[thelist] Netscape 6 Ques already.

[Morbus Iff]

 >Hmm, a blanket statement. I strongly suspect you won't be right 100% of the
 >time. For example, I have a site which relies on tightly defined tables

Neither would I actually. I hate saying strong statements. I retract it 
pitifully, and hope others, as you did, will hook on to the "gist" of my 
statement...

 >However, the new Netscape 6 breaks some of my tables, because it has even
 >longer than normal text-input fields. That's not because I didn't do my job

What's normal? Is Internet Explorer's rendering normal? Or is Netscape's 
rendering normal? Is there a w3c specified ideal for the width and height 
of input fields (without CSS)? Is there a browser that accurately follows 
these ideals?

 >right, it's because Netscape apparently has chosen to change their base
 >assumptions in such a way that their text-input fields don't conform to any
 >of the currently adopted parameters.

Is that such a bad thing? First off, I'm playing devil's advocate. Yeah, 
it's hella annoying to have to compensate for *another* browser's 
rendering. But if there's no set standard or normalization on one thing or 
another, is it really our place to say "hey! they did it *wrong*" when 
there wasn't a *right* in the first place (again, this assumes there's no 
w3c specified width and height on the input's).

James Aylard wrote:
>there can be no doubt that the browser is far from perfect. As you may know,
>there has been considerable controversy in the development world recently
>over whether Netscape 6 is, in fact, ready for prime time.

True, but the thingies that the O'Reilly writer (whose name I have 
forgotten) brought up were neither related to host headers, or in this 
case, to input text fields. I know, though. Again, I play devil's advocate. 
I don't think it's ready for prime time either, as the latest pr3 was horrible.


Morbus Iff
.sig on other machine.
http://www.disobey.com/
http://www.gamegrene.com/