Standards Compliant Browsers

QUESTION: With the understanding that there is likely no simple
solution could someone provide the best online resource/resources available
that treats/treat the nature of this technical barrier and how to overcome it?

I am particularly concerned about XHTML, CSS2.1, and DOM.

SOURCE PAGE: http://www.webdevout.net/firefox-myths#standards_compliant

Roddy :smile;

What is your question?

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"kiusau" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

QUESTION: With the understanding that there is likely no simple
solution could someone provide the best online resource/resources
available
that treats/treat the nature of this technical barrier and how to overcome
it?

I am particularly concerned about XHTML, CSS2.1, and DOM.

SOURCE PAGE:
http://www.webdevout.net/firefox-myths#standards_compliant

Roddy :smile;

best online resource/resources available
that treats/treat the nature of this technical barrier and how to overcome
it?

Can you re-phrase and clarify?

I have read this 10 times and I'm still not sure what is being asked :-)

--
Regards

John Waller

I'd suggest you design for IE7, and then make any adjustments you need to for
Firefox. The more simplified you keep your markup the lower your chance for
cross browser compatibility issues. Once you have IE7 and Firefox set, check
IE6. Here's a good article on building a test bed:

http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/03/17/building-the-best-browser-test-suite/

..oO(JoeyD1978)

I'd suggest you design for IE7, and then make any adjustments you need to for
Firefox.

I would design for standards-compliant browsers first, _then_ make
adjustments for broken browsers if necessary.

Micha

Definitely agree with you Micha. Design for FF first.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"Michael Fesser" <netizen (AT) gmx (DOT) de> wrote

.oO(JoeyD1978)

I'd suggest you design for IE7, and then make any adjustments you need to
for
Firefox.

I would design for standards-compliant browsers first, _then_ make
adjustments for broken browsers if necessary.

Micha

I base that advice on the fact that IE (still) has the dominant market share.
This site shows data (only glanced at it mind ya) that I figured was about
right: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

However, looking at the last few months on W3Schools is surprising:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Granted their stats are
more than likely slanted, but regardless of that Firefox usage has grown 10% in
12 months. That's huge!

Either way, how does it not make sense to put the most effort towards the
experience of the majority of users?

Also, if it's standards compliance we should build for - then shouldn't we build for (and test first in) Opera, Chrome or Safari? They're the only browsers that pass the Acid3 test.

Your design for the most common browser won't even work properly in IE8.

Taking a layout that may contain invalid/proprietary markup either ignored
by or understood by a partially standards compliant browser and trying to
fix that layout for other more standards compliant browsers is always going
to be harder than taking a page that validates and is fully standards
compliant, and adding IE conditional comments as needed.

--
Murray --- ICQ 71997575
Adobe Community Expert
(If you *MUST* email me, don't LAUGH when you do so!)
==================
http://www.projectseven.com/go - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
http://www.dwfaq.com - DW FAQs, Tutorials & Resources
==================


"JoeyD1978" <webforumsuser (AT) macromedia (DOT) com> wrote

I base that advice on the fact that IE (still) has the dominant market
share.
This site shows data (only glanced at it mind ya) that I figured was about
right: http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0

However, looking at the last few months on W3Schools is surprising:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Granted their stats
are
more than likely slanted, but regardless of that Firefox usage has grown
10% in
12 months. That's huge!

Either way, how does it not make sense to put the most effort towards the
experience of the majority of users?

..oO(JoeyD1978)

Also, if it's standards compliance we should build for - then shouldn't
we build for (and test first in) Opera, Chrome or Safari?

Exactly. Or Firefox. Just pick one standards-compliant browser as your
main development tool (personally I prefer Opera for various reasons).
If written properly, your site will simply work in all other modern
browsers, you don't have to deeply test each one. There might be some
little differences or even little problems here and there, but nothing
really serious. The only big problem is IE 6, the smaller problem IE 7.

Now if you would do it the other way round and design for IE 6 instead,
then you're designing for a totally broken browser and might get all
kinds of strange and unpredictable results in modern browsers. Good luck
with fixing them.

It's much easier and future-proof to adhere to the written standards.
Even MS can't ignore them any longer (and we all know that they did),
because standards-compliance becomes more and more important. In order
to keep up with modern browsers they simply had no other choice than
properly implementing the standards in their new IE 8.

Of course you also have to support IE 6 in some way, because it's still
widely used. But it's a dying technology (thankfully) and more and more
becoming an archaic relict from the dark ages. There's no point anymore
in building sites explicitly and only for that "thing".

They're the
only browsers that pass the Acid3 test.

It's nice to pass Acid 3, but IMHO it has no real relevance in practice.

Micha