What fonts are equivalent on different platforms?

Wes Groleau wrote:

You do realise that Mac IE is a completely different beast to Win IE?

Of course. However, it DOES have some of the same flaws ....

Such as what ?

Wes Groleau <groleau+news (AT) freeshell (DOT) org> writes:

If I want to see how IE on Windows screws things up,
I need to go somewhere where there's a Windows machine.

Or VirtualPC.

If I'm too lazy to travel that far, the closest I can
get is IE on Mac.

IE/Mac is no closer to that than Safari. IE/Mac uses an entirely different
code base. It's the same browser in name only.

Which often does screw things up
in a similar fashion.

Opera might very well do the same, and for the same reason - coincidence.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Andy Dingley wrote:

Wes Groleau wrote:

You do realise that Mac IE is a completely different beast to Win IE?
Of course. However, it DOES have some of the same flaws ....

Such as what ?

Could we start with the incorrect box model implementation?

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Daily Hoax: http://www.snopes2.com/cgi-bin/random/random.asp

Sherm Pendley wrote:

IE/Mac is no closer to that than Safari. IE/Mac uses an entirely different
code base. It's the same browser in name only.

Name and overall appearance. And some specific details.

Which often does screw things up
in a similar fashion.

Opera might very well do the same, and for the same reason - coincidence.

It might. I have seen Opera screw some things up.
But so far, I have not seen it screw up in the
same manner as IE.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------
Curmudgeon's Complaints on Courtesy:
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
(Not necessarily my opinion, but worth reading)

Wes Groleau <groleau+news (AT) freeshell (DOT) org> writes:

Sherm Pendley wrote:
IE/Mac is no closer to that than Safari. IE/Mac uses an entirely different
code base. It's the same browser in name only.

Name and overall appearance. And some specific details.

IE/Mac is a *different* *browser* than IE/Win. I've been to the MacBU at
Microsoft, and talked face-to-face with the authors. I asked them about this.
There's no code in common. None.

The fact that a site works (or doesn't work) in IE/Mac tells you absolutely
*nothing* about how it will work in IE/Windows.

sherm--

--
Web Hosting by West Virginians, for West Virginians: http://wv-www.net
Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net

Sherm Pendley wrote:

IE/Mac is a *different* *browser* than IE/Win. I've been to the MacBU at
Microsoft, and talked face-to-face with the authors. I asked them about this.
There's no code in common. None.

I won't question that at all. Nevertheless, it's not hard
to see that they obviously made an effort to imitate some
of the appearance and some of the UI behavior. And, ...

The fact that a site works (or doesn't work) in IE/Mac tells you absolutely
*nothing* about how it will work in IE/Windows.

It's certainly no guarantee, but my experience is that for
two browsers to interpret HTML or CSS significantly differently
happens less often when the two are IE/Win and IE/Mac than
when one of them is not IE.

It's a probability thing, not a "they are the same" thing.

On the other hand, I recently tried a CSS trick that the author
said would not work in IE and it DID work in IE/Mac. The author
firmly stated I was mistaken; it is impossible.

--
Wes Groleau

"A man with an experience is never
at the mercy of a man with an argument."
-- Ron Allen

Toby Inkster wrote:

Wes Groleau wrote:

Could we start with the incorrect box model implementation?

IE/Mac 5.x gets the box model right, though it does have a "quirks mode"
which gets it wrong -- so do most other browsers though.

How do you turn this mode off? Apparently it's on by default,
because I never even heard of it, and it's wrong here.

--
Wes Groleau

A bureaucrat is someone who cuts red tape lengthwise.

Toby Inkster wrote:

Wes Groleau wrote:
How do you turn [quirks] mode off? Apparently it's on by default,
because I never even heard of it, and it's wrong here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode

Hmmm. All my pages start with either HTML 4.01 strict
or XHTML 1.0 strict (all right, MOST of them). And
they generally validate (minor errors which I fix).
So according to this article, IE and all the others
should show me similar results.

Hmmm.

--
Wes Groleau
-----------

"Thinking I'm dumb gives people something to
feel smug about. Why should I disillusion them?"
-- Charles Wallace
(in _A_Wrinkle_In_Time_)

Wes Groleau <groleau+news (AT) freeshell (DOT) org> scripsit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode

Hmmm. All my pages start with either HTML 4.01 strict
or XHTML 1.0 strict (all right, MOST of them). And
they generally validate (minor errors which I fix).
So according to this article, IE and all the others
should show me similar results.

The conclusion is completely wrong. Browsers should not be expected to
render a document in identical ways even if the document conforms to HTML
and CSS specifications and the browser works in the so-called standards mode
_or_ actually conforms to specifications (i.e., _really_ works by
standards). The reason is simple: different browsers should be expected to
behave differently. The presentation of a document may vary in aspects that
are not covered at all in CSS, and different browsers may use different
default style sheets.

Whether the wrong conclusion is based on a correct reasoning based on false
premises is irrelevant. Wikipedia is inherently unreliable and unstable and
should not be used as a reference of any kind.

--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

Wes Groleau <groleau+news (AT) freeshell (DOT) org> scripsit:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quirks_mode

Hmmm. All my pages start with either HTML 4.01 strict
or XHTML 1.0 strict (all right, MOST of them). And
they generally validate (minor errors which I fix).
So according to this article, IE and all the others
should show me similar results.

The conclusion is completely wrong. Browsers should not be expected to
render a document in identical ways even if the document conforms to

Careful--language barrier: 'similar' does not equal 'identical,'
and 'should' does not equal 'does.'

HTML and CSS specifications and the browser works in the so-called
standards mode _or_ actually conforms to specifications (i.e., _really_
works by standards). The reason is simple: different browsers should be
expected to behave differently. The presentation of a document may vary
in aspects that are not covered at all in CSS, and different browsers
may use different default style sheets.

Of course. But if I come to _this_ newsgroup, I am wanting
to deal with issues related to what IS covered in CSS, specifically
the CSS in _my_ stylesheet which should override the default.

Whether the wrong conclusion is based on a correct reasoning based on
false premises is irrelevant. Wikipedia is inherently unreliable and

I'll go along with that.

unstable and should not be used as a reference of any kind.

But not that. I see nothing wrong with using it to get
an idea of what _might_ be true.

Fact is, unless _I_ am in expert in a subject, I cannot
be completely certain that the author of anything is
both an expert and an honest person.

Insofar as anyone can put anything into Wikipedia,
it is probably about as reliable as Usenet.

--
Wes Groleau
----
The man who reads nothing at all is better educated
than the man who reads nothing but newspapers.
-- Thomas Jefferson