Re^2: Quality Standards Proposal to HTML Developers?

If I could only downvote you enough for suggesting that the site code to only one browser ...

The intelligent reader will judge for himself. Without examining the facts fully and fairly, there is no way of knowing whether vox populi is really vox dei, or merely vox asinorum. — Cyrus H. Gordon

Comment on Re^2: Quality Standards Proposal to HTML Developers?

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^3: Quality Standards Proposal to HTML Developers? by samizdat (Vicar) on Nov 03, 2005 at 15:20 UTC
idsfa, I'm sorry, but reality sucks. I used to be as adamant as you are on this very subject, esp as I was trying to debug sites using my FreeBSD desktop. Then I tried to make a site that was used by marketdroids and HR people. 98.9% use Doze and usually the latest. Do I like it? NOT. We are making the attempt with our latest version. We are rewriting to enable best possible low level compatibility but even Google can't make a simple webmail cross-platform compatible with all their $$$ and J2EE. We still have a whole bunch of logic traps in there for various JS and browser incompatibilities, and spend more time debugging that than writing business logic. Being browser neutral costs, idsfa. It's hard to justify when your clients are all on one platform.	[reply]
Re^4: Quality Standards Proposal to HTML Developers? by CharlesClarkson (Curate) on Nov 06, 2005 at 18:45 UTC
Are you aware of DOCTYPE declarations and the services which take pictures of popular browser versions given your page markup? I, too, have written for IE and check Mozilla as an aside. I figure I can make it look halfway decent and then hire a css expert to make it look perfect. HTH, Charles	[reply]