Jump to content
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble
Strawberry Orange Banana Lime Leaf Slate Sky Blueberry Grape Watermelon Chocolate Marble

MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. Alternatively, register and become a site sponsor/subscriber and ads will be disabled automatically. 


Monroe

Message From YouTube About IE 6 Browser [Solved]

Recommended Posts

Chosing <strong> instead of <b> as a standrad is insane for the very reason that it takes 5 characters to type more, 10 with the closing tag.

Sorry, but I don't like that.

What you're saying here is quite logical. I'm not overly sure why the W3C would choose a longer tag. Perhaps there is a reason though.

However, your next statement is horribly inaccurate.

And again I reiterate that "I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser." And I'm right as demonstrated by BenoitRen's example above.

This statement goes against the experiences of millions of web developers across the world. I know of people who would go about for hours in order to fix their site to work in IE6, and these hacks would then go and cause another browser to break, although they all worked perfectly before the hacks were implemented. These aren't complex, massive websites I'm talking about. The designs were, by and large, simple. they just wouldn't render right in that one particular browser. Hell, the majority of phpBB themes seem to break IE6 support, complex or otherwise. The rest use hacks.

The majority of sites work in IE6, yes. Why is that? Because most of them were designed with IE6 in mind. They still are, it's one of the most popular browsers in the world. Imagine all that time lost to make it so, having to work around the lack of PNG transparency, the lack of native SVG support which means that sites cannot use one resizeable graphic in the place of lots of jpgs. Transparency is a big deal, because it tends to make sites look far more elegant and easy to customise. Its use is now becoming widespread.

You seem to not notice that the web is moving in a different direction to what you may wish it was. While some people may be happy to use tables, bold tags and all that old stuff, perhaps for backwards compatibility or simplicity, the big sites and people with ambition want to squeeze more out of that web browser. Embedded videos, embedded audio, shadows, transparency, SVG support, a ton of CSS options and so many ways to manipulate that text, interact with that content and guide you through that page. The web is becoming focussed on interactivity. IE6 holds back the web with its broken rendering and lack of features. Then again, IE 5.01 SP4 (as included in Windows 2000 SP4) is still supported, so should we be building websites for that? God no.

I can't stress enough how small sites with home pages and simple navigation, without database functionality or any fancy stuff, are so very outdated. They're going away already. IE6 is fine for that. It's not fine for anything bigger, because IE6 was a 2001 product, and this is 2009.

Please, PLEASE don't tell people that any site works in IE6. They're built to accommodate it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand what you mean and I agree.

However I don't think it's so important to check the layout and eventualy, themes, transparency, shadow and other cool stuffs in IE6 because that won't break the readability or the original functionality of the website.

The text would be there, the hyperlinks, sounds and videos if any would still play.

Ecxept of course for a graphical artwork or some interractive map or any web 2.0 app you could imagine, but in thi case just inform the user of minimum requirements.

I don't think it's necessary anymore. But I understand the angst at such situation web developers have faced for years.

IMO, we should first see a real website that has never been checked on IE6 and build for, say, the last version of FF and see if it's realy impossible to navigate. Flash nothwistanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why don't you use tables?

Because the table element's semantic meaning is tabular data. It should not be used for lay-out.

This is a M.Y.T.H.!

Because the specificity of the web is that content is tied to the way it's presented and vice-versa, the presentation influences the meaning of the content, especialy for text.

This is wrong. HTML is a semantic language.

flexible and where you want with absolute positioning

Now this is a myth.

You can do smart things with tables and old html tags.

Which inevitably leads to bloated mark-up.

For example I'v read that the new scholars don't like the <b> tag and prefer the <strong> tag.

This is INSANE!

The b element has no semantic meaning.

And why dropping the <br> tag? I don't understand.

The most fanatical drop it. It doesn't have to be dropped, though.

If you look at the source of most famous websites, there are ridiculous amount of garbage in the shape of javascript but also useless pictures, redudant menus, things absolutely useless to read, ads, etc compared to realy useful content.

This has nothing to do with separation of content and style.

In the case of Benoit Ren website: SeaMonkey, I realy don't see the advantage of <div> over <table>

It's more flexible, and less mark-up. I can decide tomorrow that I'd want to have the menu be a bar at the top, for example, without changing any HTML.

Finaly, one more point in favor of tables vs. separate style sheets: When you save the webpage as "html only" and all the "tables" are on a separate css file, good luck to read it later!

It will still be readable.

Chosing <strong> instead of <b> as a standrad is insane for the very reason that it takes 5 characters to type more, 10 with the closing tag.

There is more to the strong element than just being longer to type.

And again I reiterate that "I'm positive that a website will look fine on IE6 even if never tested on this browser." And I'm right as demonstrated by BenoitRen's example above.

Except my design is very simple, and while IE6 doesn't outright break the site, it's not a pretty sight.

I can't stress enough how small sites with home pages and simple navigation, without database functionality or any fancy stuff, are so very outdated.

Now, now, this isn't necessarily true. Less is more, and content is king.

However I don't think it's so important to check the layout and eventualy, themes, transparency, shadow and other cool stuffs in IE6 because that won't break the readability or the original functionality of the website.

I agree, but people are being paid to make a website that looks the same everywhere.

Edited by BenoitRen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the sliver of my excuse? I never use Windows Updates! Well, except I'm on XP with IE6! :whistle:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Because the table element's semantic meaning is tabular data. It should not be used for lay-out.
And in what the two uses are different? Displaying lists of numbers or names in a table is... still and only, a form of layout.

Like I could say, CSS is for style, it shouldn't be used for layout. LOL.

Allas, the days when the only two tags left to be used legaly in html will be <div> and <span> are closer and closer. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And in what the two uses are different? Displaying lists of numbers or names in a table is... still and only, a form of layout.

The two uses are different because tabular data is a form of data association. Each row and column is related in some way.

If you use it for lay-out, there is no such association. Each cell contains either some paragraphs, images, or an unrelated spacer GIF image.

Allas, the days when the only two tags left to be used legaly in html will be <div> and <span> are closer and closer.

Total nonsense. Especially because they have zero semantic meaning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where's the sliver of my excuse? I never use Windows Updates! Well, except I'm on XP with IE6! :whistle:

Neither do I. I install Service Packs, and that is it. although I like XP Sp3 so much I don't know if I will ever upgrade it unless the future SP4 (?) is so promising.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chosing <strong> instead of <b> as a standrad is insane for the very reason that it takes 5 characters to type more, 10 with the closing tag.

Sorry, but I don't like that.

What you're saying here is quite logical. I'm not overly sure why the W3C would choose a longer tag. Perhaps there is a reason though.

I also agree with this. I know about STRONG tag semantic value, but why they didn't just "assigned" this semantic value to B (and corresponding one to I tag)? To bloat code of web pages?

on Digg today:

TxCoY.jpg:o

Yes, I think the reasons in this picture are correct :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The two uses are different because tabular data is a form of data association. Each row and column is related in some way

No, the browser doesn't associate data to their place in the table like would do a spreadsheet program (excell) for example.

If you use it for lay-out, there is no such association. Each cell contains either some paragraphs, images, or an unrelated spacer GIF image.

I agre that there has been abuses with the <table> tag. But that's because there are no <column> tags. So the table tags are used to create columns.

It's now advertised to use <div> to create content areas, ok but I'll object that <div> were not intended to create columns neither, but page divisions.

If the goal is to create columns, <div> + css is not easier nor more intuitive than <table>. JMO

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know about STRONG tag semantic value, but why they didn't just "assigned" this semantic value to B (and corresponding one to I tag)? To bloat code of web pages?

You should read up on the browser wars of the second half of the 90s, where non-semantic elements like b and i were introduced by web browsers. It's not the W3C's fault.

No, the browser doesn't associate data to their place in the table like would do a spreadsheet program (excell) for example.

Graphical web browsers don't. However, machines that extract semantic meaning from HTML documents, like search engines, do.

I agre that there has been abuses with the <table> tag. But that's because there are no <column> tags. So the table tags are used to create columns.

You're still missing the point of HTML, which is a mark-up language. A column element would be purely presentational.

It's now advertised to use <div> to create content areas, ok but I'll object that <div> were not intended to create columns neither, but page divisions.

You turn those page divisions into columns through CSS. That's perfectly fine.

If the goal is to create columns, <div> + css is not easier nor more intuitive than <table>. JMO

It's not more intuitive, but it sure makes more sense and makes for less mark-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're still missing the point of HTML, which is a mark-up language. A column element would be purely presentational.

What's the difference? All the html tags (save <a>) are for presentation (and layout).

CSS only assigns advanced formating to tags.

You can make an html page with no tag if you want but in this case your CSS will be of no use.

Graphical web browsers don't. However, machines that extract semantic meaning from HTML documents, like search engines, do (extract semantic meaning from tables).

I wonder what these search engine ar finding by categorizing the content between in-table and not-in-table ...because 99% of the web is inside some table.

You should read up on the browser wars of the second half of the 90s, where non-semantic elements like b and i were introduced by web browsers. It's not the W3C's fault.

In fact if it's just for the search engines I can't care less. <b>, <i> etc are very easy to type to emphazise one or two words here and there, inside a text. Just like BBcode.

If I want my webpage to be famous among search engines, I'll use other angles of attack. Or I will make use of <strong> now that I know it, if the word is important.

Well, there should be a <important> tag for search engines, so our search engine format will not interfere with our text format. I think there is something like <important> but I forgot what...

Edited by Fredledingue

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What's the difference? All the html tags (save <a>) are for presentation (and layout).

No, they're not. And as long as you don't abandon this idée fixe, you won't get it.

In fact if it's just for the search engines I can't care less.

What about the blind?

Well, there should be a <important> tag for search engines, so our search engine format will not interfere with our text format. I think there is something like <important> but I forgot what...

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...