Hedgemistress, HTML and CSS are standards. They are defined to work a certain way. If you don't interpret them in that way, you are not going by the standard. It's irrelevant how popular your way is, it's still not as the standard is defined.

Okay, I've spent enough time on this topic. :P

So let's sum up...

If everybody who's currently using IE was instead using crappy little independent browsers that each rendered things completely differently according to the random whims of their individual creators, you could say that the W3C standards are THE standard and they're not being followed, because there's no alternative standard to point to.

But they aren't... they're all using one browser which does things its own way... it's own -one- way.

75% of the population is using a product that follows a different standard than W3C.

Therefore, the W3C standards (proposed standards, I should say) have been supplanted.

Love that fact or hate it, it remains true. You cab deal with that fact however you see fit, but it's officially not the IE using community's problem.

Firefox > Internet Explorer 7 because I have it, end of discussion.

This may be your blog but I win!

TNN, I have IE and I'm awesome. Therefore I win. Because I'm awesome.

Hedgemistress wrote:

The question all of you are ducking is... why the holy hell would a professional developer "intend" to "design" something to "render correctly" on a minority of users' products?

Because! It has lots of cool bells and whistles!

You forgot the ! operator in that =P

Hedgemistress wrote:

It's the exact same thing except that I'm not advocating people convert to anything. (Joke in my topic heading aside... the "Hee hee." as the content should give the idea that I'm exaggerating the case.)

Ah, that wasn't quite clear. I was kinda figuring you were. When I say "hee hee" it usually means "I win!", versus when I say "heh heh" which usually means "heh heh". But then, that's because my vocal range doesn't giggle well. ;-)

Should Christians become atheists just because atheists are theoretically less judgemental and arguably depend less upon unprovable premises?

(Note, I'm not trying to provoke a separate thread debating those points, hence the qualifiers.)

That's what the FF boosters are saying. They want the world to accomodate them to the exclusion of the majority, which simply does not fly.

You know I'm not of the opinion that unpopular groups and viewpoints should lack rights and protection...

...but like I said, the "heathen" minority (myself included) in a mostly Christian country like America should NOT be complaining about everybody who goes around with a Jesus fish or cross, everybody who says "God bless you.", etc. It's the majority religion... of course you're going to run into it everywhere you go.

I'd say 90% of the stories I write would not appeal to a "mainstream Christian" audience. It's my choice to write it, though. I'm not going to demand the whole world "upgrades" to secular humanism so they can view my work "correctly".

I don't proselytise for atheism, and I don't tend to proselytise for Firefox either -- I illustrate its good points, defend it when people say it's bad, and point out the flaws in its majority competitor... like I do with Christianity, but only when it comes up. =)

I figure religion is something that people should decide for themselves (although really, if it's all about consumer-important features, Firefox is preferable to me purely by merits of the existence of AdBlock).

I'm also not offended when someone says "Merry Christmas" instead of "Happy Holidays". As a rule I even prefer the former. =)

Those Jesus fishes piss me off, though. What tacky pieces of crap those are. The Darwin fishes are also just as tacky. =P

It's like herding cats at times.

That explains why I like it. Me and cats get along just fine. :P

The thing is, Internet Explorer does follow the set web standards set by W3C... only just partially, and partially following something... isn't actually following it, huh?

You're right, it isn't actually following it, huh? So IE doesn't actually follow the W3C standards, huh? Just like everybody on both sides of the conversation have been saying, huh? You're officially caught up on the conversation, huh?

Now let's get to the part where you make some sort of point, huh? Unless the fact that your blog looks horrible on 75% of the internet users' screens is supposed to be your point, huh? If so, I'm not sure what you're trying to prove, huh? That you make lousy design decisions, huh?

[EDIT]

I just checked out your blog, using IE and Firefox, which I redownloaded specifically to check some points made earlier in this thread... it honestly looks pretty atrocious no matter what browser you use. If there's a browser out there that will render less of it than IE does, that's the browser I want to use.

Jtgibson:

I guess I knew when I made the post that the topic wording would be inflammatory... but it's a response to all the crap that FF boosters put everywhere. "Get a real browser" being a common refrain... kind of my attempt at turning it around on people. Once the debate was joined, I tried to make my actual standpoint clear...

Which is that people are free to use which browser they want, and design for which browser they want... but the people who choose to design for the minority browsers have got no real standing for the gripes they make at the rest of the world.

Hey now, that was pretty harsh. ='(

I'm a generally nicer and more mellow person than I used to be, but you talk down to me at your own peril. :P

Well, it wasn't the layout or design I wanted to be noticed, but rather the hovering header I have set up. In the CSS, it specifically says for some elements to hover, which it does in Firefox, but not in IE.

Yeah, I noticed the elements that don't render correctly in IE... notice I said "correctly" and not "right." Nothing about your page's layout is "right." I'm serious, I find it hideous. You'd be better off with generiBYOND layout, IMALTHO... no amount of bells and whistles will ever make up for the fact that it's just plain hard to look at.

Like said before, if Internet Explorer had followed the set W3C standards, we wouldn't be having this arguement

"If everybody who doesn't agree came around, there'd be no argument." is always true, no matter who says it on what side of which argument. I categorically reject the assumption that "following the W3C standards" should be held as the default position simply because they're "the W3C standards."

I just formulated the LXY standards, which says IE's fine and dandy... the whole world had a theoretical chance to contribute to the 0.2 second discussion, and this is what came out of it.

So why aren't you all following it? It's got standards in the name!

Well, minimalist websites are pretty good all around, but when you're trying to compete with other sites it helps to be revolutionary.