Subject:
|
Re: MSIE5 better but still buggy (was: Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Mon, 20 Mar 2000 20:36:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1431 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> > Thus, it appears that Netscape _went against_ the HTML 2.0 spec when it
> > implemented the <SELECT> tag, and that Microsoft _adhered_ to the HTML 2.0
> > spec when it implemented the <SELECT> tag. We could say then that it's
> > actually the spec itself which is broken, since it provides no way to
> > guarantee that a multiple-select list box comes up with exactly zero items
> > preselected. To its credit, in violating the HTML 2.0 spec, Netscape made
> > the <SELECT> tag work better than it was intended to. It is unfortunate
> > (IMHO) that Microsoft did not also violate the spec.
>
> 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? :)
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 browsers would do the same thing. It's NN's fault for going against
the spec in the first place, and MS made it worse by not following in NN's
footsteps. After all, the spec exists to ensure compatibility. I suppose
that MS's standpoint (one can only guess) is that Netscape would eventually
come around and fix their broken NN to adhere to the 2.0 spec. Instead, the
spec changed to be neither in NN's favor nor MS's favor, which is even worse
than the spec staying the same.
> Ever heard the phrase _____ if they do, _____ if they don't?
Ultimately, the blame for the issue lies with Netscape. (Assuming that NN
was the first major browser to violate the 2.0 specification of <SELECT>.)
However, Netscape's broken implementation of <SELECT> was smarter and wiser
than the spec was, so what they did wasn't a bad thing from a UI point of view,
even if it was a bad thing from an adherence-to-standards point of view. What
Microsoft did in implementing <SELECT> "properly" was not a good thing from
either a UI point of view or an HTML coder's point of view, even if it was a
good thing from an adherence-to-standards point of view.
Whether the standards are more important than the UI experience is probably
a hotly debatable issue, but IMHO the standards exist to serve the UI, rather
than the other way around (just my opinion). If a major browser vendor goes
against an arguably broken standard in a way which improves the UI experience,
it's better for everyone IMHO if the other major vendors also do the same,
even if it shames the spec.
In other words, IMHO, what Netscape did was _wrong_ but _good_. And what
Microsoft did was _right_ but _bad_. (IMHO.)
--Todd
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
131 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
