all: validation & good looks (well, your site should look good... ;))


originally posted by sanjiv At the end of the day, IMHO, it's what your customers see that matters. Hardly anyone goes round checking if a certian host's site matches W3C standards, and if it does, sign up with the host.

Not really the point. Starting with the standards is a pretty good and reliable way of making sure your customer sees what you want them to.

B

Originally posted by bedlam
Not really the point. Starting with the standards is a pretty good and reliable way of making sure your customer sees what you want them to.

B

Not really, if the browser that the majority of your users have doesn't support the standard then adhereing to the standard is pointless.

I don't really come across any major problems making my CSS sites work in any of the browsers.

I think the main problem why you get errors is that you don't hand code your pages, as the guy above me said, he wouldn't let Fireworks output html and nor would I

CSS is a lifesaver though I haven't had that much clients that ever wanted me to change just some colors and little stuff, usually they go for the big make over

nevertheless, controlling the looks from a single file is the best think possible

besides, I have never checked validity of a page using validators mentioned above

more than that I trust in 'look and see for your-self' doctrine, meaning - like someone already said - checking your pages in different browsers and on different systems

however, you will never be able to get the stuff right for everybody, so just pick your target group and base your work on them

CSS is good, there are truly some things that don't work from CSS in IE, but there aren't that many

just the other day I noticed (I use MSVS for coding CSS, because it has this intuitive IDE) it has only values of baseline, sub, super for vertical-align property, but in Dreamweaver you find a few extra including top

CSS is not all poetry, but still far from unbearable or unusable, try playing with it a bit more

Airnine

I handcode everything, then check it in IE 6. If it looks the way I want it to, I know that better browsers will have it look fine too, because my code validates, and I avoide CSS that won't work in IE.
I avoid absolute possitioning, and use relative and a lot of padding and margins instead. I don't do :hover unless it's on a link, and I avoid other psevdo thingies as well, appart from :firstletter on paragraphes when I know it will be OK in the entire site (because I can't turn it off if it's in my css-file).
I use the style-tag as much as possible instead of the standard old HTML (like font and height and bgcolor...) because I know it will work in the future as well.

I know my sites will work in any browser. It might not look exactly the same, but it will work, and that's the main thing.

My coding has evolved over the years, and sometimes I take a couple of days to tuch up the code of one of my sites when I learn some new things. I use PHP quite a lot now when it's useful, and almost all my code is CSS and HTML 4.01. I haven't started using XHTML yet, but the move will be very easy. Just a couple fo small changes I can automate (search and replace) and it will work as XHTML as well.

Statistically speaking, most people use a variety of IE when they brows the Internet. As long as Windows is pre-installed on most PC:s that people buy, it will stay that way.

http://www.macedition.com/cb/ie5macbugs/index.html - bug list