IE loses market share again while Firefox gains again [Archive]

WebJoel

09-05-2008, 02:58 PM

Not related to thread or anything in particular, but I just burned a SLAX .ISO and was using it as a LiveCD, -I like it! Stable, fast, seems nice. I might do another sideways movement with the distro on my 2nd HDD (PCLinuxOS) and use this for awhile.
It's KDE, -I prefer GNOME but this seemed, -I dunno... friendly? Familiar?

Reminded me of KUBUNTU (also KDE) but I did not like KUBUNTU. At least SLAX, -okay have to admit this-, plays AUDIO right now -Nothing to install, nothing to 'fix'... I have been having a problem with EVERY Linux distro that I have installed when it comes to getting the audio (CD-player, etc) to WORK natively. In Kubuntu my audio DID work but was not audible unless the volume was turned up to around 95% and then, -just barely audible!
This plays. Nice Linux! Would be a better way for Linny-newbs such as myself to immerse oneself with to get familiar with Linux..

Stephen Philbin

09-05-2008, 03:08 PM

Or you could just go for openSuse and do a "One-click-install" of VLC. ;)

drhowarddrfine

09-05-2008, 05:12 PM

Talk about hijacking a thread.

wh666-666

09-05-2008, 05:50 PM

Lol i thought the same thing, one minute we're talking about browsers, then it instantly changes to linux distros ....

wh666-666

09-05-2008, 05:52 PM

So, you laugh at MSIE every decade or two. The experts say you need to laugh at least three times a day for good health :rolleyes:

I laugh at them every time they release a new OS and most software. IE 7 and 8 have given me the most chuckles though ...

I know your supposed to laugh every day at least, but i just cant manage it that much, im too serious/grouchy.

bustya

10-01-2008, 05:25 AM

Just saw this thread and thought I'd hop in. I've searched for browser stats for Google, Yahoo and MySpace with no luck, but why? Stats from any of these three could practically guarantee accuracy. I found one result that claimed to have Google's browser stats but of course it wasn't hosted by Google so I'm discounting it. I think we need a petition.

ariell

10-01-2008, 02:34 PM

Link (http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150633/microsofts_ie_market_share_drops_again.html?tk=rl_noinform)

While this sounds not too bad, I found this one, too: "Chrome, a 7MB download, is currently available only for XP and Vista. " (referring to Google's new browser, the whole story is here: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/article/150633/microsofts_ie_market_share_drops_again.html?tk=rl_noinform

Also, guys like us may appreciate other browser's capabilities (compared to IE), whenever there's not a SINGLE one that complies with the "standard". However, still holding a share of almost 80 percent (in 2008!) has a simple reason: "The other guys" don't even check for an alternative, away from a few (meanwhile) "grown" web users. In almost 20 years of self-employed application development, working in about a dozen countries, I had one (ONE!) customer who did NOT run Windows...

This is (the unfortunate) truth. As soon as it comes to desktops (not servers), this world will hardly change. Another (sad) truth is, that there's still too many things that other OS simply don't do better than Win. Neither Solaris nor Linux (of whatever shape), which is the actual reason for the desease.

Nice day to everybody!

aj_nsc

10-01-2008, 03:40 PM

@bustya

I think this is the best source for browser stats here (http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php). I mean, at the end of sept it was based on >53 million unique visits to >15 000 websites.

drhowarddrfine

10-01-2008, 04:58 PM

Also, guys like us may appreciate other browser's capabilities (compared to IE), whenever there's not a SINGLE one that complies with the "standard".The fact that ALL other browsers are far, far ahead of any version of IE in compliance is significant.However, still holding a share of almost 80 percent (in 2008!)False. IE has about 70% and has been dropping every month for 2-3 years.In almost 20 years of self-employed application development, working in about a dozen countries, I had one (ONE!) customer who did NOT run Windows... I only had one customer that did use Windows and they hired me to help convert back to FreeBSD. Individual measurements don't mean much. However, in about 3 years with virtually no advertising, Firefox has captured 20% of the US market, and as high as 50% in parts of Europe and Asia. 1 out of every 4 or 5 visitors to any given web site might not be using IE. Whether they use Windows or not, obviously is not the deciding point with them.
there's still too many things that other OS simply don't do better than Win. Neither Solaris nor Linux (of whatever shape), which is the actual reason for the desease.
Because average people treat their computer like an Xbox or a TV. Windows is a great Xbox. But I can run the same software in Linux or FreeBSD as anyone can on Windows, or at least it's equivalent. Office may be better than OpenOffice (though I know a book author who disagrees) but it does everything most people want. I can't run VisualStudio but I never used it anyway (yes I own a copy). But I watch YouTube and every other video. I surf the web like anyone else and use email. I could use Wine and use Photoshop or most/all other Windows programs, etc.

Yes, I had to set it up for grandma but grandma won't be doing more than surfing/email and buying junk on EBay. Now that I think of it. Grandma wasn't able to set Windows up on her own either.

Shorts

10-01-2008, 05:06 PM

ariell

10-01-2008, 07:43 PM

Hi back,

first of all, I really don't get what the point is you want to make here. Since I'm an old man, I'll take the time to answer some stuff.

Reading your posting, I had the impression of being offended for defending something like IE, or Windows. I myself carry five computers with four 1/2 different OS (where I prefer Solaris). ONE of them has vista, one xp. Guess why? The stuff I develop needs to be compiled on the target platform, not my idea, a fact given by system architectures.

Whether it is 80, 70, or even just 50 percent is not significant (either). It's an error-prone browser, and coming from that edge, it is simply too much.
"Individual measurements don't mean much" - could be right, but not necessarily. It is depending on what those experiences are based on. I developed stuff for companies like CheckPoint, Amdocs, NICE, or Trolltech. Their Windows Division was about 90 percent, the rest took the rest (10). Those ten percent, again, were "dedicated" to the server market ONLY. Whether you like that, or I like that, it is a fact.

Also, I agree with you on "average people". And you (will have to) agree with me, that those average guys make up the CONSUMER market, thus the place where the golden coins are waiting, meaning: THEY are "measurement".

Last but not least. I don't know your age, but I'm sure that I was (extensively) contributing to our Linux community in times when the word "computer" wasn't really a term yet for you. So do me a favor and hold back with "ideologies", at least as long as you expect an answer.

All the best from the south.

bustya

10-01-2008, 09:16 PM

@bustya

I think this is the best source for browser stats here (http://www.w3counter.com/globalstats.php). I mean, at the end of sept it was based on >53 million unique visits to >15 000 websites.

Thanks for the link. I hate to say it but I see a fundamental flaw in those stats. Those 15,000+ sites were added by the webmasters themselves who are undoubtedly testing their sites in multiple browsers, I get similar results when I look at my own results (well, FF is a lot higher). Stats from one of these big guys (Google, Yahoo, MySpace, Youtube) would remove the observer from the equation and give us realistic stats for the average user. Similarly the problem I find with other stats is that it's from sites that web developers visit (browsing), which makes FF much higher than it should be (for the average user).

Personally I use FF to browse, but I've got FF(3), IE7, IE6, Opera (latest) and Safari (latest) loaded on this machine (PC) for testing. I just recently loaded Opera and Safari after viewing some stats that showed the two higher than I previously believed. So far I've only really found a couple of differences in Opera than FF at my site. Opera takes:

input[type="checkbox"]{
background:transparent;
border:0;
}

more literal than any other and makes the inside of a checkbox transparent as well, solution... color:red; which no other browser recognizes. The other issue was a styled select.. something with positioning, but I haven't fixed that one yet.

Anyway, I feel fairly confident that my design works for everyone, well, as long as these 5 dominate the top.

drhowarddrfine

10-01-2008, 10:30 PM

I love my IE7.0

To make things a lot easier when it comes to bug fix, just program everything in IE7.0 (standard still) and then usually its just a small margin\padding fix for FireFox and IE6.0 using conditional statements.

Not that much more work dealing with bugs.

You are coding to a bug. That's why you think you need to "fix" FF. IE7 is the worst browser on the planet. 10 years behind web standards and wrong in much of its implementation. When you work that way you are assured your page won't work in modern browsers as you already have seen. No web developer worth his salt uses IE7 as his reference browser.

drhowarddrfine

10-01-2008, 10:42 PM

Whether it is 80, 70, or even just 50 percent is not significant (either). It's an error-prone browser, and coming from that edge, it is simply too much.I assume this was directed at me and I assume you are talking about browsers. The sole purpose of using a modern browser to develop web pages with (that is, anything but any version of IE) is to make sure your markup is written properly and performs properly. IE cannot and will not provide you with that assurance as much as any of the other more modern browsers.

If you use IE as a test bed then you are coding to a bug and can be assured most web pages will not work on any other browser. If you use a modern browser to code with then you can reasonably be sure your markup is correct and will probably work everywhere...sometimes even IE.

There are hundreds of web sites exclusively devoted to fixing IE bugs. There are zero, none, nada devoted to fixing bugs on ANY other browser. No self respecting web developer uses IE as a test bed and neither should you.

Now, the difference is that most of us develop for all users. If you are on an intranet and serve only to IE users (and don't care that you MUST write improper markup to get things to work) then feel free to code to IE, but prepare for a steep learning curve when you have to throw a lot of that out the window when a customer says "but it doesn't work in Firefox!"

Also, I agree with you on "average people". And you (will have to) agree with me, that those average guys make up the CONSUMER market, thus the place where the golden coins are waiting, meaning: THEY are "measurement".
That's right. Now go and tell salesmen at your company that you will not make their sales pages work properly in 20% of their customers browsers and see how they react.

Last but not least. I don't know your age, but I'm sure that I was (extensively) contributing to our Linux community in times when the word "computer" wasn't really a term yet for you. So do me a favor and hold back with "ideologies", at least as long as you expect an answer.56. First computer I built from scratch was a soldered version with an 8085 and coded in assembly. First worked with Unix at Pixar, then IRIX at Silicon Graphics in the 80s (after turning down a job with Next).

Shorts

10-01-2008, 10:58 PM

You are coding to a bug. That's why you think you need to "fix" FF. IE7 is the worst browser on the planet. 10 years behind web standards and wrong in much of its implementation. When you work that way you are assured your page won't work in modern browsers as you already have seen. No web developer worth his salt uses IE7 as his reference browser.

Wrong, I'm coding to the market. Whether you or any other whiny developer, that doesn't want to take the small extra step, wants it to be or not IE is the dominator in the consumer market.

Show me on any of my pages that it won't work on 'modern' browsers.

http://www.finalsandwich.com/ and http://www.mullanaphy.com/ work quite well on modern browsers. The company I work for, every thing I've done works great on modern browsers. (Only validation errors on mullanaphy.com are due to Youtube videos, as for finalsandwich.com, only errors you'll get are on user created writing pages).

Key is to create valid markup (whether HTML 4.01, 3.2, or XHTML) and then do all the style in css. Usually the IE7 or IE6 fixes that are needed are usually something like ".container { width:800px; }"

(Warning for those looking at page codes, the pages get sent out compressed to a single line stripped of extra spaces\linebreaks).

drhowarddrfine

10-01-2008, 11:59 PM

Wrong, I'm coding to the market.I guarantee you will not be in this business 3 years from now. I have not heard anyone talk like this in quite some time now.Whether you or any other whiny developer, that doesn't want to take the small extra step, wants it to be or not IE is the dominator in the consumer market.Whining? It's called competence. I'll say it again. NO developer who knows what he's doing uses IE as his initial test platform and whoever does should not be in this business because they lack the knowledge required.

Show me on any of my pages that it won't work on 'modern' browsers.
http://www.finalsandwich.com/The layout is sloppy and overflow its container in FF3, Opera and Safari. There are 89 HTML errors. But you said above that you "fix" your markup so it works in the modern browsers. This shows lack of knowledge because one never does this. However, it's possible, on simple sites such as the two you show, to make it work. But this doesn't make your job easier if you knew that if you used a modern browser first, you would not have to "fix" any of them or, at most, would only have to fix IE. That's what the pros do.The company I work for, every thing I've done works great on modern browsers. (Only validation errors on mullanaphy.com are due to Youtube videos, as for finalsandwich.com, only errors you'll get are on user created writing pages).Validated pages do NOT guaranteed proper usage as shown by your first site. Yes, you right valid markup and sometimes IE gets it right but most times it doesn't. See my links below but I've got hundreds more.

Key is to create valid markup (whether HTML 4.01, 3.2, or XHTML) and then do all the style in css. Usually the IE7 or IE6 fixes that are needed are usually something like ".container { width:800px; }"You're kidding, right? Come on. Fang? Stephen? Are you guys pranking me?

Shorts

10-02-2008, 12:16 AM

I guarantee you will not be in this business 3 years from now. I have not heard anyone talk like this in quite some time now.
Guarantee all you want, it won't mean jack.

Whining? It's called competence. I'll say it again. NO developer who knows what he's doing uses IE as his initial test platform and whoever does should not be in this business because they lack the knowledge required.
Competence is called staying with the times, and as for the times IE holds the market so they get priority. A developer who knows what he is doing makes his page for the consumer, not a bunch of uptight developers. IF (and thats a big 'IF') FireFox, Chrome or something else takes the market share they will become my main test browser.

The layout is sloppy and overflow its container in FF3, Opera and Safari. There are 89 HTML errors. But you said above that you "fix" your markup so it works in the modern browsers. This shows lack of knowledge because one never does this. However, it's possible, on simple sites such as the two you show, to make it work. But this doesn't make your job easier if you knew that if you used a modern browser first, you would not have to "fix" any of them or, at most, would only have to fix IE. That's what the pros do.
Thats funny, I'm on FF3.03 right now and no overflow problems, same with Chrome and Safari. Also glad you know how to read as I already gave warning about the '89' errors, if you paid attention you would notice thats from Youtube video's (used their embed which doesn't have encoded ampersands).

As for the 'fix', what I said I make valid HTML\XHTML testing in IE, then test it out on FireFox, usually its simple stuff like a width\padding\etc. Change that for FireFox and then in ie7.css put the other size in. Again, comprehension is a good idea.

And as for the "You're kidding right?" CSS is where IE likes to get retarded, so most fixes just have to be done there. IE6 is even more retarded with PNGs, but simple png_fix for that, and something workable for background-images (IE6 doesn't need to be perfect, just usable).

bustya

10-02-2008, 02:43 AM

@shorts:

PHP, right? At the top of your header:

ini_set('arg_separator.output','&');

Then write your &'s proper. If you're allowing users to embed just replace the improper &'s, then wallah no more errors.

As for coding browser... I use FF, check in IE6 & IE7. I was pleasantly surprised that the above mentioned fix was all I needed for Opera and nothing for Safari. In fact, the only browser I've had to hack for is IE6 for my pure CSS dropdown menus. By working in FF first, then checking in IE6 & IE7 I've managed to layout exactly the same in all browsers mentioned. Oh, and I'm validating XHTML 1.0 Strict and CSS level 3. The only reason I'm using level 3 is so I can embed a font, and thus far all browsers have handled it perfectly.

Stephen Philbin

10-02-2008, 06:19 AM

Debates over different points of view are welcomed; insults are not.

Clean it up please.

ariell

10-02-2008, 09:03 AM

Next big compile/build, so time to drop by for a sec.

My thanks go to Stephen (no insults), as well as to drh (for changing the basic melody).

You are almost my age! That is REALLY surprising me. However, for time is money, I'll try to make it short:

- I am not a "webcoder". I ALSO write script code.
- If I'd go to the sales guy, telling him what you suggested, the answer were clear: "Then get that straight for all, or somebody else does the job"...
-... which takes me to the next point: I am not "coding to IE", I have to fight with all the odds until the stuff is "properly" working on (at least) ff and ie, which IS possible and also a night mare. So, I am not looking forward to a steep learning curve, and I really wonder how come that you talk to me like a teacher, it's simply not appropriate and somewhat embarassing. Do you really think that ANY experienced programmer doesn't know about all this ff/ie/whatever-different-implementation stuff?

Be that all as it may, on the internet or on an intranet, as a person, I may have my likes and dislikes, as a business man, I simply can't afford it, and as a self-respecting programmer, I know that there's a workout for (almost) anything.

Shana tova.

drhowarddrfine

10-02-2008, 09:34 AM

And as for the "You're kidding right?" CSS is where IE likes to get retarded, so most fixes just have to be done there. IE6 is even more retarded with PNGs, but simple png_fix for that, and something workable for background-images (IE6 doesn't need to be perfect, just usable).And THAT is my point! You can't use a broken browser to test for properly written markup! Just like you wouldn't use a calculator that doesn't add right to test a formula.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between which test bed to use and making markup work in all browsers. No one, including me, said not to make the page work in IE and a lot of people like to hear what they want to hear.

Shorts

10-02-2008, 12:04 PM

Debates over different points of view are welcomed; insults are not.

Clean it up please.
Apologize, its just I tend to respond back to people the way I'm talked to.

@shorts:

PHP, right? At the top of your header:

ini_set('arg_separator.output','&');

Then write your &'s proper. If you're allowing users to embed just replace the improper &'s, then wallah no more errors.
Thanks for the suggestion, yet my problem is the ampersands aren't being generated by PHP, they are from stored MySQL, and all the ampersands are cleaned except for Youtube videos. Finally stopped being lazy and just put them into a JavaScript function (function m(A){document.write();} etc. ) that writes the code for the Youtube video ID.

And THAT is my point! You can't use a broken browser to test for properly written markup! Just like you wouldn't use a calculator that doesn't add right to test a formula.

You seem to misunderstand the difference between which test bed to use and making markup work in all browsers. No one, including me, said not to make the page work in IE and a lot of people like to hear what they want to hear.
Seems we got off on the wrong foot. What I said was that I develop in IE7. What this means if I open up Notepad, type the crap out of some valid XHTML (or HTML4.01 depending on the circumstances), then type up the CSS. Finally afterwards open it up in IE7 and start fixing minute errors that are bound to happen. Finally when everything is said and done I open it up in FireFox and its usually just spacing issues that need to be addressed to make it cross browser.

Personally I have nothing against FireFox, just that I like IE7 a lot more. If it wasn't IE7 would probably use Opera. Chrome just feels like 'plastic' to me, not sure why just haven't gotten sucked in by it. And in my opinion, Thunderbird > Office.

xvszero

10-02-2008, 01:17 PM

ariell

10-02-2008, 01:38 PM

By the way...

I think you must not be surprised by Shorts response. Reading your words, it is, indeed, hard to deny a certain degree of aggressiveness - to put it like that.

Probably all of us (or at least a majority) have to make a living from hacking. Probably NONE of us is responsible of neither habits nor (so called) standards. Or as my late prof used to say: The programmer is at the end of the food-chain...

Best from the south.

P.S. I browse the net (not to test, just for me) with a browser that I wrote in C++ on the basis of Qt4's web kit. Maybe u guys know Arora Browser (http://arora-browser.org), they use Qt as "their" base, too.

Shorts

10-02-2008, 02:26 PM

Actually a few small follow ups. I do have 2 gripes with FireFox, one is load time, takes a couple of seconds to open it, IE7 is instant. Second, identical pages open (multiple tabs), FireFox is using 23MB more of my system memory. Not to mention the CPU usage from FireFox. To counter balance, I have a gripe with IE7. One is password remember, FireFox does it better, Opera even better then FireFox.

Other follow up. My main point is developers should react to the consumer, not vice versa. Everything I make is geared towards the end user, not what would make myself happiest (otherwise I don't think I'd even have stylesheets, I'm a simplist when it comes to design. Functionality and content are both more important than design in my eye).

ariell

10-02-2008, 03:01 PM

My main point is developers should react to the consumer, not vice versa.

Shake hands, this is exactly my approach. Also, my landlord doesn't care what system the code I sold was compiled on or in which browser about to being displayed - as long as I pay him in time.

I don't think there's a "real disagreement" between dr and you, it looks more like an "ideology issue". I remember working in Germany, back in the early/mid-90s. Somebody invited me to a congress, called CCC, the Chaos Computer Club. Why not - I went there, and I met a lot of strange (mostly very young) guys, wearing T-Shirts with lots of slogans printed on, like "MicroSchrott" (translatable as "MicroDebris"), or "WinDoof" (like "StupidWin"), which, in German, sounds alike to its English original. However, at the time being I was involved in some kernel development with (then German) SuSe (today Novell OpenSuSe), so I'm trying to talk a little about that. NONE of them hat a clue, they knew four to ten html tags, AND they had one more thing in common: windows hatred... Ideology. You CAN NOT heal that.

The first computer I came along in my life was a Sun, equipped with UNIX, and it wouldn't change for quite a long time, due to the fact that Windows (DOS) wasn't even "born" yet. So I am used to it, and it's my first choice, and there's certainly no IE on an *IX platform. However, this is my personal taste (and nonetheless my professional view), and, again, that's why I agree with you: developers should react to the consumer...

Have fun and best from the south.

drhowarddrfine

10-02-2008, 04:13 PM

What I said was that I develop in IE7... when everything is said and done I open it up in FireFox and its usually just spacing issues that need to be addressed to make it cross browser.You prove my point. You are coding to a bug. See my links below. IE7 has a terrible time with the box model, float issues, positioning issues and on and on. Firefox has no (or few) such issues. So you write your markup and check it in a IE7 which, consequently, displays it incorrectly but you fix it to get it the way you want it. Then you go to Firefox, which displays what you actually wrote, and you say, "Whoa! Firefox screwed up and I have to fix it!", but the truth is you wrote broken code to make IE work and expect modern browsers to act the same.

Write proper markup and you won't have such problems and you'll never learn proper markup by using IE.

drhowarddrfine

10-02-2008, 04:17 PM

Actually a few small follow ups. I do have 2 gripes with FireFox, one is load time, takes a couple of seconds to open it, IE7 is instant. Second, identical pages open (multiple tabs), FireFox is using 23MB more of my system memory.Because IE is built into the operating system and all other browsers must startup from scratch. Also, FF uses available memory to its advantage. However, memory usage in FF3 is significantly improved over IE7 and I guess I'll have to find the Lifehacker and CNET articles to show it.

Other follow up. My main point is developers should react to the consumer, not vice versa.Hence the complaint against MIcrosoft. They do everything they can to trip up the developer and force you to buy their product and do things their way. See articles from Brendan Eich about the attempts to get around Microsoft on the new Javascript standards.

drhowarddrfine

10-02-2008, 04:19 PM

IE sucks.

Unfortunately, until it stops being packed as the default browser on most retail computers, it will continue to stay on top. It's not so much that people are choosing it over anything else, just that people tend to stick with what they are given unless they know better.

In the meantime, an article on CNET or ComputerWorld says, for the umpteenth consecutive time over the last 3 years, IE has lost market share.

ariell

10-02-2008, 04:29 PM

Bingo! Damn true, they try everything to force us. True.

Shorts

10-02-2008, 04:49 PM

You prove my point. You are coding to a bug. See my links below. IE7 has a terrible time with the box model, float issues, positioning issues and on and on. Firefox has no (or few) such issues. So you write your markup and check it in a IE7 which, consequently, displays it incorrectly but you fix it to get it the way you want it. Then you go to Firefox, which displays what you actually wrote, and you say, "Whoa! Firefox screwed up and I have to fix it!", but the truth is you wrote broken code to make IE work and expect modern browsers to act the same.

Write proper markup and you won't have such problems and you'll never learn proper markup by using IE.
Sorry, buts its not proving your point, its actually has more to do with personal preference. The biggest difference between IE and FF is how they do paddings, borders, and margins. IE is subtractive (which personally I think makes more sense but alas I am not one of the 'standards' writer) while FF is additive.

Meaning, if I set a DIV to be 100px and then add a border of 1px in FF it would be 102px. And I never have once said "Whoa! Firefox screwed up and I have to fix it!" Right from the start I understand the differences between IE, FF, and all other modern browsers. Its my job to know.

Stephen Philbin

10-02-2008, 05:42 PM

As far as I can see, you're just arguing over nothing. Why code for any browser first? I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't check in any particular browser before another. I just write my markup as it needs to be, and then I just gradually build more and more CSS onto it. Checking all available browsers (in no particulair order) as I go.

Admittedly, I don't usually test in IE very frequently, but that's only because of my limited access to it. If I need to check something in IE then I have to borrow someone's computer that has it installed.

And for the record, I dislike pretty much all aspects of Microsoft and their products, but I don't feel the need to ram this opinion into the faces of others. I think it's usually best just to just show people an alternative that you think is better and let them decide for themselves.

To each their own.

Shorts

10-02-2008, 05:58 PM

As far as I can see, you're just arguing over nothing. Why code for any browser first? I don't know about anyone else here, but I don't check in any particular browser before another. I just write my markup as it needs to be, and then I just gradually build more and more CSS onto it. Checking all available browsers (in no particulair order) as I go.
After writing my last post I started to figure the same thing. Personal preference is the main thing. Also I haven't attacked any other people's opinion on what browser they use\develop on, just defended my choice to use IE7.

Some how I got caught up in the middle and having to defend my claim that I like IE7 better (for everything, developing, testing, browsing) and still have zero problem with 100% valid XHTML\HTML\CSS that works in all browsers the way I intended it to.

One last aspect pertaining to startup. Yes, IE7 is part of the system, why wouldn't I want to use it as it loads instantly and lets me do exactly what I want it to do. Other then the password issue it hasn't given me any gripes as an end user.

drhowarddrfine

10-03-2008, 12:27 AM

I don't know why some people struggle so much with what I said. NOWHERE DO I SAY TO CODE TO OR FOR ANY BROWSER!!!!!!!!!! You can't quote that I said it. You won't find anywhere that I said it. You can jumble my words around and find that I do not condone it and anyone who thinks I did can't understand the English language.

What I DID say (and I swear the same people still won't get it) is TEST YOUR MARKUP IN THE BROWSER THAT WILL REPRODUCE YOUR MARKUP MORE FAITHFULLY SO YOU CAN BE SURE YOUR MARKUP IS CORRECT!!! Is that part understood?? Can I move onto part 2 now or do I have to make that statement simpler or reworded? If YOU do not understand the highlighted sentence above, do NOT move on. PM me first for another explanation because the next paragraph will only confuse you more.

Are we clear about the previous statement? I'll review here: TEST YOUR MARKUP IN A BROWSER THAT WILL MOST ACCURATELY REPRODUCE YOUR MARKUP ACCORDING TO THE STANDARDS! Notice I slightly changed the wording but it means the same thing. Did you also notice that I did not mention ANY browser name or vendor or company name. If we are still clear, then we can move on.

Here's the next point: ALL VERSIONS OF INTERNET EXPLORER DO THE WORST JOB OF REPRODUCING STANDARD MARKUP COMPARED TO ANY OTHER BROWSER ON THE PLANET!!! Another way to say it is: ALL VERSIONS OF INTERNET EXPLORER PRODUCE THE MOST ERRORS WHEN ATTEMPTING TO RECREATE STANDARD MARKUP. Or: ALL VERSIONS OF INTERNET EXPLORER MAY SHOW YOUR MARKUP THE WRONG WAY!

A corollary to previous statement is: ALL BROWSERS OTHER THAN INTERNET EXPLORER DO A SIGNIFICANTLY BETTER JOB AT REPRODUCING STANDARD MARKUP IN A CORRECT WAY. Or more succinctly, IF IT WORKS IN INTERNET EXPLORER BUT NOT OTHER BROWSERS THEN YOUR MARKUP IS WRONG.

Therefore: USE ANY MODERN BROWSER TO INITIALLY TEST YOUR MARKUP TO MAKE SURE YOU CODED IT RIGHT BECAUSE MODERN BROWSERS ARE MOST LIKELY TO RENDER IT CORRECTLY. IF YOU USE INTERNET EXPLORER, THEN IT IS MORE LIKELY TO SHOW YOUR MARKUP INCORRECTLY LEADING YOU TO BELIEVE YOUR CORRECT MARKUP IS WRONG AND THAT MODERN BROWSERS ARE DISPLAYING IT WRONG.

If browsers were calculators, and the Firefox, Opera and Safari calulators said 1+2=3 but the Internet Explorer calculator said 1+2=4, which would you use if you wanted to learn math? Which will probably consistently give you the correct answer? If the calculators also did html/css, etc., and you want to learn html/css,etc., which of those calculators will give you the correct answer?

Why is this so complicated and difficult for people to understand?

drhowarddrfine

10-03-2008, 12:31 AM

Sorry, buts its not proving your point, its actually has more to do with personal preference. The biggest difference between IE and FF is how they do paddings, borders, and margins. IE is subtractive (which personally I think makes more sense but alas I am not one of the 'standards' writer) while FF is additive.No! Firefox follows the standard! IE is incorrect in its implementation!!! It's not a personal choice. It's not something Microsoft or Firefox can willy-nilly make up on their own. Microsoft is doing it flat out wrong!

(And even then what you say is not true but I'm not going to give tutorials anymore. I'll leave that to others.)

bustya

10-03-2008, 04:11 AM

For the IE7 enthusiast (better open your task manger first):

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
<head>
<style type="text/css">
.someclass{
background:green;
}
.someclass:first-letter{
color:red;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<p class="someclass"><span>test test test</span>test</p>
</body>
</html>

FF, Opera & Safari get it right, IE6 ignores it and IE7 goes nuts.

And this doesn't work in any browser:

.someclass span{
color:yellow;
}
.someclass span:first-letter{
color:red;
}

I've found a few more undocumented IE oddities like this. I'm planning to compile a list.

Stephen Philbin

10-03-2008, 05:47 AM

...TEST YOUR MARKUP IN THE BROWSER THAT WILL REPRODUCE YOUR MARKUP MORE FAITHFULLY SO YOU CAN BE SURE YOUR MARKUP IS CORRECT!!! Is that part understood??

And I'm saying there's no point testing your markup in any browser. The only aspect of markup that you can evaluate through software is its validity. Evaluation of semantics can only be done by a human (the author) whilst writing the markup and looking at the source. Not by looking at how it was rendered by a browser. How the browser renders the initial markup is irrelevant because you're going to change it with CSS anyway.

As for CSS. Like I said; just incrementally add more and more CSS and look at it in all available browsers as you go. It makes no difference if you look at it in IE or a more standards compliant browser first. Nor does it make a difference which one it looks correct in first either. You're still going to see the difference between IE and a more compliant browser anyway, and you're still going to have to make adjustments accordingly to get the visuals you intend.

The only question is if the author knows which of the browsers is the non-compliant one. Given your constant barrage of anti-IE postings, I'm quite sure everyone here knows. Although the vast majority probably already knew anyway.

Now kindly stop talking to people like they're idiots.