 | | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) Why do you consider this difference in behavior between the two browsers to be "broken" in IE5? Obviously, I can make the reverse argument and say it is "broken" in Nav. Neither browser is going to change this behaviour, it will break (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) It selected an item in the list which didn't have the "SELECTED" attribute. That's broken, period. (...) aha. --Todd (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) This is referring to the "many-from-many" (a.k.a. "MULTIPLE") version of <SELECT>, BTW, not to the "one-from-many" version of <SELECT>. --Todd (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) Well, maybe you're right about that after all. According to section 8.1.3 of RFC1866[1] (HTML 2.0), "[t]he initial state has the first option selected, unless a SELECTED attribute is present on any of the <OPTION> elements." (This is (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) Ok, well I couldn't stop from smiling when I read your post. It sounds to me that Netscape did a little "embracing and extending" of its own in this area :) (...) I don't understand your question... (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) I have a web page on www.lugnet.com which sends out four multiple-select lists. In each of those lists, I want _none_ of the list items to be pre-selected. If the user clicks Submit without explicitly selecting any items in any of those list (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) Ok, just so I understand this, you're saying that MS, a company that is almost universally condemned for _not_ adhering to standards, should have done what others (and maybe you) have screamed about all along - that is violate those standards? (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
"Asher Kobin" <asherk@pobox.com> wrote in message news:FrqHo3.2KJ@lugnet.com... (...) MacOS9... (...) with the (...) the (...) item at (...) to (...) How come I can't get IE5 to reproduce this on my machine? Here is the page I was using to test it. (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) I'm saying: IMHO, it is unfortunate that Microsoft did not do what Netscape did in that case, which was to violate the spec as Netscape did. The spec ended up changing in 4.0 anyway, so if MS has done what NN did, then at least the top 2 (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message news:FrqMLK.LCo@lugnet.com... [snip] (...) probably (...) rather (...) goes (...) experience, (...) The problem with that is "arguably broken" is subjective. If one vendor thinks the standard is (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) Correction! Fixed in MSIE5! (Yay!) (...) Hmm, yet MSIE *did* change this behavior at some point between MSIE3 and MSIE5 (which is a good thing, IMHO, even if it breaks compatibility with previous versions, because it creates fewer new problems (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
|
(...) LOL! Alpha 1 of MSIE 3.0 didn't even come out until March 1996.[1] MSIE 3.0 was released August 1996. My MSIE 3.02 executable is dated June 4, 1997. (...) Tail end of 1997, yes. (...) March 1999. (...) No, my beef still is having to be aware (...) (24 years ago, 20-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
