Best viewed with Firefox.

Well, my point is that I don't believe there is a difference between the two when it comes to the webpage itself. Images, text, flash, etc...they load the same. HTML is HTML, regardless of what browser you use. So why push someone into getting Firefox other than to have some lame mission to fight corporations like Microsoft.

 

Exactly right, Chopster!

 

Agree
I came across some game sites that only work with FF also..

 

Yea, that's the truth right there.

 

No, the user wouldn't notice a difference. This burden falls on the developer. Whole Web sites have been created with a list of IE's many rendering bugs, and the tricks needed to make a page appear correctly despite these errors. The only way to avoid having to use these tricks is to sacrifice the newer and better techniques and resort to the old methods of 8 or 9 years ago.

So, for those developers who have embraced the newer and better techniques, it is in their interests to push the popularity of Firefox because the end user is not aware of the trouble IE causes them.

 

I can hardly wait until those end users start discovering the trouble Firefox causes them and start switching back to IE.

 

What troubles are those?

 

No accounting for folk eh. Personally I design and test to make sites look the same regardly of the browser, idiosyncrasies aside. I actually have a friend that thinks like that, but he's rather dedicated to his Slackware distros. He's coming round to cross browser testing.

 

Do the research instead of blindly accepting the Fiurefox hype. There are threads at this forum and several others - Google it.

 

The problems I've seen discussed here are from people annoyed for having to fix errors they could get away with before. This, to me, is a good thing. If a programming compiler alerts me to a missing parenthese, I don't complain about the compiler, I fix my mistake and try not to make it again. And I hold the same opinion with HTML; I don't consider a browser problematic because it alerts me to a mistake.

 

Suit yourself, FeelsLikeANut. I have no interest in converting you. As I just said in another thread, what irritates me is the mentality that says "I believe this and anyone who thinks otherwise is wrong".

 

Sometimes, it's simply because it's true. What if I said to you, "anxiety is really just a myth". You know the opposite is true, and you would have the facts on your side. You could probably argue this with the mentality "I'm right, you're wrong", and you could do so because you are, in fact, right.

You, on the other hand, present no facts of your own and ignore the facts that contradict your opinion. In this thread I asked you for more information to back up your statement: you gave none. In the DIV/TABLE thread you asked for more information, I provided it, and you refused to even read it.

 

See my reply to you on that thread. You're assuming I haven't read it.

 

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=49732

 

A browser that allows you to get away with errors. Isn't this a GOOD thing?

 

No, it's not a good thing. All browsers rendering the same code the same, now that would be a good thing.

Without working to standards no browser can know how to render non-compliant code. A standard is unambiguous. Erroneous code is not.

 

I strongly agree with Zenith: making it easier for coders to write bad code is not a good thing.

 

But (1) which standards do/should browsers comply with? and (2) the propaganda that Firefox is the answer to the problem of agreement on standards is naive.

 

Well, back in the days of the v4 browsers rendering of the same code was so different that you could claim there were multiple standards to follow. But, as it turns out, this caused nothing but trouble for all parties involved. Apparently, browsers collectively made the decision to drop their individual standards—which now exists only through quirks mode—and to follow the actual specification of HTML. And, of course, some cases of malformed code are so blatantly wrong that they were probably never meant to be a new standard.

 

Explorer displays correctly HTML code that was coded according to standards, but also displays correctly HTML code that has errors.

The fact that Explorer displays good and bad code in a presentable way, I am more apt to go with their browser. As a surfer of the Internet, why would I want to use a browser that would be so anal when it comes to displaying correct HTML. I don't want to open pages and see them displayed like crap simply because FireFox has a "standard" that wasn't met. I want to view a webpage without the horizontal scrollbars and crappy placement, pure and simple. If the person who coded the page was an amateur and Explorer can fix their errors so I can see it displayed as if that person coded it correctly, then I think that's a good thing.