Comments on: Yes, We Have the Power http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: E. H. aka ZeHoS http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-2033 E. H. aka ZeHoS Thu, 06 Jul 2006 13:17:14 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-2033 Have you seen what the image looks like in IE7 beta3 when you run the Acid2 test? it is awful! I actually comfort myself by realizing FireFox doesn't display it properly either. (although much better) IE7 seems to support PNG transparency -I'm currently redesigning my site that makes use of it- but in the Acid2 test? no dice. :( Anyway, I'm backing everyone up (the more the better) in what they've said here. Having to worry about compatibility between multiple browsers is seriously starting to be a joke. It really is cases like these where you want to ask, "So... why exactly did we even bother with standards in the first place!?" We're in 2006. (halfway past it, to be precise) We've made are mistakes. They happen, I agree. Hurry up and fix them, now. They've lasted too long. Otherwise, I might as well just start new standards myseld. Anyone for CSS4 and XHTML3? >:P I don't like putting pressure on people, but this is really depressing. Have you seen the endless websites about how to deal with IE bugs/hacks and all that? You mean I can't just code a site properly following standards and expect it to be properly displayed regardless of what user agent one uses? As for table layouts... heh, yes I use them right now in my current site, but that'll change. All in all: good luck to you Chris, I sure hope you can have a lot of influence on MS. Despite being MCSA/MCSE/MCDBA certified, it still pains me to see their lack of compliance. ZS Have you seen what the image looks like in IE7 beta3 when you run the Acid2 test? it is awful! I actually comfort myself by realizing FireFox doesn’t display it properly either. (although much better)
IE7 seems to support PNG transparency -I’m currently redesigning my site that makes use of it- but in the Acid2 test? no dice. :(

Anyway, I’m backing everyone up (the more the better) in what they’ve said here. Having to worry about compatibility between multiple browsers is seriously starting to be a joke. It really is cases like these where you want to ask, “So… why exactly did we even bother with standards in the first place!?”
We’re in 2006. (halfway past it, to be precise) We’ve made are mistakes. They happen, I agree. Hurry up and fix them, now. They’ve lasted too long.
Otherwise, I might as well just start new standards myseld. Anyone for CSS4 and XHTML3? >:P
I don’t like putting pressure on people, but this is really depressing. Have you seen the endless websites about how to deal with IE bugs/hacks and all that? You mean I can’t just code a site properly following standards and expect it to be properly displayed regardless of what user agent one uses?

As for table layouts… heh, yes I use them right now in my current site, but that’ll change.

All in all:
good luck to you Chris, I sure hope you can have a lot of influence on MS.
Despite being MCSA/MCSE/MCDBA certified, it still pains me to see their lack of compliance.

ZS

]]> By: Norm http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1913 Norm Thu, 29 Jun 2006 06:51:10 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-1913 Well, all I can say is I hope Mr.Wilson and Microsoft are serious about finally getting on the 'compliance' bandwagon. I have to admit that I am skeptical however. Only time will tell if this is going to be the case or not. I am currently in the midst of building my own site, and with all the web development books that I have, I have to say that I find it disturbing to see all these 'I.E Hacks' presented in these materials. Surely enough, those hacks were indeed needed to get I.E to behave like the others. Personally, my take on this whole 'I.E non-compliance' scenario is that it seems like Microsoft figured that since they were the number one browser out there, they thought they could bully the W3C and the web compliance standards around. Im very happy that the web community at large didn't just 'roll over and take it'.. Perhaps this will show Microsoft that as big as it is, it cannot simply toss its weight around as it pleases (let alone being obligated to fullfill the need of its shareholders). There are alot of competitors out there. All I can say is thank god for FireFox (amoung others).. Otherwise, we just might have had to roll over and take it. I think it is suffice to say that Microsoft has had more than a mouth full about its non-compliance to web standards. Hopefully, with I.E 7, things will start to finally change. As for me, I don't need I.E at all.. (I only use FireFox). The only current saving grace for I.E is that Microsoft's OS powers most business computers out there. Thus, the tie-in with OS functionality makes is great for companys to control how their employees use I.E. If it wasn't for that, I have a feeling I.E would have completely tanked a long time ago. We are going to hold you to your word, Chris. One of three outcomes is inevitable. 1) I.E truthfully becomes more web compliant (in which case, fantastic.. its about time!) , 2) you quite your job because it isn't going to ever be web compliant (I don't see you quititing over something Microsoft sees as petty as that) or 3) You stay because you probably get paid well to continue working on a browser that is never going to be web compliant (most likely case IMHO). But I'd love to see I.E turn around and prove me wrong, Chris. Prove me wrong. Prove us all wrong. Well, all I can say is I hope Mr.Wilson and Microsoft are serious about finally getting on the ‘compliance’ bandwagon. I have to admit that I am skeptical however. Only time will tell if this is going to be the case or not.

I am currently in the midst of building my own site, and with all the web development books that I have, I have to say that I find it disturbing to see all these ‘I.E Hacks’ presented in these materials. Surely enough, those hacks were indeed needed to get I.E to behave like the others.

Personally, my take on this whole ‘I.E non-compliance’ scenario is that it seems like Microsoft figured that since they were the number one browser out there, they thought they could bully the W3C and the web compliance standards around. Im very happy that the web community at large didn’t just ‘roll over and take it’.. Perhaps this will show Microsoft that as big as it is, it cannot simply toss its weight around as it pleases (let alone being obligated to fullfill the need of its shareholders). There are alot of competitors out there. All I can say is thank god for FireFox (amoung others).. Otherwise, we just might have had to roll over and take it.

I think it is suffice to say that Microsoft has had more than a mouth full about its non-compliance to web standards. Hopefully, with I.E 7, things will start to finally change. As for me, I don’t need I.E at all.. (I only use FireFox). The only current saving grace for I.E is that Microsoft’s OS powers most business computers out there. Thus, the tie-in with OS functionality makes is great for companys to control how their employees use I.E. If it wasn’t for that, I have a feeling I.E would have completely tanked a long time ago.

We are going to hold you to your word, Chris. One of three outcomes is inevitable. 1) I.E truthfully becomes more web compliant (in which case, fantastic.. its about time!) , 2) you quite your job because it isn’t going to ever be web compliant (I don’t see you quititing over something Microsoft sees as petty as that) or 3) You stay because you probably get paid well to continue working on a browser that is never going to be web compliant (most likely case IMHO).

But I’d love to see I.E turn around and prove me wrong, Chris.
Prove me wrong. Prove us all wrong.

]]> By: emphatic http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1907 emphatic Wed, 28 Jun 2006 21:58:27 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-1907 In the meantime what's a active designer to do. Which platform should we target? Would it be best to target the 'Acid2' spec? I currently spend too much extra time coding for ie6, ie7, and ff. What's really frustrating is that often I can get ie6 and ff to achieve synchronicity much more easily than I can get ie6 and ie7 to render the same page in the same way. While, I'm certain some of the problem is my own poor coding practices, it certainly would be much easier to improve if there were one goal to shoot for. In the meantime what’s a active designer to do. Which platform should we target? Would it be best to target the ‘Acid2′ spec? I currently spend too much extra time coding for ie6, ie7, and ff. What’s really frustrating is that often I can get ie6 and ff to achieve synchronicity much more easily than I can get ie6 and ie7 to render the same page in the same way. While, I’m certain some of the problem is my own poor coding practices, it certainly would be much easier to improve if there were one goal to shoot for.

]]> By: Almond DeMarkrie http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1337 Almond DeMarkrie Fri, 02 Jun 2006 13:28:15 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-1337 James, enough of the trendy-terminology already. Remove "tag soup" from your vocabulay this instant. James, enough of the trendy-terminology already. Remove “tag soup” from your vocabulay this instant.

]]> By: James Moore http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1117 James Moore Wed, 24 May 2006 01:03:54 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-1117 I hope that XHTML rendering as 'application/xhtml+xml' (the way to actually get it rendered as XHTML, as opposed to tag soup) is high on the list. Currently, it doesn't even try. I hope that XHTML rendering as ‘application/xhtml+xml’ (the way to
actually get it rendered as XHTML, as opposed to tag soup) is high on
the list. Currently, it doesn’t even try.

]]> By: Brady J. Frey http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-1103 Brady J. Frey Tue, 23 May 2006 04:32:12 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-1103 I can see that -- though I think inconsistencies will be something we'll be tolerating for the duration of our careers, atleast to some small extent. Thanks for the compliments:) hopefull we'll get that old rickety site down here in a few weeks! I can see that — though I think inconsistencies will be something we’ll be tolerating for the duration of our careers, atleast to some small extent.

Thanks for the compliments:) hopefull we’ll get that old rickety site down here in a few weeks!

]]> By: Jordan Clark http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-897 Jordan Clark Sun, 14 May 2006 19:36:54 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-897 @Brady J. Frey: Just to clarify: by calling <abbr title="Cascading Style Sheets">CSS</abbr> layout an "endurance test", I was mainly referring to people who have learnt web design using table-based layout techniques. I totally agree with your point about not resorting to the font/spacer-GIF tactics (and I certainly don't!). I just think that the various rendering inconsistencies among browsers certainly put off those accustomed to using tables as a layout mechanism. PS: Really like your <a href="http://www.dotfive.com/" rel="nofollow">dotfive</a> website, perhaps you <em>could</em> show me what you do differently from me - I am always open to good advice! :) @Brady J. Frey:
Just to clarify: by calling CSS layout an “endurance test”, I was mainly referring to people who have learnt web design using table-based layout techniques. I totally agree with your point about not resorting to the font/spacer-GIF tactics (and I certainly don’t!). I just think that the various rendering inconsistencies among browsers certainly put off those accustomed to using tables as a layout mechanism.
PS: Really like your dotfive website, perhaps you could show me what you do differently from me – I am always open to good advice! :)

]]> By: Chris Wilson http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-880 Chris Wilson Sat, 13 May 2006 21:00:53 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-880 Not yet, I'm not. Gérard, of course I'm going to quit one day. I don't think that day will be really soon, though. -Chris Wilson Not yet, I’m not.

Gérard, of course I’m going to quit one day. I don’t think that day will be really soon, though.

-Chris Wilson

]]> By: Event Horizon http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-878 Event Horizon Sat, 13 May 2006 18:12:34 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-878 OMG. Chris is quitting. OMG. Chris is quitting.

]]> By: Brady J. Frey http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/comment-page-1/#comment-857 Brady J. Frey Sat, 13 May 2006 02:31:03 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2006/05/11/yes-we-have-the-power/#comment-857 I haven't had a reason to run on old school methods in the last 3 years, and I find it extremely easy to build with CSS every site we do. So what am I doing different than you are, Jordan? Sure I have a few IE issues here and there as usual, but that's quick most of the time now -- I find it an endurance test to go back to a font/spacer gif structured table based concoction. I haven’t had a reason to run on old school methods in the last 3 years, and I find it extremely easy to build with CSS every site we do. So what am I doing different than you are, Jordan? Sure I have a few IE issues here and there as usual, but that’s quick most of the time now — I find it an endurance test to go back to a font/spacer gif structured table based concoction.

]]>