- From: Barry <wassercrats@hotmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2005 12:20:34 -0400
- To: <www-style@w3.org>, "Emrah BASKAYA" <emrahbaskaya@hesido.com>
Emrah BASKAYA wrote: > the alternative browsers fix their CSS bugs very fast, and all the latest > alternative browsers seem to do a very very good job displaying standard > CSS the same way, and their users are able to adopt new versions very > quickly, as they are not part of the OS. One specific hack for a version > e.g 1.45 might not work for 1.46 I've noticed a fairly even split among the browsers with the problems, but I haven't really been keeping score. I only started using conditional comments recently, but I intend to test my webpages on new versions of the browsers that I use conditional comments for. I narrowly target browser versions, and would continue to do so with the "other" ones if they supported conditional comments, though I realize it would be more difficult if new versions come out more frequently. Not much more difficult though. > (Remember the issue with an alternative browser in a popular internet page > sending flawed code on its pages to that specific browser, almost made one > think it was done on purpose.) I remember the allegations from the Opera community about Microsoft purposely causing webpages to be mis-rendered. Fear of things like that might cause some browser developers to falsify the user agent name, but testing a webpage on such a browser would still allow you to create working markup. I like property sniffing though. The more things you can sniff out, the better. I wish I was able to sniff out whether a browser supports a magnification feature like Opera (my favorite browser for resizing web pages) or the less accurate text resizing like IE and Mozilla, and I wish I was able to detect whether a client is caching anything. More is better. Greed is good. I'll have extra cheese with that.
Received on Tuesday, 5 April 2005 16:20:21 UTC