I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody 
around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about 
padding).

I think sitting there with a bit of a blank face when asked how I deal with 
it is what failed me my job interview last week so no, it is not irrelivent 
in the days of IE7.

---dE|_---

On 12/1/08 3:57 pm, in article 3s5ij.7422$g%2.5774@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net,
"dE|_"  wrote:

> I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
> around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
> padding).

Which one?  You need to look at:

http://www.cssplay.co.uk
http://www.alistapart.com
http://www.positioniseverything.net

There are loads of hacks to get a page to work in IE (5, 6 and 7) and FF.
The point is that FF follows the rules.  IE doesn't.  So you get things like
double margins, margins and padding treated differently, the dreaded 3 px
bug, etc.

IE was a crock of shit at IE4 and it's still a crock of shit at IE7.
Microsoft are behaving like a petulant child by making small steps to make
their browser compliant in the hope that nobody will notice that they
haven't won the battle to dictate what the rules are.

Don't get me started on MS.  I made the mistake of replacing my old Mac
laptop for a shiny new PC laptop.  The hardware is fine.  Guess what's
screwed up for the second time within a year so badly that my £600 laptop is
sat in the corner collecting dust while I get by on a 4 year old Mac which
works perfectly, albeit a bit slowly sometimes.  Yep, Windows.

The lure of being bale to sync with my phone, etc, was just too strong and
I'm now paying the price.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 13, 7:42 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 12/1/08 3:57 pm, in article 3s5ij.7422$g%2.5...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net,
>
> "dE|_"  wrote:
> > I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
> > around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
> > padding).
>
> Which one?  You need to look at:
>
> http://www.cssplay.co.ukhttp://www.alistapart.comhttp://www.positioniseverything.net
>
> There are loads of hacks to get a page to work in IE (5, 6 and 7) and FF.
> The point is that FF follows the rules.  IE doesn't.  So you get things like
> double margins, margins and padding treated differently, the dreaded 3 px
> bug, etc.
>
> IE was a crock of shit at IE4 and it's still a crock of shit at IE7.
> Microsoft are behaving like a petulant child by making small steps to make> their browser compliant in the hope that nobody will notice that they
> haven't won the battle to dictate what the rules are.
>
> Don't get me started on MS.  I made the mistake of replacing my old Mac
> laptop for a shiny new PC laptop.  The hardware is fine.  Guess what's> screwed up for the second time within a year so badly that my £600 laptop is
> sat in the corner collecting dust while I get by on a 4 year old Mac which> works perfectly, albeit a bit slowly sometimes.  Yep, Windows.
>
> The lure of being bale to sync with my phone, etc, was just too strong and> I'm now paying the price.
>
Well.
It just so happens that I have had this PC I am useing since October
2005 and I have only had it re-formated once.
It's a pentium 4 with 1GB of ram.
I use Windows XP Home with SP2. I have not really had any problems
with Hardware.
I think you get what you pay for with computer related stuff
especially with Windows based systems.
I don't use any Windows / MS related software for web design stuff
though, it's all Open Source  for that.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 13/1/08 7:22 am, in article
c670cb38-dc0c-4e6d-8aa8-8186ee027548@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Jan 13, 7:42 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 12/1/08 3:57 pm, in article 3s5ij.7422$g%2.5...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net,
>> 
>> "dE|_"  wrote:
>>> I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
>>> around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
>>> padding).
>> 
>> Which one?  You need to look at:
>> 
>> http://www.cssplay.co.ukhttp://www.alistapart.comhttp://www.positioniseveryth
>> ing.net
>> 
>> There are loads of hacks to get a page to work in IE (5, 6 and 7) and FF.
>> The point is that FF follows the rules.  IE doesn't.  So you get things like
>> double margins, margins and padding treated differently, the dreaded 3 px
>> bug, etc.
>> 
>> IE was a crock of shit at IE4 and it's still a crock of shit at IE7.
>> Microsoft are behaving like a petulant child by making small steps to make
>> their browser compliant in the hope that nobody will notice that they
>> haven't won the battle to dictate what the rules are.
>> 
>> Don't get me started on MS.  I made the mistake of replacing my old Mac
>> laptop for a shiny new PC laptop.  The hardware is fine.  Guess what's
>> screwed up for the second time within a year so badly that my £600 laptop is
>> sat in the corner collecting dust while I get by on a 4 year old Mac which
>> works perfectly, albeit a bit slowly sometimes.  Yep, Windows.
>> 
>> The lure of being bale to sync with my phone, etc, was just too strong and
>> I'm now paying the price.
>> 
> Well.
> It just so happens that I have had this PC I am useing since October
> 2005 and I have only had it re-formated once.
> It's a pentium 4 with 1GB of ram.

A few years ago I would have argued for PCs every time.  I've got a 5 year
old eMac, my Laptop and a G5 desktop.  I don't think I've ever need to even
reboot my laptop or the G5.  I went through a phase of having to hard reboot
the eMac because I'd put some software on their to sync with my phone.  As
soon as I removed it, everything was fine.

The biggest problem I ever had with my G5 was when my mail box file on
Entourage got above 2gb and it destroyed 14,000 e-mails with no warning in a
heartbeat.  Guess who makes Entourage?

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 13, 7:04 pm, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 13/1/08 7:22 am, in article
> c670cb38-dc0c-4e6d-8aa8-8186ee027...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 13, 7:42 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 12/1/08 3:57 pm, in article 3s5ij.7422$g%2.5...@newsfe4-gui.ntli.net> >> "dE|_"  wrote:
> >>> I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
> >>> around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
> >>> padding).
>
> >> Which one?  You need to look at:
>
> >>http://www.cssplay.co.ukhttp://www.alistapart.comhttp://www.positioni...> >> ing.net
>
> >> There are loads of hacks to get a page to work in IE (5, 6 and 7) and FF.
> >> The point is that FF follows the rules.  IE doesn't.  So you get things like
> >> double margins, margins and padding treated differently, the dreaded 3 px
> >> bug, etc.
>
> >> IE was a crock of shit at IE4 and it's still a crock of shit at IE7.
> >> Microsoft are behaving like a petulant child by making small steps to make
> >> their browser compliant in the hope that nobody will notice that they
> >> haven't won the battle to dictate what the rules are.
>
> >> Don't get me started on MS.  I made the mistake of replacing my old Mac
> >> laptop for a shiny new PC laptop.  The hardware is fine.  Guess what's
> >> screwed up for the second time within a year so badly that my £600 laptop is
> >> sat in the corner collecting dust while I get by on a 4 year old Mac which
> >> works perfectly, albeit a bit slowly sometimes.  Yep, Windows.
>
> >> The lure of being bale to sync with my phone, etc, was just too strong and
> >> I'm now paying the price.
>
> > Well.
> > It just so happens that I have had this PC I am useing since October
> > 2005 and I have only had it re-formated once.
> > It's a pentium 4 with 1GB of ram.
>
> A few years ago I would have argued for PCs every time.  I've got a 5 year
> old eMac, my Laptop and a G5 desktop.  I don't think I've ever need to even
> reboot my laptop or the G5.  I went through a phase of having to hard reboot
> the eMac because I'd put some software on their to sync with my phone.  As
> soon as I removed it, everything was fine.
>
> The biggest problem I ever had with my G5 was when my mail box file on
> Entourage got above 2gb and it destroyed 14,000 e-mails with no warning in a
> heartbeat.  Guess who makes Entourage?
>
I bet it's an MS product.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<Andy Jacobs>
<Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:04:44 +0000>
<C3AF769C.F3D7%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>

> The biggest problem I ever had with my G5 was when my mail box file on
> Entourage got above 2gb and it destroyed 14,000 e-mails with no warning in a
> heartbeat.  Guess who makes Entourage?
> 

Red cat media ? .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

On 13/1/08 2:40 pm, in article
MPG.21f433294121fc298b10d@news.newsreader.com, "Krustov" 
wrote:

> <uk.net.web.authoring>
> <Andy Jacobs>
> <Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:04:44 +0000>
> <C3AF769C.F3D7%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>
> 
>> The biggest problem I ever had with my G5 was when my mail box file on
>> Entourage got above 2gb and it destroyed 14,000 e-mails with no warning in a
>> heartbeat.  Guess who makes Entourage?
>> 
> 
> Red cat media ? .
> 

Ha ha.  Nice one Krusty.  You can sometimes show some flashes of
inspiration, considering.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

Andy Jacobs wrote:

> A few years ago I would have argued for PCs every time.  I've got a 5
> year old eMac, my Laptop and a G5 desktop.  I don't think I've ever need
> to even reboot my laptop or the G5.

You don't run the OS X software update regularly then? That is one of my 
biggest usability complains about Mac OS X. Why should I need to reboot 
the OS when I update bloody iTunes?

Using Linux, I don't need to reboot the computer after *any* software 
update. I can even install a new operating system kernel without 
restarting (though I'll still be *using* the old kernel until I restart).

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 14 days, 23:46.]

                           NetSol Cybersquatting
      http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/10/netsol-cybersquatting/

On 14/1/08 12:37 pm, in article 5m1s55-paf.ln1@ophelia.g5n.co.uk, "Toby A
Inkster"  wrote:

> Andy Jacobs wrote:
> 
>> A few years ago I would have argued for PCs every time.  I've got a 5
>> year old eMac, my Laptop and a G5 desktop.  I don't think I've ever need
>> to even reboot my laptop or the G5.
> 
> You don't run the OS X software update regularly then? That is one of my
> biggest usability complains about Mac OS X. Why should I need to reboot
> the OS when I update bloody iTunes?

I do but I just leave the window there until I would have shutdown anyway.

> 
> Using Linux, I don't need to reboot the computer after *any* software
> update. I can even install a new operating system kernel without
> restarting (though I'll still be *using* the old kernel until I restart).

I was toying with the idea of sticking Linux on there but I'd still be stuck
with not being able to sync with my phone, etc.  I like being able to just
drag an e-mail to the task box to create a task on my todo list.  I sync it
with my phone and all my meetings, todo, and everything are all sorted.  On
the Mac, the only real option is something like Goosync and Ical.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

"Andy Jacobs" informed
>> I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
>> around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
>> padding).
>
> Which one?  You need to look at:
>
> http://www.cssplay.co.uk
> http://www.alistapart.com
> http://www.positioniseverything.net
>
> There are loads of hacks to get a page to work in IE (5, 6 and 7) and FF.
> The point is that FF follows the rules.  IE doesn't.  So you get things 
> like
> double margins, margins and padding treated differently, the dreaded 3 px
> bug, etc.
>
> IE was a crock of shit at IE4 and it's still a crock of shit at IE7.
> Microsoft are behaving like a petulant child by making small steps to make
> their browser compliant in the hope that nobody will notice that they
> haven't won the battle to dictate what the rules are.

I've not got through much of that as I got distracted then busy with the 
distraction, but the 'Hack' I did find and used something like this was a 
gold mine itself;
* html div.IE6orLess {fixed width alternative to min-width and max-width}

Never seen that discussed. Back to work.

---dE|_---

On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:57:51 GMT, "dE|_" 
wrote:

>I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody 
>around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about 
>padding).

"Box model" ?

That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
the future.

Given the crappy state of skills in UK web design, I'm pleasantly
surprised that any recruitment interview asked you this level of detail,
but amazed (and not pleasantly) that they'd reject a candidate on that
basis.

On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59opl7@4ax.com,
"Andy Dingley"  wrote:

> On Sat, 12 Jan 2008 15:57:51 GMT, "dE|_" 
> wrote:
> 
>> I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
>> around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
>> padding).
> 
> "Box model" ?
> 
> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
> expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
> the future.

What, and alienate most of your audience?

> 
> Given the crappy state of skills in UK web design, I'm pleasantly
> surprised that any recruitment interview asked you this level of detail,
> but amazed (and not pleasantly) that they'd reject a candidate on that
> basis.

He didn't say that was all they rejected him for :o)

As far as the crappy design skills are concerned, you'd do well to remember:

IE is the most popular browser whether we like it or not (and most here
would not)

The web design industry didn't make IE buggy and non compliant

99% of the clients I see use IE and they want a nicely designed site that
works in the environment that they use.

As far as your principles are concerned, that's great, stick to them.
You're obviously in a privileged position where you don't need to worry
about keeping clients happy. But the flexibility in being able to use
available hacks is a credit to the design industry - and it's global, not
just UK.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On 16 Jan, 07:18, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59o...@4ax.com,

> > "Box model" ?
>
> > That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
> > expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
> > bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
> > the future.
>
> What, and alienate most of your audience?

"Not-alienating your audience" doesn't require you to use "browser
hacks" to pander to old IE versions.

IE7 isn't _that_ bad. Pixel-counting to make things identical cross
browser is still a bad idea.  You can make "workable" "cross-browser"
sites without needing to descend into flakey hacks.

"Andy Dingley" wrote
> wrote:
>
>>I'm going to go do some research on it, but out of interest; does anybody
>>around here know/do anything about this 'IE5 bug' (I think it's about
>>padding).
>
> "Box model" ?
>
> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
> expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
> the future.
>
> Given the crappy state of skills in UK web design, I'm pleasantly
> surprised that any recruitment interview asked you this level of detail,
> but amazed (and not pleasantly) that they'd reject a candidate on that
> basis.

Yeah there was that mentioned at the start of the CSS chat. I was/am not 
familiar with the specific term but I'm presuming it's about the padding 
placement inside/outside the content area. I just said I resolved it by 
sticking with html strict.

I am a bit pissed off about the rejection as I did their 15 minute test 
'spot errors & improve html page' in 5 and got honours.

You should see the company site's style sheet though- it's 3150 lines long 
(inc blanks between classes), they want the Don.

---dE|_---

dE|_ wrote:

> Yeah there was that mentioned at the start of the CSS chat. I was/am not
> familiar with the specific term but I'm presuming it's about the padding
> placement inside/outside the content area. I just said I resolved it by
> sticking with html strict.

Which won't help much -- IE5 didn't employ a DOCTYPE switch (except on Mac 
OS).

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 17 days, 3:24.]

                      Gnocchi all'Amatriciana al Forno
      http://tobyinkster.co.uk/blog/2008/01/15/gnocchi-allamatriciana/

On 16/1/08 11:22 am, in article
021d3f81-55fe-4234-867a-93263cb8364b@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Andy
Dingley"  wrote:

> On 16 Jan, 07:18, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59o...@4ax.com,
> 
>>> "Box model" ?
>> 
>>> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
>>> expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
>>> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
>>> the future.
>> 
>> What, and alienate most of your audience?
> 
> "Not-alienating your audience" doesn't require you to use "browser
> hacks" to pander to old IE versions.

Bollocks.  So you're advocating something which WILL alienate people - it
doesn't matter how many - over a method which is, AFAIK, safe and accepted
as a valid fix by most of the web design world who've made the transition
from tables to CSS.

> 
> IE7 isn't _that_ bad. Pixel-counting to make things identical cross
> browser is still a bad idea.  You can make "workable" "cross-browser"
> sites without needing to descend into flakey hacks.

IE7 is _that_ bad.  It doesn't follow conventions set down by the W3C which
every decent browser follows.  It doesn't matter whether it breaks one rule
or a thousand rules.  The point is that it stops becoming predictable as
soon as it breaks the first one.

As I said, it's like a petulant child who can't have their own way.  What
they _should_ be doing is holding their hands up, saying "Sorry, we were
wrong" and making sure that IE8 behaves itself and treats margins as margins
and padding as padding, etc.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On Jan 17, 5:52 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 16/1/08 11:22 am, in article
> 021d3f81-55fe-4234-867a-93263cb83...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>
> Dingley"  wrote:
> > On 16 Jan, 07:18, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59o...@4ax.com,
>
> >>> "Box model" ?
>
> >>> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
> >>> expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
> >>> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
> >>> the future.
>
> >> What, and alienate most of your audience?
>
> > "Not-alienating your audience" doesn't require you to use "browser
> > hacks" to pander to old IE versions.
>
> Bollocks.  So you're advocating something which WILL alienate people - it
> doesn't matter how many - over a method which is, AFAIK, safe and accepted> as a valid fix by most of the web design world who've made the transition
> from tables to CSS.
>
>
>
> > IE7 isn't _that_ bad. Pixel-counting to make things identical cross
> > browser is still a bad idea.  You can make "workable" "cross-browser"
> > sites without needing to descend into flakey hacks.
>
> IE7 is _that_ bad.  It doesn't follow conventions set down by the W3C which
> every decent browser follows.  It doesn't matter whether it breaks one rule
> or a thousand rules.  The point is that it stops becoming predictable as> soon as it breaks the first one.
>
> As I said, it's like a petulant child who can't have their own way.  What
> they _should_ be doing is holding their hands up, saying "Sorry, we were
> wrong" and making sure that IE8 behaves itself and treats margins as margins
> and padding as padding, etc.
>
I agree with this Andy. While IE7 is a little better then IE6 with
some things it still has a lot of bugs.
BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
%.
As an example of this even when you use a heading in IE and size it at
200% it still looks small in IE while in all other modern browsers it
looks rather large.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

"Toby A Inkster" say;
>> Yeah there was that mentioned at the start of the CSS chat. I was/am not
>> familiar with the specific term but I'm presuming it's about the padding
>> placement inside/outside the content area. I just said I resolved it by
>> sticking with html strict.
>
> Which won't help much -- IE5 didn't employ a DOCTYPE switch (except on Mac
> OS).

According to Wikipedia, IE upgraded to v6 in 2001. I hadn't started any kind 
of web authoring by then so basically I have zilcho experience with v5.

---dE|_---

On 17/1/08 4:50 am, in article
c23b6193-b46f-4535-8d9f-1d30a22b65e6@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Jan 17, 5:52 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> On 16/1/08 11:22 am, in article
>> 021d3f81-55fe-4234-867a-93263cb83...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>> 
>> Dingley"  wrote:
>>> On 16 Jan, 07:18, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>>>> On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59o...@4ax.com,
>> 
>>>>> "Box model" ?
>> 
>>>>> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
>>>>> expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
>>>>> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
>>>>> the future.
>> 
>>>> What, and alienate most of your audience?
>> 
>>> "Not-alienating your audience" doesn't require you to use "browser
>>> hacks" to pander to old IE versions.
>> 
>> Bollocks.  So you're advocating something which WILL alienate people - it
>> doesn't matter how many - over a method which is, AFAIK, safe and accepted
>> as a valid fix by most of the web design world who've made the transition
>> from tables to CSS.
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>> IE7 isn't _that_ bad. Pixel-counting to make things identical cross
>>> browser is still a bad idea.  You can make "workable" "cross-browser"
>>> sites without needing to descend into flakey hacks.
>> 
>> IE7 is _that_ bad.  It doesn't follow conventions set down by the W3C which
>> every decent browser follows.  It doesn't matter whether it breaks one rule
>> or a thousand rules.  The point is that it stops becoming predictable as
>> soon as it breaks the first one.
>> 
>> As I said, it's like a petulant child who can't have their own way.  What
>> they _should_ be doing is holding their hands up, saying "Sorry, we were
>> wrong" and making sure that IE8 behaves itself and treats margins as margins
>> and padding as padding, etc.
>> 
> I agree with this Andy. While IE7 is a little better then IE6 with
> some things it still has a lot of bugs.
> BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
> %.
> As an example of this even when you use a heading in IE and size it at
> 200% it still looks small in IE while in all other modern browsers it
> looks rather large.

Now that's interesting.  I always thought ems was safe and that's what I
would use personally.

Cheers Chaddy.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

"Chaddy2222" wrote
>> On 16/1/08 11:22 am, in article
>> 021d3f81-55fe-4234-867a-93263cb83...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>>
>> Dingley"  wrote:
>> > On 16 Jan, 07:18, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
>> >> On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 
>> >> 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59o...@4ax.com,
>>
>> >>> "Box model" ?
>>
>> >>> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that 
>> >>> I'd
>> >>> expect people to remember details of it. As for all the other hacks 
>> >>> and
>> >>> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable 
>> >>> for
>> >>> the future.
>>
>> >> What, and alienate most of your audience?
>>
>> > "Not-alienating your audience" doesn't require you to use "browser
>> > hacks" to pander to old IE versions.
>>
>> Bollocks. So you're advocating something which WILL alienate people - it
>> doesn't matter how many - over a method which is, AFAIK, safe and 
>> accepted
>> as a valid fix by most of the web design world who've made the transition
>> from tables to CSS.
>>
>>
>>
>> > IE7 isn't _that_ bad. Pixel-counting to make things identical cross
>> > browser is still a bad idea. You can make "workable" "cross-browser"
>> > sites without needing to descend into flakey hacks.
>>
>> IE7 is _that_ bad. It doesn't follow conventions set down by the W3C 
>> which
>> every decent browser follows. It doesn't matter whether it breaks one 
>> rule
>> or a thousand rules. The point is that it stops becoming predictable as
>> soon as it breaks the first one.
>>
>> As I said, it's like a petulant child who can't have their own way. What
>> they _should_ be doing is holding their hands up, saying "Sorry, we were
>> wrong" and making sure that IE8 behaves itself and treats margins as 
>> margins
>> and padding as padding, etc.
>>
> I agree with this Andy. While IE7 is a little better then IE6 with
> some things it still has a lot of bugs.
> BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
> %.
> As an example of this even when you use a heading in IE and size it at
> 200% it still looks small in IE while in all other modern browsers it
> looks rather large.

So... you say the bug is in em yet the example is with %....


I think I've got a bug with Outlook Express. Every now and then I go to 
reply to group and I have to go putting all the > in myself.

---dE|_---

On Jan 18, 5:54 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 17/1/08 4:50 am, in article
> c23b6193-b46f-4535-8d9f-1d30a22b6...@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 5:52 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >> On 16/1/08 11:22 am, in article
> >> 021d3f81-55fe-4234-867a-93263cb83...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com, "Andy
>
> >> Dingley"  wrote:
> >>> On 16 Jan, 07:18, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> >>>> On 16/1/08 1:21 am, in article 6smqo3dg7l05q57gui6te7h6vovm59o...@4ax.com,
>
> >>>>> "Box model" ?
>
> >>>>> That's the only IE bug I can think of that's significant enough that I'd
> >>>>> expect people to remember details of it.  As for all the other hacks and
> >>>>> bodges, stuff them - I'd rather keep the code clean and maintainable for
> >>>>> the future.
>
> >>>> What, and alienate most of your audience?
>
> >>> "Not-alienating your audience" doesn't require you to use "browser
> >>> hacks" to pander to old IE versions.
>
> >> Bollocks.  So you're advocating something which WILL alienate people - it
> >> doesn't matter how many - over a method which is, AFAIK, safe and accepted
> >> as a valid fix by most of the web design world who've made the transition
> >> from tables to CSS.
>
> >>> IE7 isn't _that_ bad. Pixel-counting to make things identical cross
> >>> browser is still a bad idea.  You can make "workable" "cross-browser> >>> sites without needing to descend into flakey hacks.
>
> >> IE7 is _that_ bad.  It doesn't follow conventions set down by the W3C which
> >> every decent browser follows.  It doesn't matter whether it breaks one rule
> >> or a thousand rules.  The point is that it stops becoming predictable as
> >> soon as it breaks the first one.
>
> >> As I said, it's like a petulant child who can't have their own way.  What
> >> they _should_ be doing is holding their hands up, saying "Sorry, we were
> >> wrong" and making sure that IE8 behaves itself and treats margins as margins
> >> and padding as padding, etc.
>
> > I agree with this Andy. While IE7 is a little better then IE6 with
> > some things it still has a lot of bugs.
> > BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
> > %.
> > As an example of this even when you use a heading in IE and size it at
> > 200% it still looks small in IE while in all other modern browsers it
> > looks rather large.
>
> Now that's interesting.  I always thought ems was safe and that's what I> would use personally.
>
> Cheers Chaddy.
>
That's fine.
You can still use them for sizeing boxes and such but they are not
good for text sizeing. I use % for defineing the widths of objects
though, a part from images and borders where I use PX units.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 17 Jan, 04:50, Chaddy2222 
wrote:

> BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
> %.

That's a good example.  IE (and IE7) has a problem here, potentially a
serious one. However just like box model, I don't regard this as a
"hack".

Both of these problems require you to code in a particular way to
avoid triggering them: using %, using the right doctype declaration.
However neither of these is a "hack", they're both perfectly
acceptable choices from within the canon of good practice. You're not
required (as you are for some IE hacks) to play silly buggers with the
vagaries of CSS syntax and different error-recovery behaviours under
different browsers. Those really are "hacks", and they're of
unpredictable future behaviour with browsers we don't yet know. For
that reason, I don't use them.

If Andy J wasn't already aware of IE's issues relating to ems / %,
then I'd suggest that rather devalues his position for pontificating
on IE hacks.

On Jan 18, 8:42 pm, Andy Dingley  wrote:
> On 17 Jan, 04:50, Chaddy2222 
> wrote:
>
> > BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
> > %.
>
> That's a good example.  IE (and IE7) has a problem here, potentially a
> serious one. However just like box model, I don't regard this as a
> "hack".
>
> Both of these problems require you to code in a particular way to
> avoid triggering them: using %, using the right doctype declaration.
> However neither of these is a "hack", they're both perfectly
> acceptable choices from within the canon of good practice. You're not
> required (as you are for some IE hacks) to play silly buggers with the
> vagaries of CSS syntax and different error-recovery behaviours under
> different browsers. Those really are "hacks", and they're of
> unpredictable future behaviour with browsers we don't yet know. For
> that reason, I don't use them.
>
> If Andy J wasn't already aware of IE's issues relating to ems / %,
> then I'd suggest that rather devalues his position for pontificating
> on IE hacks.

This is yet another good post from you Andy.
On the subject of Andy J (he has just about everything on his sites in
PX units).
Which probly says it all really.
I mean his sites look great but function like shit and he claims his
stuff is accessible (rubish).
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org

On 18/1/08 9:42 am, in article
f7007123-bbd9-4e21-96e8-e391cf87cfef@t1g2000pra.googlegroups.com, "Andy
Dingley"  wrote:

> On 17 Jan, 04:50, Chaddy2222 
> wrote:
> 
>> BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
>> %.
> 
> That's a good example.  IE (and IE7) has a problem here, potentially a
> serious one. However just like box model, I don't regard this as a
> "hack".
> 
> Both of these problems require you to code in a particular way to
> avoid triggering them: using %, using the right doctype declaration.
> However neither of these is a "hack", they're both perfectly
> acceptable choices from within the canon of good practice. You're not
> required (as you are for some IE hacks) to play silly buggers with the
> vagaries of CSS syntax and different error-recovery behaviours under
> different browsers. Those really are "hacks", and they're of
> unpredictable future behaviour with browsers we don't yet know. For
> that reason, I don't use them.
> 
> If Andy J wasn't already aware of IE's issues relating to ems / %,
> then I'd suggest that rather devalues his position for pontificating
> on IE hacks.

So the fact that you don't know one thing negates everything that you do
know?

On the basis we're all screwed.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

On 18/1/08 3:11 pm, in article
2ebdc0ca-91f6-46e7-af58-6953baed815d@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
"Chaddy2222"  wrote:

> On Jan 18, 8:42 pm, Andy Dingley  wrote:
>> On 17 Jan, 04:50, Chaddy2222 
>> wrote:
>> 
>>> BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
>>> %.
>> 
>> That's a good example.  IE (and IE7) has a problem here, potentially a
>> serious one. However just like box model, I don't regard this as a
>> "hack".
>> 
>> Both of these problems require you to code in a particular way to
>> avoid triggering them: using %, using the right doctype declaration.
>> However neither of these is a "hack", they're both perfectly
>> acceptable choices from within the canon of good practice. You're not
>> required (as you are for some IE hacks) to play silly buggers with the
>> vagaries of CSS syntax and different error-recovery behaviours under
>> different browsers. Those really are "hacks", and they're of
>> unpredictable future behaviour with browsers we don't yet know. For
>> that reason, I don't use them.
>> 
>> If Andy J wasn't already aware of IE's issues relating to ems / %,
>> then I'd suggest that rather devalues his position for pontificating
>> on IE hacks.
> 
> This is yet another good post from you Andy.
> On the subject of Andy J (he has just about everything on his sites in
> PX units).

I've openly admitted that I'm wrong here and that this will be fixed as far
as practical retrospectively, and certainly rectified on new sites.

Admitting you're wrong isn't a fault.

> Which probly says it all really.
> I mean his sites look great but function like shit and he claims his
> stuff is accessible (rubish).

I know that there is a huge amount I need to learn about CSS but at least
I'm on the right road and prepared to change when I find something in my
behaviour or knowledge lacking.

It appears that certain people round here are happier sitting in their ivory
towers congratulating themselves over their perfection.

Nobody has put forward a reason NOT to use 'hacks'.  Nobody has said that
it's dangerous 'because'.  If there is a genuine reason then I'll be open
minded about it.

Until they do, anyone's opinion that they shouldn't be used is no more valid
than mine.

And STILL nobody (apart from me and Chaddy) has the balls to put their
portfolio of fantastically designed perfectly accessible web sites here for
scrutiny.

-- 
Andy Jacobs
http://www.redcatmedia.co.uk

<uk.net.web.authoring>
<Andy Jacobs>
<Fri, 18 Jan 2008 20:24:11 +0000>
<C3B6BB6B.F504%nospam@redcatgroup.co.uk>

> nobody (apart from me and Chaddy) has the balls to put their
> portfolio of fantastically designed perfectly accessible web sites here for
> scrutiny
> 

Perhaps nobody else gives a fuck about accessiblity .


-- 
www.krustov.co.uk

On Jan 19, 7:24 am, Andy Jacobs  wrote:
> On 18/1/08 3:11 pm, in article
> 2ebdc0ca-91f6-46e7-af58-6953baed8...@d70g2000hsb.googlegroups.com,
>
>
>
>
>
> "Chaddy2222"  wrote:
> > On Jan 18, 8:42 pm, Andy Dingley  wrote:
> >> On 17 Jan, 04:50, Chaddy2222 
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> BTW it (IE) has one with useing ems as a font-size so you need to use
> >>> %.
>
> >> That's a good example.  IE (and IE7) has a problem here, potentially a
> >> serious one. However just like box model, I don't regard this as a
> >> "hack".
>
> >> Both of these problems require you to code in a particular way to
> >> avoid triggering them: using %, using the right doctype declaration.
> >> However neither of these is a "hack", they're both perfectly
> >> acceptable choices from within the canon of good practice. You're not
> >> required (as you are for some IE hacks) to play silly buggers with the
> >> vagaries of CSS syntax and different error-recovery behaviours under
> >> different browsers. Those really are "hacks", and they're of
> >> unpredictable future behaviour with browsers we don't yet know. For
> >> that reason, I don't use them.
>
> >> If Andy J wasn't already aware of IE's issues relating to ems / %,
> >> then I'd suggest that rather devalues his position for pontificating
> >> on IE hacks.
>
> > This is yet another good post from you Andy.
> > On the subject of Andy J (he has just about everything on his sites in
> > PX units).
>
> I've openly admitted that I'm wrong here and that this will be fixed as far
> as practical retrospectively, and certainly rectified on new sites.
>
> Admitting you're wrong isn't a fault.
>
> > Which probly says it all really.
> > I mean his sites look great but function like shit and he claims his
> > stuff is accessible (rubish).
>
> I know that there is a huge amount I need to learn about CSS but at least
> I'm on the right road and prepared to change when I find something in my
> behaviour or knowledge lacking.
>
> It appears that certain people round here are happier sitting in their ivory
> towers congratulating themselves over their perfection.
>
> Nobody has put forward a reason NOT to use 'hacks'.  Nobody has said that
> it's dangerous 'because'.  If there is a genuine reason then I'll be open
> minded about it.
>
> Until they do, anyone's opinion that they shouldn't be used is no more valid
> than mine.
>
> And STILL nobody (apart from me and Chaddy) has the balls to put their
> portfolio of fantastically designed perfectly accessible web sites here for
> scrutiny.
>
Yeah.
To be fare to you, the main RedCat site is ok but has issues with re-
sizeing as you now know. But I still use tables for layout for some
things (mainly because they do the job and are easier to set-up then
the CSS alternative.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org