[Info-vax] IE8 got me too :-( Sorry Jeff.

[VAXman- at SendSpamHere.ORG]

In article <4b53cc31$0$273$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>On 14-01-2010 08:04, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>> In article<00A97820.3EB74593 at sendspamhere.org>,
>> 	VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
>>> In article<4b4e7946$0$279$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=<arne at vajhoej.dk>  writes:
>>>> On 13-01-2010 08:50, AEF wrote:
>>>>> I actually tried IE8 at work, hoping it would be better than IE6. But
>>>>> it was blurrier on the monitor. I checked it on others' machines and
>>>>> the blurriness varied, and all the monitors were ViewSonics. (I did
>>>>> only check 2 or 3 others, but mine was blurrier than IE6 and that's
>>>>> all that really mattered to me.) So I went back to IE6. And I did
>>>>> check if you could do that before I tried IE8. It turns out that all
>>>>> you have to do is uninstall it, except that a certain OS patch would
>>>>> get in the way if you have it and you'd have to uninstall that first,
>>>>> then reinstall after expunging IE8 from your machine.
>>>>>
>>>>> I do have Firefox installed at work and I use that for some sites, but
>>>>> others work better on IE6. Hate the spastic Find function in IE6, but
>>>>> at least you can use it to highlight a link, or get near it with an
>>>>> easier target and then tab to the link, and without the mouse just
>>>>> press Return and it works! Safari can't do that, but Safari is better
>>>>> with multiple choice items in forms and for printing. Safari puts all
>>>>> the print params on a single page! I've never understood why all the
>>>>> important things like page size, orientation, number of copies,
>>>>> certain things on the Page Setup dialog box and such aren't all in one
>>>>> place. WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY PUT THEM ALL IN ONE PLACE LIKE SAFARI
>>>>> DOES? Arghhhh.
>>>>
>>>> IE6 is pretty bad in AJAX context due to its deviation
>>> >from the standards. IE8 is a lot better. It actually passed
>>>> ACID2.
>>>
>>> Let me know when it can pass ACID3.  AFAIK, only Safari does so.  Firefox is
>>> close.  It gets to 93/100.
>>
>> Why should anyone care?  It is good business to make sure your web
>> pages work with as many browsers as possible and not just with some
>> obscure standard. It is customers being able to see your web page
>> that makes sales, not some claim that you wrote your page to comply
>> with ACID3.
>>
>> Too many people in this profession have lost site of the core value.
>> The computer needs to adapt to the user, not the user to the computer.
>
>No.
>
>In the 90's some people somehow got the idea that software
>engineering practices did not apply to HTML and friends.
>
>That was wrong.
>
>Writing C code with undefined behavior and hack it to work
>on HW X, OS Y and C compiler Y may work, but it will result in
>huge cost for future maintenance.
>
>Writing non-W3C-compliant HTML and hack it to work on
>OS X and browser Y may work, but it will also cost in the end.

That would be Safari on OS X. ;)

-- 
VAXman- A Bored Certified VMS Kernel Mode Hacker    VAXman(at)TMESIS(dot)ORG

  http://www.quirkfactory.com/popart/asskey/eqn2.png
  
  "Well my son, life is like a beanstalk, isn't it?"