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

[Arne Vajhøj]

On 18-01-2010 14:22, Richard B. Gilbert wrote:
> 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!"
>
> 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!

But HTML meets those criteria.

Arne