Web sites that discuss IE gotchas?

[Neil Cherry]

I'm in the process of redesigning my web page and started working more
with CSS. I have, what I think is, a nice web layout (I'm no expert so
I could be wrong). When I tested it with Konqueror and Firefox it
works well (a few minor problems) but when I test it with IE 6.0 it
doesn't display or it jumbles everything up. I've tried using various
examples (conditionals) to get around IE problems but they are causing
more problems that they fix. I'd love to drop IE all together but it's
around 33% of my traffic so probably not a good idea.

Can anyone point me to site that explain how to design around IE's
problems? I've googled but I seem to be getting dribs and drabs of
information.

--
Linux Home Automation Neil Cherry nc*****@linuxha .com
http://www.linuxha.com/ Main site
http://linuxha.blogspot.com/ My HA Blog
http://home.comcast.net/~ncherry/ Backup site

[Sherm Pendley]

Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.

That is a rather meaningless statement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is it "meaningles s" to point out
that "quirks mode" results in nonstandard layout rules being applied?

sherm--

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

[Spartanicus]

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>>>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.

That is a rather meaningless statement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is it "meaningles s" to point out
that "quirks mode" results in nonstandard layout rules being applied?

Misleading is a better description.

There is no such thing as "W3C layout rules". Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner, this not even remotely the case. In IE6 a few bug
fixes have been tied to "standards mode" and IE6 applies the box model
rule that horizontal padding must be added to a specified width. But IE6
in it's so called "standards compliant" mode still has huge deficiencies
in it's CSS2 support, and a massive number of CSS bugs causing it to
behave in a non spec compliant manner.

--
Spartanicus

[Sherm Pendley]

Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>>>>That results in different, non-W3C layout rules being applied.

That is a rather meaningless statement.

I'm not sure what you're getting at. How is it "meaningles s" to point out
that "quirks mode" results in nonstandard layout rules being applied?

Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner

I'm suggesting no such thing. I didn't even mention IE, or *any* specific
browser. Most browsers have a "quirks mode" at this point. Neither am I
suggesting that "standards" mode results in any particular browser behaving
in a perfectly W3C-compliant manner.

"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

In other words, the two modes aren't simply different levels of success in
reaching the goal of W3C compliance, and characterizing them as such is what
would be misleading. They're different goals entirely, with different rules
being applied in the attempt to reach them.

sherm--

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

[Spartanicus]

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>Disregarding that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner

I'm suggesting no such thing. I didn't even mention IE, or *any* specific
browser.

The context was IE's quirks mode rendering.

>Most browsers have a "quirks mode" at this point. Neither am I
suggesting that "standards" mode results in any particular browser behaving
in a perfectly W3C-compliant manner.

"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

Better, but still misleading. Here you mention the concept of "tag
soup", you imply that this is linked to older browsers and a certain way
of rendering, both are incorrect. "Tag soup" refers to HTML code which
does not validate against one of the public HTML DTDs and/or is not
authored for semantics. All WWW browsers are explicitly designed to
handle tag soup. Neither tag soup code and the fact that browsers are
designed to handle it has a intrinsic relation to quirks mode and/or
standards mode rendering.

--
Spartanicus

[Sherm Pendley]

Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>>Disregardin g that, you are
suggesting that triggering "standards mode" in IE makes it behave in a
spec compliant manner

I'm suggesting no such thing. I didn't even mention IE, or *any* specific
browser.

The context was IE's quirks mode rendering.

Oh, I see now, you're referring to the "IE gotchas" in the subject. We appear
to have drifted quite a ways from the original context. I was referring to
"quirks mode" in general, not to any specific browser's implementation of it.
I've changed the subject to reflect the topic drift - is that better?

>>Most browsers have a "quirks mode" at this point. Neither am I
suggesting that "standards" mode results in any particular browser behaving
in a perfectly W3C-compliant manner.

"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

Better, but still misleading. Here you mention the concept of "tag
soup", you imply

I meant what I said, no more and no less. Please stop putting words in my
mouth and then telling me that they're wrong.

Neither tag soup code and the fact that browsers are
designed to handle it has a intrinsic relation to quirks mode and/or
standards mode rendering.

Huh? "Quirks mode" is not merely related to tag soup, its express purpose is
to handle it in a manner that is more consistent with older browsers than the
"standards mode" would allow for. If it weren't for tag soup, there would have
been no need for modal processing to begin with.

sherm--

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

[VK]

Sherm Pendley wrote:

Huh? "Quirks mode" is not merely related to tag soup, its express purpose is
to handle it in a manner that is more consistent with older browsers than the
"standards mode" would allow for. If it weren't for tag soup, there would have
been no need for modal processing to begin with.

There is not "Quirks mode" as a technical term as such. It is a slang
word, and as many slang words it may refer to a widest variety of of
things depending on who's using it - just like with "tag soup" slang
term. This way trying to find some exact technical meaning of "Quirks
mode" is pointless.

In the technical aspect there is compatMode ("Compatabil ity Mode")
which is either BackCompat or CSS1Compat and can be read (but not set)
from document.compat Mode.

Skipping on euphemistical blah-blah:
BackCompat mode is "How IE did, does and will do by its own standards".
CSS1Compat mode means "As close as we could get to how W3C wants us to
do".

Originally introduced in IE6, it was adopted by all rivals as well:
because besides the commitment to the standards many people also have
more material needs to ensure, which is difficult to do with a company
went under ;-)

BackCompat/CSS1Compat switch is based on DOCTYPE declaration as
specified at
<http://msdn.microsoft. com/library/default.asp?url =/library/en-us/dnie60/html/cssenhancements .asp>

This is the original MSDN specs but other UAs are going by it as well.

Despite the switch is based on DOCTYPE declaration, it has no relation
of any kindr to DTD issues. It was just chosen by Microsoft as a formal
sign, because it is always conveniently allocated (if presented) at the
very top of the document.

So this switch gave developers a choice to 1) place a proper DOCTYPE
declaration and do with the W3C standards - taking into account broken
or underimplemente d standards on a particular browser or 2) do not use
DOCTYPE and "give up to Microsoft".

So far the trend still seems staying on the first option.

>From the other side it is like with fairness: more you brake it -

easier to brake it even more the next time.

See for instance what does Firefox have to propose just one year after
the "fall for BackCompat":

<html>
<head>
<title>BackComp at</title>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type"
content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<style type="text/css">

html * {
-moz-box-sizing: border-box;
}

body {
background-color: #FFFFFF;
color: #000000;
}
</style>
</head>
<body onload="window. alert(document. compatMode)">
<div style="
width: 550px;
height: 400px;
background-color: #FFFF00;
margin: 0px 0px;
padding: 20px auto;
border: 1px solid red;
">
<div style="
width: 100%;
background-color: #FF0000;
margin: 0px 0px;
padding: 20px auto;
border: 1px solid yellow;
">Demo</div>
</div>
</body>
</html>

[Spartanicus]

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>>>"Standards mode", simply put, is an attempt to follow W3C recommendations
as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is considered a bug. "Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible. Deviation from W3C specs is by design.

Better, but still misleading. Here you mention the concept of "tag
soup", you imply

I meant what I said, no more and no less. Please stop putting words in my
mouth and then telling me that they're wrong.

Several claims you made in this thread have been wrong. Other statements
have been vague, likely to be misunderstood, ergo: misleading. If you
can't handle this being pointed out then usenet is not for you.

>Neither tag soup code and the fact that browsers are
designed to handle it has a intrinsic relation to quirks mode and/or
standards mode rendering.

Huh? "Quirks mode" is not merely related to tag soup, its express purpose is
to handle it in a manner that is more consistent with older browsers than the
"standards mode" would allow for. If it weren't for tag soup, there would have
been no need for modal processing to begin with.

Look up "intrinsic" in the dictionary and re-read the definition of "tag
soup" that I provided.

--
Spartanicus

[Sherm Pendley]

Spartanicus <in*****@invali d.invalidwrites :

Several claims you made in this thread have been wrong.

No, the claims you invented and then tried to attribute to me were wrong,
hence my request to please stop putting words in my mouth.

Please - respond to what I actually said, or don't respond at all.

Frankly, I suggest the latter. I'm killfiling this thread anyway, since it
appears to be going nowhere useful. The OP's problem has been solved, and
I don't see how this endless hair-splitting you want to indulge in could
possibly be of any use.

sherm--

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

[Spartanicus]

Sherm Pendley <sp******@dot-app.orgwrote:

>Several claims you made in this thread have been wrong.

No, the claims you invented and then tried to attribute to me were wrong,

Again both of these claims you made are wrong:

>>The absence of a DTD declaration on the first line of an HTML document will
trigger so-called "quirks mode" in many browsers.

>>"Quirks
mode", by contrast, is an attempt to emulate the behavior of older "tag soup"
browsers as closely as possible

>I don't see how this endless hair-splitting you want to indulge in could
possibly be of any use.

It is an attempt to prevent /others/ from accepting your erroneous and
misleading information. I don't care about what you find useful or not.

--
Spartanicus