[thelist] NS 6 - comments anyone?

Eöl eol1 at yahoo.com
Thu Nov 1 02:09:17 CST 2001


While Moz/NS 6 does have its share of bugs and wrongly
implemented / unimplemented css, it still completely
outshines IE 6 by far.  In the last 6 months I have
did full time web development (with a job requirement
of making sure all pages render correctly in IE6 /
NS6), I have yet to see a case where IE6 renders
something correctly and Moz doesn't.  Have seen cases
where neither implement or both implement wrong, but
thats it.  Give me (more than one please, it easy to
find one or two examples) at least 3 css code snippets
that IE6 renders correctly and Moz doesn't I will
agree with your statement that IE 6 is not outshined
by Moz from a developmental standpoint.

See more inline

--- MRC Webmaster <webmaster at equilon-mrc.com> wrote:
> Eöl,
> > >From a purely web development standpoint, NS 6 is
> > about 500% better than IE 6 when it comes to
> rendering
> > css1/css2/xhtml 1.0/xhtml1.1/XSL correctly
> (without
> > starting a regious debate here, my only say on the
>     Unfortunate hyperbole. At most, Netscape 6.x or
> Mozilla is perhaps
> marginally better than IE at CSS -- and that is
> arguable -- but Netscape
> clearly has flaws of its own.
> > matter for all your IE ppl is try using
> > style="margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto" to
> > center a BLOCK element (it won't work in IE). 
> This is
> > css1 (which someone IE6 fully supports but can't
> do
> > this, do I need to go on, if so, I have a whole
>     Actually, it does work in IE 6 if you trigger
> the standards-compliance
> mode with a proper doctype declaration that includes
> a URI.

This is just plain wrong.  This is only true if you if
you use an invalid document per xhtml 1.0 (and 1.1). 
Standards require first line <?xml version="1.0"
encoding="UTF-8" ?> where encoding is option if you
want UTF-8.  IE 6 ONLY WORKS in standards-compliance
mode by removing the <?xml...> declaration.  Funny how
to use standards compliance mode you have to  break
the standards.  Imagine that (and this is with the
proper doctype also).  While sure you can get it to
work (the css snipet), once again you have to make IE
specific pages and do IE hacks just to get stuff to
render correclty.

>     Many of IE's faults lie in unimplemented
> functionality (such as full
> support for the <q> element and the resistance of
> the <select> element to
> much of CSS) or display quirks (such as the
> content-centering behavior)
> rather than in truly faulty functionality. However,
> even Mozilla 0.9.5 still
> fails to submit form elements if their display
> property is set to "none",
> which is, IMO, a functionality bug that is far more
> serious than a rendering
> quirk.

While yes this is a functionality bug, I would
disagree that it is far more serious that a rendering
*quirk* (wouldn't really call failure to display css1
a quirk).  95%+ of the web in rendered content, I have
came across this bug once and it was an easy fix to
get around.

>     Others on this list have done far more extensive
> testing of Netscape 6
> than I have, and could likely provide many more ugly
> examples of buggy
> functionality than I can. I am confident that many
> such bugs have been
> cleaned up in recent builds, but I am also confident
> that some remain.
>     Mozilla is still a pre-release browser, and for
> good reason. Its
> most-recent release is far improved over builds
> released several months ago
> in speed and reliability, but it still contains some
> serious flaws. For all
> of its shortcomings -- and there are many -- IE 6 is
> relatively stable and
> bug-free. 

Will agree here, IE 6 is more stable / bug-free

 From a development standpoint, neither
> clearly outshines the > other, IMO.>

You know my opinion of this one.
> James Aylard


Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.

More information about the thelist mailing list