im afraid to say that for this one i am with Microsoft if i create the instance of a Div and i set its width then i want the div to be x pixels in width not x pixels + the padding etc.
Missed point error. We're talking about standards, and the W3C standard is the other way. A philosophical argument about what we might mean by 'the width of a div' isn't the issue.
Does that mean that they shouldnt be able to communicate their message
Not at all - again, that's not the argument here. By the same token, neophyte HTML authors probably aren't going to be thinking about 'pixel widths' in any case, they're going to have a drag and drop tool where they pull things around until they 'look about right'.
Even if every browser was 100% standards complient then we are still going to have to muck about with the layout due to cross-platform minor differences in width of a check box, is there a google bar loaded, does the browser have a side bar ?
There you go, thinking like a designer again :0) There's a perfectly adequate and sophisticated mechanism for delivering appearance tailored to the client software in use - CSS. But if the same, correct, CSS applied to the same, correct, HTML renders crap in IE and fine in Mozilla - who is at fault? It's not the designer. If you happen to want a funky checkbox 30 pixels square, you can style it thusly:
If the Googlebar/Sidebar is within the display area of the rendered HTML, there's something seriously wrong with the browser!
Where there is a will there is a way, if MS disapear of the planet tommorow i bet by next week a new virus is out, exploiting the new technology.
I'm not denying that, although more diversity of hosts reduces the effectiveness of any particular vector of infection.
Just becasue I may leave my door open does it make it right to burgle me.
In an ideal world, I'd agree. However, in a less than ideal world your only sensible option is to either lock your door or resign yourself to being an easy target. If it's impossible to secure your home, either because you can't find the keyhole in the door (buried deep in preferences) or you've got a gaping hole in the wall (no firewall) or because the act of locking the door makes it impossible for you to go about your business (disable ActiveX to be safe) - maybe you should think about moving house :-)
Consider the damage a ruling that a software provider is responsible for the uses inability / irresponsibility would do for open source software.
Who would issue such a ruling? We don't yet have a World Government (at least not one that I'm prepared to take any notice of), so this doesn't seem a very realistic situation.
Most users don't want to be educated (you as near as said as much yourself)
Users can't be effectively policed (who's going to do the policing?)
The Internet is a collection of technologies that only interoperate *at all* because of the standards (RFCs) that allow arbitrary applications to be built around them.
I'm not saying that MS and IE actually do the equivalent of drive on the wrong side of the road, but they do have a tendency to drive along otherwise well maintained roads dragging a plough behind them, ripping up the surface for everyone else and leaving others to pick up the pieces and do the repairs.
Because of problems with software for Apple I put Microsoft on top.
I can't judge your experiences, but my experience is different to that.
--
simon
|
