Instead of freebsd.com, why not...
Vonleigh Simmons
nospam at illusionart.com
Tue Feb 15 13:45:20 GMT 2005
>> no they did and could point out specific problems and likely
>> intentional changes.
>
> Where can I see a list of these?
Here are just a few:
<http://www.positioniseverything.net/ie-primer.html>
A very basic one is the box model problem. Basically if you define the
width of a box to be 100 pixels, and you put in a padding of 10 pixels,
the total box size should be 120 pixels (100 pixels plus the 10 pixels
on each side for the padding). However, explorer decided to take the
width as the total size, so in the above example the box is only 100
pixels wide instead of 120.
It would be ridiculously easy to fix it and behave as the standard
dictates, however, they refuse to do it. This is a major problem and
can completely destroy a design.
Another major thing that would be easy to fix is the handling of
transparent pings. This would allow great versatility in site design,
and many times I would've loved to use it. What Explorer does however
is not just disregard the transparency, which would make it workable,
but puts a light blue background behind the whole transparent image; a
behaviour that makes no sense. Not only that, using proprietary IE code
is the only way to make transparency work, and it doesn't work with
repeating images (so the code is there to make it work, they just make
you use IE only code for it to work).
And these are just a few examples, on every single site I've designed
I've run into new issues. Explorer is the worst browser when it comes
to standards compliance, I have spent too many hours hacking up my code
that works beautifully in every other browser, just so it works in
Explorer.
> It did better than any other overall.
Next time STFW (really, google turns up many pages describing problems
web designers have with IE), or at least don't talk about something you
have no idea about.
Vonleigh Simmons
<http://illusionart.com/>
More information about the freebsd-questions
mailing list