On Tuesday 10 June 2003 19:18, Emma Jane Hogbin wrote: > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 06:15:13PM +0300, Aryan Ameri wrote: > > On Tuesday 10 June 2003 11:42, Paul Johnson wrote: > > > On Tue, Jun 10, 2003 at 02:10:45AM -0400, lists1 wrote: > > > > It works heavily toward w3c standard compliant code (and if you > > > > look at the top 100 sites, I doubt 10% of them are 100% > > > > standards compliant, and if you have 100% standards compliant, > > > > you'll be excluding over 90% of the browser users on the > > > > internet). > > > > > > No you wouldn't, because all the browsers out can decently render > > > a 100% compliant page. I've yet to find a browser that can't. > > > > I'm afraid this is not the case Paul. IE is not always able to > > render fully compliant pages, in a decent way. > > I still agree with Paul. Just because IE isn't able to render CSS > correctly it does not mean that just by using CSS you are excluding > "90% of the browser users on the internet."
Paul said, that he is yet to find a browser, which is not able to render 100% compliant pages, in a decent way. I just demonstrated that, this is not the case. However, I didn't mean that by designing 100% compliant pages, you will be excluding 90% of the people. [snip] > 2) Look at *your* traffic. Sure. I maintain a web site <www.linuxiran.org> which is a web portal for Iranian GNU/Linux users, and free software believers. As one can see from http://www.linuxiran.org/modules.php?name=Statistics only 43% of our viewers use IE. Netstat states that this figure is around 50%. In either case, this is much lower than the 90% thing, which is accpted over the internet. Although, one can argue that the site is a Linux web site, but still, ... > I personally would rather write to the standards instead of changing > things every few weeks as new versions of buggy browsers are > released. You can say that again Cheers -- Aryan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
