3 ms·
Developing for ie in the old days was usually at the expense of other browsers because of stuff like active x. There was no way to port that stuff to other brow
by tomelders 15y ago
Developing for ie in the old days was usually at the expense of other browsers because of stuff like active x. There was no way to port that stuff to other browsers, which is why you had ie only websites. there will never come a time when writing standards compliant code becomes the problem your predicting. But the reality of today is that writing standards compliant code for ie is somewhere between difficult and impossible defending on what you're trying to accomplish.
IE is deserving of the trashing it receives.
- Isofarro 15y ago"Developing for ie in the old days was usually at the expense of other browsers because of stuff like active x" Errr... no. Active X was a tiny part of the problem. IE's problem was to support basically any quality of markup thrown at it, when other browsers couldn't. Then developers rely on this, which pushes their sites into IE-only zones. As time passes it gets progressively more difficult to extract a site out of this tar-pit. It amuses me that the arguments for not supporting IE echo the same arguments IE-only advocates were using as a reason not to support other browsers a decade ago.
- tomelders 15y agoI said "stuff like active x". And I wouldn't say it's a tiny part of the problem. I still encounter clients (usually in government) who are forced to use IE6 because of some legacy webware they depend on which uses Active X. No one is using the same arguments for not supporting IE. People are saying browsers should adhere to the standards, which is totally different.