[vox] More IE exploits
ddhummel at pacbell.net
Fri Jun 25 12:52:46 PDT 2004
On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:12PM -0700, Michael J Wenk wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 06:55:41AM -0700, Rod Roark wrote:
> > We now seem to be at the point where an informed person
> > would have to be certifiably insane to use IE.
> I never thought Id see the day where I defend IE, but I don't see your
> statement as being fair. The biggest problem with IE is not its
> buggyness, but its market weight. I did some quick googling for stats
> on this, and found that 95% of the web uses IE. So given that if
> you're attempting to do any broadmarket web development, you're kinda
> stuck developing for IE(unless of course you want to ignore the
> majority of your market) Even narrowing down your markets, you really
> cannot afford to ignore IE, cuz if you do, some customer(or potential
> customer) will suddenly report a problem with it, and then what will
> you do? Say: Sorry sir/ma'am, we do not support IE, the browser that
> comes standard on the most prevalent OS out there?
> I would argue that you would have to be certifiably insane to ignore
> IE if you do web development.
Obviously one needs to ensure compatibility with IE when developing, but
it's not necessary to take an IE-only approach. You're probably not
suggesting this, but it's entirely possible to develop for multiple
is both standards-compliant and has common compatibility among browsers.
This often requires lots of trial-and-error and tweeking (mainly due to
idiosyncracies in IE), but the payoff is maximum visibility. The gap is
closing somewhat in terms of standards compliance, and I understand this
is a primary goal for future versions of IE (so they say ;-). The worst
thing you can do is develop exclusively for IE.
More information about the vox