Locking in to IE8 vs IE7 using CSS?

#11

"dorayme" <doraymeRidThis (AT) optusnet (DOT) com.au> wrote

Quote:

In article <hcr3ti$svn$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

"Neredbojias" <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB8E4708E26Eneredbojiasnano (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net...
On 03 Nov 2009, Pedro Sousa <pedro.sousa (AT) fcsh (DOT) unl.pt> wrote:

IE8 totally screws CSS. unbelievable

No it doesn't. Yes, there are some mistakes, but all browsers have
some mistakes; I can show you mistakes in Opera which is touted as the
finest css-renderer out there.

Ah yes, Opera. position: absolute in a parent container that is also
absolutely positioned fails!

On my Opera 10 for Mac, for example,

#absolute {
position: absolute;
top: 50px;
left: 50px;
}

#absolutelyAbsolute {
position: absolute;
top: 0;
left: 0;
}

div id="absolute">...
p id="absolutelyAbsolute"><img src="pics/crimson.png"></p
/div

does not fail?

Yes, it's conditional on using both top/bottom or left/right positioning
together

See:

http://nrkn.com/opera9Bug/
http://nrkn.com/opera9Bug/min/

And my original posting:
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html/browse_thread/thread/4b00c8815bfc8c5f>

#12

In article <hcr7bo$hln$1 (AT) news (DOT) eternal-september.org>,
"Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"dorayme"
"Nik Coughlin"

Ah yes, Opera. position: absolute in a parent container that is also
absolutely positioned fails!

On my Opera 10 for Mac... [this above]

does not fail?

Yes, it's conditional on using both top/bottom or left/right positioning
together

See:

http://nrkn.com/opera9Bug/
http://nrkn.com/opera9Bug/min/

And my original posting:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.html/browse_thread/thread/4b00c8815bfc8c5f

OK, something complicated... that will teach me for picking up fag
ends... <g>

--
dorayme

#13

On 03 Nov 2009, "Nik Coughlin" <nrkn.com (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

"Neredbojias" <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB8E4708E26Eneredbojiasnano (AT) news (DOT) albasani.net...
On 03 Nov 2009, Pedro Sousa <pedro.sousa (AT) fcsh (DOT) unl.pt> wrote:

IE8 totally screws CSS. unbelievable

No it doesn't. Yes, there are some mistakes, but all browsers have
some mistakes; I can show you mistakes in Opera which is touted as
the finest css-renderer out there.

Ah yes, Opera. position: absolute in a parent container that is also
absolutely positioned fails!

Ja, das iz it. And as you indicate in a later post, it's from *where*.
Positioning the child from the left is no problem but positioning it
from the right is screwing up the little overlay images in my movie
page. Shalzbutt!

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

#14

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:

On 06 Oct 2009, Jack <jacks3113 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />"
-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't mean to get into the "FireFox versus IE" topic, but to me,
this sounds like a good idea. If I'm going to do my best to make
sure my website is the best and most current CSS ran site I can make
it, I don't want Microsoft to come along and screw it up.

What do you think?

The meta tag is probably a good idea

Will IE8 respond the same way to a real "X-UA-Compatible" HTTP header?

sherm--

#15

On 04 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Quote:

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

On 06 Oct 2009, Jack <jacks3113 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />"
-----------------------------------------------------------

I don't mean to get into the "FireFox versus IE" topic, but to me,
this sounds like a good idea. If I'm going to do my best to make
sure my website is the best and most current CSS ran site I can make
it, I don't want Microsoft to come along and screw it up.

What do you think?

The meta tag is probably a good idea

Will IE8 respond the same way to a real "X-UA-Compatible" HTTP header?

Yes. Here's a good article re. the subject:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

#16

Neredbojias <neredbojias (AT) gmail (DOT) com> writes:

Quote:

On 04 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <spamtrap (AT) shermpendley (DOT) com> wrote:

Will IE8 respond the same way to a real "X-UA-Compatible" HTTP header?

Yes. Here's a good article re. the subject:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype

Excellent! Thanks for the link.

sherm--

#17

Neredbojias wrote:

Quote:

On 06 Oct 2009, Jack<jacks3113 (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:

snip

Quote:

meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />"
-----------------------------------------------------------

<snip>

Quote:

What do you think?

The meta tag is probably a good idea but I'll venture to say that in a
relatively short time compared to past history ie7 won't be a
significant player in the browser game, anyway.

I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing back-flips
just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict proprietary and often
ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I resist using conditional
comments.

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something else">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some more crap">

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

#18

On Nov 4, 2:34*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing back-flips
just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict proprietary and often
ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I resist using conditional
comments.

meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something"
meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something else"
meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some more crap"

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

This is an attitude that is endemic in poorly written code. "Let's
ignore the end user if it's more difficult to code." I meet it all
the time in lots of poorly written user interfaces. Don't be so
arrogant as to try and force customers to change. You will just lose
them.

www.richardfisher.com

#19

Helpful person wrote:

Quote:

On Nov 4, 2:34 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"<lws4... (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing back-flips
just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict proprietary and often
ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I resist using conditional
comments.

meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something"
meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something else"
meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some more crap"

Quote:

This is an attitude that is endemic in poorly written code.

Employing proprietary code and peppering hacks throughout your markup to
support some specific version of a browser is *not* indicative of well
written code, and often is a management nightmare! Such coded sites are
a real PITA to "fix" when they fall apart when MS fixes a bug or
introduces a new one in their next version browser.

Quote:

"Let's
ignore the end user if it's more difficult to code."

I made no such suggestion. Most times such hacks are employed in the
misguided effort to "make it look exactly the same in every browser down
to the pixel". A better approach is "gracefully degrade".

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

#20

On 04 Nov 2009, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4art (AT) centralva (DOT) net> wrote:

Quote:

Neredbojias wrote:
The meta tag is probably a good idea but I'll venture to say that in
a relatively short time compared to past history ie7 won't be a
significant player in the browser game, anyway.

I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing
back-flips just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict
proprietary and often ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I
resist using conditional comments.

meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something"
meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something
else"> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some
more crap"

I'm not agin that attitude at all and basically subscribe to it,
myself. However, there are 2 things to think about.

One, the "X-UA-Compatible" meta is designed for all browsers, not just
ie. Check out the link I posted earlier.

Two, I believe the meta is supposed to be more of a way to prevent
having to completely redo old pages authored for
conditions-of-the-times when newer, more standards-wise browsers come
out or when the standards themselves change or expand.

Anyway, sure, it may not work out to be as I described, but who's
happier, the optimist or the pessimist? Besides, one should have an
open mind even in the world of the html troglodyte.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/