Message From YouTube About IE 6 Browser [Solved]

[Fredledingue]

That's the strong element. If you don't want it to look different, change it in CSS.

That's a great idea. At least one constructive thing out of this discussion.

But if you don't think that html is a just another way to present text, we can as well have everything in txt format.

[BenoitRen]

I meant to say "if you want it to look different", as it should have a distinction from the rest of the text. Oh well.

[Fredledingue]

But if I manage in css to make text between <strong> tags look the same as normal text (at least on my pc) will the bots still see it? I think yes.

[BenoitRen]

Yes, they will see it. But you'll have abused the element, using it for presentation instead of semantic meaning. There are better, valid ways of presenting information to blind users (such as Google).

[Sl@y3D for my n@me]

I don't really think this argument is going anywhere. I don't actually know what the argument is about fully. Yes, you can write a web page in HTML only, or use CSS, either in large amounts or in small amounts. How both codes are used (and abused) is up to the web developers, whether the W3C like it or not.

[BenoitRen]

How both codes are used (and abused) is up to the web developers, whether the W3C like it or not.

This is wrong. We have agreed on standards for a reason.

[Sl@y3D for my n@me]

How both codes are used (and abused) is up to the web developers, whether the W3C like it or not.

This is wrong. We have agreed on standards for a reason.

We have, and as I've just noted, they can be abused by web developers as they wish.

[BenoitRen]

Of course, but that doesn't make it right.

[Queue]

It doesn't make it wrong either: I didn't vote for them, why should I care what arbitrary standards they set?

That said, my site is XHTML 1.0 Strict (nearly 1.1, but I've kept things like ''name''d anchors for better old browser compatibility) and CSS level 3. It also renders consistently in any browser from IE5 and newer and displays in a worthwhile manner on CSS-less browsers (and only uses... 4 specialized CSS entries, !important values to fool IE5 and IE6, and no IE conditional comments or outright hacks like misused selectors or escaped comments). Of course it rendered the same when it didn't validate but I made a game out of ''conforming'' and managed to pass Basic 508 accessibility guidelines as well. I think IE4 is the only browser where the site truly looks broken due to pure insanity on its part (much of the content ends up right aligned, repeating backgrounds cut off arbitrarily and things overlap unexpectedly). WebKit browsers actually had issues with form input heights (the inputs were nearly doubled in height when given a %-defined width) so I had to waste a CSS rule so that they'd render them correctly; go figure that a highly conformant browser would have such a banal rendering bug.

My point is, the standards are just a game. The web evolved on its own, pressured by innovation by the browser developers vying for dominance. Once the push for new functionality waned we were left where we are now, with standards that are mere suggestions and new standards that will be years until they're adopted.

Queue

Edited September 11, 2009 by Queue

[BenoitRen]

It doesn't make it wrong either: I didn't vote for them, why should I care what arbitrary standards they set?

Oh, I don't know, for interoperability with web browsers and other programs that access your web page?

Do you also choose to not follow laws because you didn't vote for them or the ones who passed it? It's the same thing, except you aren't doing anything illegal by not following web standards (except if you run a commercial or government website), and can't be punished for it.

That said, my site is XHTML 1.0 Strict

*facepalm*

My point is, the standards are just a game.

You call interoperability a "game"?

The web evolved on its own, pressured by innovation by the browser developers vying for dominance.

The browser wars left the web in shambles, and its effect can still be felt today through table-based lay-outs with spacer GIFs and tons of presentational clutter. The web is evolving now because there are several capable web browsers that implement a lot of web standards that were defined years ago.

Once the push for new functionality waned we were left where we are now, with standards that are mere suggestions and new standards that will be years until they're adopted.

Do you live in the same world? This thread alone shows how there is still push for increased functionality in the form of better web standards support. Each new version of each web browser brings with it increased standards support. HTML5 was born because of a push for new functionality. Support is already well on the way.

[Queue]

My choice to obey laws or not is not a part of this, please don't attempt character assassination.

The site you linked has poor arguments; since XHTML CAN be interpretted as tag soup, it can degrade fairly gracefully on old browsers while at the same time performing better in browsers that do interpret it like XML. Again, that's why I said I ended up with 1.0 and not 1.1 is because I wanted fuller backwards compatibility.

Interoperability is a game if it's not your job. I could've designed a site that only looked perfect on one browser and was a mess in all others and it wouldn't have mattered.

The browser wars fueled rapid innovation, thinking outside the box, and what you consider presentational clutter I consider brilliant work-arounds. A headache to maintain, but the burden was on the developer, not the person viewing it, and those developers decided appearance was what mattered most.

Let me know when the web is using HTML5. I'm expecting we'll have landed a man on Mars.

Queue

[bristols]

That said, my site is XHTML 1.0 Strict

*facepalm*

That article is not completely without merit, but the author presents some straw-man arguments to support his conclusion. Who claims that XHTML 1.0 Transitional is "the latest standard"? No-one I have heard or read. Clearly it is not.

He's correct that you can choose to be as strict in HTML as you are in XHTML. Of course you can. The difference is, in terms of standards compliance, XHTML 1.0 Strict (forgetting any transitional doctype, be it HTML or XHTML) requires it. HTML does not - there is a margin for coding inconsistencies (not necessarily errors, but inconsistencies) in HTML that does not exist in XHTML. The author neglects to mention this - probably because this fact doesn't serve his message that we should all say "just say no to XHTML".

You can be strict with HTML. Fine, I like HTML 4.01 Strict. As with XHTML. Why the dogma? For an article putting the contrary point of view, take a look at Zeldman's In defense of web developers.

(apologies to everyone for the off-topic)

Edited September 11, 2009 by bristols

[Queue]

(apologies to everyone for the off-topic)

Going off on a tangent about web standards is still fairly relevant to the original topic of YouTube dropping explicit support for IE6 since they're doing so because of its poor support for said standards.

Queue

[Monroe]

Hi Everyone ...

Wow ... when I first posted the YouTube / IE6 situation some time back, I got quick help and learned about a "User Agent" and got information on various browsers ... of which I decided on K-Meleon. A very fast, lean browser which I like very much. I also decided to keep IE6 as a backup or to use occasionally. I got the "User Agent" download from this thread to fool the web sites about IE6. ... Just want to say, I have continued reading everything posted on this thread after "my problems" were solved. It is all really interesting but way over my head ... I had no idea when I posted my original question what it would all lead to ... pages of discussions. Like I said, I keep reading every new post, but I fell out of the back of the pickup truck several pages back! Keep posting, probably interesting to many people who understand it all and I might just pick up on something myself.

[Sl@y3D for my n@me]

I had no idea when I posted my original question what it would all lead to ... pages of discussions.

You must be new to the 9x forums.

I must admit, I also enjoy reading these long discussions on various subjects on here. Well, except for the ones that turn into NT vs 9x wars. there's a lot of great content on these forums.