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

[Bill Gunshannon]

In article <v4adnax7iuzG8cnWnZ2dnUVZ_j2dnZ2d at giganews.com>,
	"Richard B. Gilbert" <rgilbert88 at comcast.net> writes:
> 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!
 
Which was my point, exactly.  Being standard compliant doesn't pay
the mortgage.  Reaching customers does.  Considering all the non-
standard stuff that DEC has pushed thru the years, it is really
funny to see everyone here screaming "Standards are a must!"

bill
 

-- 
Bill Gunshannon          |  de-moc-ra-cy (di mok' ra see) n.  Three wolves
billg999 at cs.scranton.edu |  and a sheep voting on what's for dinner.
University of Scranton   |
Scranton, Pennsylvania   |         #include <std.disclaimer.h>