Not surprising from a paper that started out being dubbed "the people's paper". I like Hebert and Travers though. Other than that... I generally read the G&M. But I guess they're all gonna be under the same tent now... I suppose that's the idea.

man, you guys are such conservatives. haha

Whiney kids are future Conservatives

why should pixel-perfect placement be too much to ask?
As long as the browser follows the rules it shouldn't be a problem at all... unfortunately IE doesn't follow the rules.

My favourite piece of IE stupidity is that if you have div of defined height/width, and all you have in that div is floated images, IE will add 7px to the bottom of the div creating an odd mystery gap. Took me forever to figure out what the hell was happening.

Clarky all the Skylines are gone! Well have to wait for the R34 anyways.

I never said I wanted pixel-perfect placement. But if you want two divs to line up (as is often the case), IE is a pain in the ass for getting it done. Which is to say, it doesn't lay things out in a logical manner.

There's a box model which says that margin space is outside an element, borders border the element and padding space is inside. It's simple. The width of the element goes border to border. So, if you set the margin, padding and borders up, the browser should render it that way.

And IE does this. Sometimes. It sometimes counts borders in element widths. And sometimes, it doesn't. And sometimes it counts padding. And sometimes, it doesn't. And if there's an image, it sometimes adds 3 pixels of padding for some godawful and utterly inexplicable reason. And...

The list of special cases goes on and on. And if you want things to line up, either forget about it, or learn the special cases. Logic? Never heard of it.

As for DHTML, I'm not really knowledgeable enough to know what the problem is. I do know that FF1.5 provides "better accessibility support including DHTML accessibility". I don't know what that means, but I'd suggest it's worth a try to see if the problem is solved. (If one wished to further advocate for Firefox, one might point out that there are regular feature updates for the browser, an idea that is somewhat lacking in IE.)

Bear in mind, I don't think it's anywhere near perfect. There are some memory issues. And it sometimes crashes (I think it may have to do with that Linux multimedia plugin; I'm not sure.) But from a user's and web developer's perspective, it's a hell of a lot better than the default.

I dunno man, I've never had any problems with IE when coding stuff, but I'm a big proponent of DHTML, being as anti-Flash as I am. Besides, if you want pixel-perfect placement for things why are you hard-coding it anyway? That takes fuckin forever, and it's really not worth your time when you can get something like Dreamweaver and that's that.

I would like to point out that, Beck's video problem probably has as much to do with the fact that there isn't really a seamless video plugin for Firefox on Linux as anything else.

Also, as Beck can attest to, for just about anything else you want to do with web design, Firefox is head-and-shoulders above IE from the designer's perspective. For placement of objects in CSS, it can actually count pixels properly. For javascript, it doesn't implode when your javascript uses a variable name that matches the id of a div in your HTML. It handles transparent pngs without nebulous workarounds. And it deals with CSS logically. Meaning if you write a layout that makes sense, lo and behold! It works as you intended in Firefox. (Meanwhile, IE leaves you a broken man, crying in the corner wondering what you did to deserve these patches of naked scalp.)

I mean, something as simple as a minimum width for an object, which one would think would be fairly straightforward and is in agreed-upon web standard, requires a hideous workaround, one that becomes unfathomable months down the road. (If you want an example, check out this CSS file and look at the minimum width hack for IE. I don't understand how that works anymore. Nor do I know how to modify that.)

...
Wow, that turned into a rant in a hurry. I suppose, though, that I should leave the cataloguing of the pains of designing for IE to Mr. Beckett, who I believe has a rather lengthy list to that effect. I mean, DHTML is one thing. I'm talking about everything else.

hmm... I shouldn't have copied and pasted that last post. They spelled Mastodon wrong.

July 11 at Shaw:
SLAYER w/
LAMB OF GOD
MASTADON
CHILDREN OF BODOM
THINE EYES BLEED


fuckzyess.