Why is it that you have to say "if" all the time? It just proves that you only ever comment to try to be one up on other people.
- What? I'm sorry, I didn't realise the word 'if' offends you...
Quite frankly I don't care much as to what part of CSS you were addressing given that my first post wasn't in reply to you.
Again: what? Who's talking about your first post? I was replying to your last post which was a reply to me.
If I choose to digress or generalise then I will.
Huh? Should you be using the word 'if'? I'll read that as 'If I choose to talk complete bollocks then I will', because having read your post that's exactly what you've done.
The fact still remains that browser development is light years BEHIND what it should be as is the ability of browsers to understand what is being fed to them by the server.
- Not as far as I can see. With the exception of a couple of browsers (unfortunately some of the popular ones) who shall remain nameless, I'd say web standards are finally getting close to being accurately and consistently reproduced in a wide range of systems and devices.
When I make a website, it annoys the hell out of me when I view the page in a browser and find that it lines up differently in another. Sometimes the difference is only one pixel but that is still relevant if attention to detail is what someone is looking for. In light of this it is reasonable to suggest that browser development needs to play catch-up.
- I write my sites to XHTML/CSS2 standards and, apart from the previously mentioned *evil* browsers, it will be pixel-perfect in all browsers except for a few of the more advanced features such as counters and generated content.
There are some dreadful websites on the net. Most of the sites that fit into that catagory are riddled with java applets, Flash animations, heavy JPG images and plenty of tables. The so-called webmasters that put these sites together bask in self admiration at what a high-tech site they have put together but forget that millions of 'Net users still use 33k and 56k connections and will do so for many years to come as ISDN, ADSL and Cable are unaffordable in many cases.
- I find it amusing that you group tables in with flash, java, and large jpegs, as if they're some kind of monstrously huge bandwidth eating markup. Tables also aren't high-tech, so that sentence is also irrelevant.
It's a little unfair to expect people to visit a site when it is bogged down in such an archaic way. Your wise-crack of "*Gasp* 0.207 seconds instead of 0.143 to render a webpage! I don't know if I can wait that long." is therefore meaningless.
- I'm gonna have to go back to: what? My *wise-crack* is the exact response I'd use again to the 'bogged down' sentence. Why is it meaningless for me to point out that what you call 'bogged down' is a matter of milliseconds?
