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

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> In article <4b53ca5d$0$273$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
> 	Arne Vajhøj <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
>> On 14-01-2010 08:07, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
>>> In article<4b4e8718$0$282$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>,
>>> 	Arne Vajhøj<arne at vajhoej.dk>  writes:
>>>> On 13-01-2010 21:31, VAXman- @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>> Opera 10 also passed.
>>>>
>>>> IE8 will most likely never pass ACID3. It will be IE9.
>>> And if you are writting web pages that use features of ACID3 that IE
>>> doesn't do and you competitor is not who is going to pay the price?
>>> The target should be your desired audience and not some obscure ivory
>>> tower standard.
>> It is very good to follow the standards.
> 
> Only if there is some tangible gain in doing so beyond the desires
> (and profits) of the standards body.
> 
>> It may not be good to use all features in the standard.
> 
> Most of the standards I have seen are all or nothing.  If you ignore
> parts of the standard then you are just as non-compliant as if you
> used none of it.
> 
> bill 
> 

And just what is the payoff for "standards compliance"?  If your system 
does what you need and want, how much extra would you pay to make it 
"standards compliant".  $0.00?  I thought so!