Originally posted by allida77
JKD
When do you not have to code for ie? Intranet? Why would you not code for the browser that 90% of people use? It seems that would be making it harder than it should be.
It is actually much easier to solely code for Mozilla than it is to solely code for IE.
Advantages to coding to only one browser is that you can optimize it, but advantages to solely coding to Mozilla are that you can do more stuff in less code. And its more enjoyable, because you can start using the "fun" stuff in CSS2 and DOM2. And, if another browser becomes remotely as standards compliant, it should work in that browser too, which means you really aren't coding solely for Mozilla anymore.
I solely code for Mozilla whenever I am doing a personal project. I can't resist - the stuff I'm doing in my free time blows away many things you could ever find on the Internet using just Javascript to control it. I mean, I've almost finished a Sidebar (it goes right into that thing on your left) which graphs functions (f(x)=, y=), polar equations (r=), and conics (circles, ellipses, hyperbolas, and parabolas) using SVG's <path/> and <ellipse/>, Javascript to dynamically set the path data, MathML to demonstrate equations, and XUL for the interface! IE doesn't even support XML namespaces, which means anything like this in XML is IMPOSSIBLE to do in IE.
One could argue using proprietary VML, embedding MathML through an <object> tag using the MathPlayer plugin to view it, and using Javascript to animate it, you could do this in HTML. But, to achive a similar GUI you'd have to result to ActiveX controls, and right there is 4 reasons why its not worth it. VML support would have to be downloaded in some cases, (or the Adobe SVG Viewer if you wanted to go the SVG route), the MathPlayer plugin would have to be downloaded, numerous ActiveX warnings would pop up (or even be discarded if ActiveX is disabled), and then, after all that, it suddenly becomes way too much of mess to change your code later on.
And when SVG and MathML are incorporated into browsers later (they are W3C standards btw), which one would have to changed less? The only thing I'd have to change in my Sidebar would be the XUL interface (write it in XHTML 1.1 instead, just as easy, though less amazing). I could even write an XSLT document to change it for me. I'd have to entirely rewrite the IE implementation.
Anyway, enough of explaining why I solely code for Mozilla at times. :D
Firepages, I can't disagree more with your statement:
Amaya prooves that standards compliance means nothing.
Don't take Amaya as the ideal standards-compliant browser - as it isn't nearly as compliant as Mozilla in many respects. It is more meant for use as a standards-compliant WYSIWYG editor imho. I know Alex Vincent routinely uses it to generate his XHTML pages.
Standards-compliance means EVERYTHING for future browsers, and should mean a lot to you, the web developer - unless of course you like writing the same code over again with slight (major) permutations for each browser.
Microsoft themselves contribute to the W3C committees - they push their own standards, and they accept others. But it seems they only incorporate them when its convenient for themselves, and not the web developer.