Re: standard out of the box

Brad Kemper wrote in part:  
> And there are still tons of people who won't let go of IE6 because

> of all their legacy corporate browser-based applications that
break 
> when bugs are taken away.  

When bugs are taken away??  All this heat and teeth-gnashing over a
concern for Web pages that were buggy to start with!!  

And why were they buggy?  Because a browser developer deviated from
the specifications, either intentionally or accidentally.  Then a
Web developer took advantage of the browser bugs to achieve results
that were not intended within the specifications, without any
concern for the fact that someday those bugs might be corrected.   

I think it's time to tell Web site owners that they must fix their
Web pages to remove the bugs.  This reminds me in some way of the
Y2K problem:  If the Web pages had been done correctly to start with
-- or were corrected when updated -- there would be no cost to fix
them now and no risk of breakage.  

Of course, many Web pages were developed with tools provided by
software developers (including browser developers).  Those who
provided tools that created pages with bugs should be required to
pay the costs of removing the bugs.  Other pages with bugs were
developed by self-styled professional Web development firms; they
too should be required to pay to remove the bugs.  

"Backwards compatible" should include compatibility with all three
HTML 4.01 types: Strict, Transitional, and Frameset.  These are
within specification, and the W3C validator can validate all three.
However, there is no type named Garbage, which is what a Web page is
if it uses a "feature" that is actually a browser bug.  


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 Friday, 21 December 2007 18:37:05 UTC