As the subject says is IE6.5 or higher w3c compliant and how compliant are other browsers in displaying a w3c compliant page. Basically there is a conflict going on at a potential client since one of the vendors wants that crap to run so that his app which is browser based can function. If the o/p of his app is w3c compliant FF / Konqueror / lynx should work properly and he shouldnt care what runs on a client. Since the vendor is a software giant and i will be kicking ass, i want to make sure. google throws up pages of irrelevant (almost) stuff. On a related note are there standrds for xml and does M$ push it's own version.
hey,
is IE6.5 or higher w3c compliant
no not in any way....
and how compliant
are other browsers in displaying a w3c compliant page.
apart from opera(very less user base in desktops) and safari, there arent really any browser which are completely w3c compliant..... FF and IE are trying to move towards that(FF is doing well) but i dont see IE move anywhere closer wat the w3c specs are....
On a related note are there standrds for xml
xml is a well documented standard...
and does M$ push it's own
version.
i dont think otherwise.
On 6/9/07, PV Sundarram sunn.pv@gmail.com wrote:
apart from opera(very less user base in desktops) and safari, there arent really any browser which are completely w3c compliant.....
What about Konqueror? If I am not wrong both Safari and Konqueror use KHTML.
hey,
On 6/9/07, mehul mehul.forums@gmail.com wrote:
On 6/9/07, PV Sundarram sunn.pv@gmail.com wrote:
apart from opera(very less user base in desktops) and safari, there
arent
really any browser which are completely w3c compliant.....
What about Konqueror? If I am not wrong both Safari and Konqueror use KHTML.
tats y i ignored konqueror, neyways tanx for pointing tat.
--
On Sunday 10 Jun 2007 00:00:12 PV Sundarram wrote:
tats y i ignored konqueror, neyways tanx for pointing tat.
Ugh. Can you please mind your language?
hey
On 6/10/07, Mrugesh Karnik mrugeshkarnik@gmail.com wrote:
On Sunday 10 Jun 2007 00:00:12 PV Sundarram wrote:
tats y i ignored konqueror, neyways tanx for pointing tat.
Ugh. Can you please mind your language?
no offense meant...
--
Mrugesh Karnik GPG Key 0xBA6F1DA8 Public key on http://wwwkeys.pgp.net
On Sun, 2007-06-10 at 09:58 +0530, Mrugesh Karnik wrote:
On Sunday 10 Jun 2007 00:00:12 PV Sundarram wrote:
tats y i ignored konqueror, neyways tanx for pointing tat.
Ugh. Can you please mind your language?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAhhhhhh.... language police!!!!!!!!!!!11111
:P
mehul wrote:
What about Konqueror? If I am not wrong both Safari and Konqueror use KHTML.
Safari uses a modified version of KHTML, WebKit [1]. Another example of the GPL forcing a corporate to release source code of modified GPL'ed software :)
-- Anant
Sometime Today, Anant Narayanan assembled some asciibets to say:
Safari uses a modified version of KHTML, WebKit [1]. Another example of the GPL forcing a corporate to release source code of modified GPL'ed software :)
What makes you think they were forced? Maybe that's what they always intended to do.
On the other hand, I know of a lot of small developers who use loopholes in the GPL to build proprietary applications around GPLed libraries.
I'll give you an example of an IM client (which I won't name). It uses a well known GPLed multi protocol IM library. The author wrote a thin wrapper around the library to expose all functions over a socket (TCP or unix domain), and released this under the GPL. This wrapper is so generic that it could be used for any library. He then wrote a proprietary IM application that called all functions via the socket.
A second example, also with IM clients is folks who've written web apps wrapped around GPLed code, but have no reason to release their code because they don't actually distribute it.
It's not the corporates you have to worry about. Doing something like this would give them bad PR. It's the little guys who have nothing to lose, but a bad attitude to spread that you have to worry about.
Sometime on Jun 9, j dropped bits saying:
As the subject says is IE6.5 or higher w3c compliant and how compliant are other browsers in displaying a w3c compliant page.
There is no browser that is 100% W3C compliant, mainly because it depends on which standard you quote. Opera and Safari pass the ACID test for CSS (IIRC), but not necessarily for HTML and DOM/Javascript.
of the vendors wants that crap to run so that his app which is browser based can function. If the o/p of his app is w3c compliant FF / Konqueror / lynx should work properly and he shouldnt care what
See Yahoo!'s graded browser support document: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/
Philip
On Monday 11 June 2007 19:12, Philip Tellis wrote:
There is no browser that is 100% W3C compliant, mainly because it depends on which standard you quote. Opera and Safari pass the ACID test for CSS (IIRC), but not necessarily for HTML and DOM/Javascript.
of the vendors wants that crap to run so that his app which is browser based can function. If the o/p of his app is w3c compliant FF / Konqueror / lynx should work properly and he shouldnt care what
Turns out that the vendor has never tested his stuff on anything other than IE6 "because nobody asked for it". Then quickly proceeds to read the M$ incantations about security, standards, costs, support etc all of which i painstakingly corrected. Faced with the prospect of admitting to incompetently advising clients they have agreed to test with FF / Moz and take corrective action where ever neccessary, subject to being given some time whenever things dont pan out as planned. The outcome was such imo cause i insisted on a point by point reply and also cause this vendor is known for being a very ethical company.
-
Anant Narayanan -
Dinesh Joshi -
jtd -
mehul -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Philip Tellis -
PV Sundarram -
PV Sundarram