Correct me if I'm wrong - but whenever I've developed an embedded web solution - I found it was my page code that created weird rendering... in each different browser... (e.g. <\unclosed> or <nest><ed> tags etc)
Yes these errors can be catastrophic or completely fine. And IE was the browser that could render even the worst, most error filled html.
But to fix that bit is fairly easy, you just run each page it through the online W3C checker tool. And get it to the point where there are no errors and very few warnings.
At least a page developer would KNOW their page will display identically on all 'compliant' browser platforms - then if the vendor choose to step outside the fence - the weird results are theirs to manage however they want...
That was my worry, I had tested on all the major browsers, (Safari too, and Opera) but hadn't tested on IE6 because I didn't think anyone in their right mind would be using it.
I guess there should ideally be a baseline minimal set of rendering tests that EVERY browser should support identically - no (rounded) buttons, or reinterpreting [margins], c har a c t er spacing etc) - then a 'B' version for whatever extensions that vendor wants to bury themselves with.
IMO this is core to the achievement and difficulty of Html. Giving data and also the information about suggested rendering to whatever client it is, but giving them the scope to actually render it how they want.
It's a very difficult standard, and I think Html 5 was a huge leap forward.
W3 also caught on slow by not specifying how an html element should be rendered. CSS was stacked on top of the smoking turd to straighten everything out. But a mess it is.
Lol, yes but there were never any easy ways to do this.
Home
Help
Search
Login
Register
