- From: Peter Kerr <p.kerr@auckland.ac.nz>
- Date: Sat, 8 Dec 2007 07:45:53 +1300
- To: ve3ll@cogeco.ca
- Cc: www-amaya@w3.org
On 8/12/2007, at 1:47 AM, ve3ll@cogeco.ca wrote: > Can anyone point to what the standards-compliant browsers do? > > This is a joke -- correct ?? hmmmmmm > Is there any known STANDARD > the closest i have seen are recommendations.... > and I have yet to see a browser that meets the recommendations > And that's the wonderful(!) thing about Standards, and Recommendations, and the internet: they're not mandatory, you can choose to follow them or not, in whole or part. > One can only learn from testing for themselves and what i see > on a WinXp using 800x600 rez on a 15 inch mionitor Which emphasises Leon's point that modern screens have more pixels in the same physical space, and it looks as if browser rendering engines are working to maintain the apparent on screen size. Modern operating systems are also developing (not yet for sale) "resolution independent graphics" which means that if you specify 12pt you will get 1/6 inch line height, always, at least if and when the browsers cotton on to it... > We have known for a long time that IE does not follow W3C recommendations or RFCs, there are even pages at ms.com explaining why they don't. But since it's still the most widely used browser, web authors have to pitch to its deficiencies. FF is attempting to replace IE and so must behave much the same not to upset users. Since the release of Safari, and MS dropped IE for Mac like a hot potato, I have stopped caring what my pages look like in IE. Because I usually get similar results in Amaya and Safari I tell complainers to get a standards compliant browser (altho' we know there isn't any such) </rant> How do Linux browsers deal with this? Gecko/WebKit based Konqueror, Galeon, etc, vs. others? Peter Kerr
Received on Friday, 7 December 2007 18:46:36 UTC