Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 32 of 32

Thread: NETSCAPE vs. IE

  1. #26
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    There's nothing wrong with IE's proprietary CSS elements, so long as they don't negatively impact one's design when they are not supported elsewhere (scrollbars are a perfect example).

    In fact, scrollbar styles are slowly becoming more accepted in cross-browser environments. Konqueror accepts them. Opera allows the user to accept them. I foresee a day when they become part of a standard. CSS17 probably. Look for wide support sometime around 2020.

    I participated in a lengthy discussion regarding the reasoning behind reluntance to adopt scrollbars into a spec, and my theory is that it has to do with a resistance to an MS-born element. Perhaps there's some fear that incorporating this into a spec opens the door for MS to exercise undue control over future specifications.

    I've heard the argument that scrollbar styles are left out because they have to do with styling the browser's chrome, not it's contents. But I would argue that this cannot be the case, since overflow specifically mucks with this element, and shunning scrollbars for this reason would be hypocritical.

    But CSS2.1 is proof that the W3 is willing to adopt new rules based on popular usage ( a grand departure from previous ways of thinking on their part), so look for it in the future.
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  2. #27
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    571
    I am thinking along the lines of layouts using css positioning. This IS what developers are using to get away from tables, and actually create a method for positioning for which it was meant to be. (tables were never meant to be used the way they are - not that that is bad).

    Now Opera and Mozilla (also Firefox) use the standards set by w3, but IE still doesn't. So this means you end up coding 2 sets of CSS layouts - one with the real values and one for IE. You have to realise this kind of stuff is annoying. 2 big key elements to using div layouts rather than tables, ie positioning of elements and sizing of elements are handled differently by IE, even though the w3 has defined how they should work.

    The scrollbar thing is a sideissue, imo and doesn't reflect overall layout. But is a nice addition. Xml schema was a M$ thing and was adopted by the w3. So I don't know if I totally believe the anti M$ thought about scrollbars.

  3. #28
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    Maybe this is where the W3 drew the line? I don't buy into the notion that tables are only supposed to show relationships between data. I believe it is perfectly ok to use tables to show the relationship between visual elements as well. It's sort of like how tissue paper was originally meant as a cold cream remover, but people started using it as a hankerchief, so that became its purpose.

    As pointed out earlier, with CSS2.1, the W3 has shown it is capable of altering its specifications to suit common use. They could easily make some definition changes for tables too. Besides, CSS is walking a tight line with its push to become a structural coding language. The purpose of HTML is to provide structure. The purpose of CSS is to provide style. Browser support is nearly universal when you use the elements within each that perform these respective functions (except for NS4, but who knows what the hell they were thinking with THAT release!).

    So the answer, for now, is simply to continue using tables instead of trying to achieve structure through CSS positioning, or creating multiple site versions. It's practical, and a well-planned site doesn't need the drastic control measures inherent in structural CSS. AND good CSS practices make the table structures necessary for most sites extraordinarily simple. I've got 15-20 page sites that require no more than 100-150 kb. of total storage space for all design visuals and HTML/CSS code...
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  4. #29
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    571
    The purpose of XML is to seperate content from style and should be. HTML is getting phased out imo and it should be. CSS is much more powerful and easier to manage. xHTML is fine and takes the style away from html and into the CSS hands. But still, IE behaves differently than comliant browsers. Start building some xHTML compliant sites using Opera and Mozilla as a reference and you will see what I am talking about. Throw it in IE and watch all the unexpected results, things not lining up, styles not working, etc... I am talking about IE6, not < 6...

  5. #30
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    I'm not so sure about the phasing out of HTML XML/XHTML allows programmers to essentially create their own coding languages that suit their own purposes. From what I've seen, a lot of disgruntled XHTML coders are returning to the familiar grounds of HTML because they don't WANT to create a new language every time they make a new site. There's something to be said about the universality of HTML, even if browsers don't treat it the same. I blame laziness on the part of browser developers and vagueness in parts of the W3 specs for this. But unless you're pulling content from a proprietary databasing source, I don't see much need for anything other than HTML. For widely used databases (SQL, MySQL, PostgreSQL, Access, etc.), PHP, ASP, etc. work just fine, and of course enjoy flawless browser support because they are preprocessed at the server.

    Then again, my perceived need for XML/XHTML comes from my limited perspective. I'm sure you and others have had different experiences. Do share!
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

  6. #31
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    Vancouver BC, eh?
    Posts
    571
    Well the main idea behind XML is complete seperation between Data and Style. This isolates what it is you are presenting. With how you present it and for what media. That is one part of XML that is real cool. The other part is it's cross-application usable. A browser, flash, php, .NET, server configuration, application handling, firewall settings, cell phones, pda's etc... the list goes on and on. XML is a superb method of handling data. Anything can except an XML file and do something with the data.

    Serverside scripting languages (like php and asp3) have nothing to do with browser support. The output after compiling is always rendered as html or xml depending on your method of output - defualt is html. The processing is all handled on the server before it gets sent back to the browser.

    They stopped developing HTML after 4.01 (and that was 1999) and are not going any further with it. HTML will be backwards compatable, but development is getting away from it. xHTML does use html, but in a different way. This is the kind of stuff that I am talking about. IE handles some ESSENTIAL css differently than what the w3 sets as a standard and makes it difficult for developers to deal with. If you want to build XML and xHTML pages compliant, they don't render correctly in IE. This is M$'s choice, but imo it's hindering advancment.

    You can keep on building html transitional pages, I know I do, but the reality is that technology is requiring a different method of handling data.

  7. #32
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Pflugerville, TX
    Posts
    11,231
    I've been toying with the idea of writing HTML to the strict DTD, just to see how many browser bugs I can avoid in IE (I know little it, but I'm anxious to see how the box model renders). But yes, I do write HTML trans as of right now. In my experience, following standards and sticking to the basics will result in sites that work nicely in PDAs and cell phones - I alway do at least an Opera small screen test before I go live with a site.

    The next iteration of IE should be on its way pretty soon. That means only 6 or 7 more years before we can migrate fully away from HTML with any sense of safety. I've done some xHTML, but I'm not familiar with XML at all. Perhaps it will soon be time to dig up a tutorial...
    Studio1337___̴ı̴̴̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡ ̡͌l̡*̡̡ ̴̡ı̴̴̡ ̡̡͡|̲̲̲͡͡͡ ̲▫̲͡ ̲̲̲͡͡π̲̲͡͡ ̲̲͡▫̲̲͡͡ ̲|̡̡̡ ̡ ̴̡ı̴̡̡ ̡͌l̡̡̡̡.__Web Design

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •