W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2007

RE: Double standards in restrictions on downloadable fonts

From: David E. Ross <david@rossde.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:36:01 -0800
Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20071219163601.011e6cf0@mail.iswest.com>
To: www-style@w3.org

Part of the problem is that "millions of pages" were developed to
take advantage of non-standard features in IE.  Many of those pages
were developed using MS tools that created non-standard HTML and
CSS.  Those pages should indeed be broken with IE 8 as many already
are in non-MS browsers.  Actually, those pages were broken to start
with; but then IE was broken to compensate.   

How do I know this?  I follow the discussions in various newsgroups
(e.g., <news:comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html>) where users ask:
"Why does my Web page not display correctly in [name a non-MS
browser] when it works okay in Internet Explorer?"  When a URI is
supplied, a quick check against the W3C HTML and CSS validators
shows many, many errors.  At the same time, an examination of the
source HTML file indicates that it was generated by FrontPage or
(worse) Word.  


David E. Ross
<http://www.rossde.com/>.  

Don't ask "Why is there road rage?"  Instead, ask 
"Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such 
Thing as Fast Enough?" 
<http://www.rossde.com/roadrage.html>
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 00:36:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:57 GMT