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

[Richard B. Gilbert]

Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> 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
>  
> 

But just any standard is not sufficient!  A standard must have wide 
acceptance.  It must be clear and unambiguous.  Failing to meet either 
criterion is almost as bad as no standard at all!