Quote:
|
Originally Posted by greencreeper
So if the majority use IE, then what are we arguing about?? You can't ignore the post popular browser when developing, and like I said, it seems daft to design for browsers that hardly anyone uses. The market dominance of a company sets the standards, regardless of any standards body.
|
I think that the point we are trying to get across is that HTML (and the standards that have grown out of that, CSS etc) was designed as a platform-independant markup language, the aim being that information could be shared across
all platforms. The point of having standards is that it shouldn't matter what software, browser in this case, is used the end result is the same, pages
should display the same whether used in firefox or in IE. The idea of platform independance is fundamental to the way in which the internet operates, imagine if all of those other standards, jpg, tcp/ip, smtp/pop/imap, http and so on, were modified to be incompatible across platforms. Where would be then? MS are part of the group that defines the standard, so why do they have so much trouble adhering to it? It's not even as though they have a strict published alternative standard, it's just that their browser cannot actually meet the standards required but because they hold a massive dominance and peoples 'I'm alright' attitude they don't have the impetus they need to fix their product. The fact that they state w3c compatibility but don't actually have it does show that IE is in fact broken.