[vox] More IE exploits

[Michael J Wenk]

On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 01:55:02PM -0700, Bill Kendrick wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 25, 2004 at 12:08:12PM -0700, Michael J Wenk wrote:
> > I would argue that you would have to be certifiably insane to 
> > ignore IE if you do web development.   
> 
> What do you need to do to 'develop for IE' that isn't part of
> 'developing a webpage'?  If a page works fine on Mozilla, IE, Konqueror, etc.,
> then there's no problem.
> 
> The problem is when a site ONLY works with a certain browser.
> 
> Of course, one could argue that "if it only works with Mozilla, at least
> [some huge %] of people out there can GET that browser... and for free"
> 
> With IE, while we can say [some huge %] already HAVE it, there's also
> a reasonably large percent that do not (and in my case, for example,
> cannot) get it.
> 
> When you add to this the fact that it IS so insecure, you have a perfect
> argument for people to switch to Firefox, Mozilla, etc.  And if a site
> is designed _properly_, it will just work.  On IE or otherwise!
> 
> :)
> 
>


I went with that mentality once.  What happened was bad.  I made a nice pretty page
and it worked wonderfully on Netscape, Mozilla, and Lynx.  Sent the thing off to 
get reviewed by a peer(I was lucky I didn't just dump it back to our customer), and
when reviewed it managed to dump a windows box down hard(win2k I believe.)  I also
made no real effort to use any non compliant feature, but since I was using netscape 
and it worked, I kinda assumed it would elsewhere, big mistake.  In any event, that 
episode made me use IE, and while I dont especially like IE, its about the best 
browser available on the windows platform.  

Proper design does not always guarentee that it will port properly.