Suckerfish CSS drop-down menu problem (major IE inconsistency!)

[Neo Geshel]

Neo Geshel wrote:




The closing of all (not just empty) elements and the quoting of all
attribute values are practices required by normative parts of the XHTML
spec. See part 3.1.1, point 1. (All of chapter 3 is normative.)

Don't go off topic here. You claimed that all of chapter 4 was "not
normative" and merely "suggestions", and therefore the use of CDATA
inside Script and Style was also a mere "suggestion". So by your
definition, since the termination of empty elements and proper nesting
and a whole bunch of other things are in chapter 4, what in chapter 4
makes them "normative" and the use of CDATA "not normative"?

Why, in all of twelve items in chapter 4, is the use of CDATA the only
item that is "not normative" if you claimed that everything inside of
chapter 4 was only a "suggestion"?

Remember, you took the argument to chapter 4 by claiming the contents of
chapter 4 to be definitive as only "suggestions". Now either prove your
argument from what chapter 4 contains or leave me alone.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Neal]

And if an electrical fault (caused by age) causes your house to burn to
the ground, you're saying that your house's destruction is your own
fault, and not the fault of the fire or the age of the electrical system?

It is your fault, if you chose to use shoddy, prone-to-fail materials. If
you used good quality materials instead, the likelihood of the problem is
much less.

Which, I believe, is Richard's point. Your use of cleartype causes
difficulties for users. You focus on the hardware needing upgrading - will
you write a check for the upgrades, or ship out a new monitor? Isn't it
easier to simply eliminate the cleartype that causes the problem?

 

[Spartanicus]

It is your fault, if you chose to use shoddy, prone-to-fail materials. If
you used good quality materials instead, the likelihood of the problem is
much less.

Which, I believe, is Richard's point. Your use of cleartype causes
difficulties for users. You focus on the hardware needing upgrading - will
you write a check for the upgrades, or ship out a new monitor? Isn't it
easier to simply eliminate the cleartype that causes the problem?

A CRT monitor has a defective blue gun, does this imply that authors who
specify blue links should fork out the money to get the user's monitor
repaired?

 

[Neal]

A CRT monitor has a defective blue gun, does this imply that authors who
specify blue links should fork out the money to get the user's monitor
repaired?

Apples and oranges. One can reasonably expect a color monitor to be in
proper working order.

What seems to be the case here is a technology that relies on some special
type of monitor is being used, and the blame for poor results is placed on
the user's equipment. I'm surprised to be explaining this. It's no
different than relying on Js for page functionality. Would you blame the
user's setup, or is it instead a fault of the author?

 

[Neo Geshel]

It is your fault, if you chose to use shoddy, prone-to-fail materials.
If you used good quality materials instead, the likelihood of the
problem is much less.

Which, I believe, is Richard's point. Your use of cleartype causes
difficulties for users. You focus on the hardware needing upgrading -
will you write a check for the upgrades, or ship out a new monitor?
Isn't it easier to simply eliminate the cleartype that causes the problem?

If you go back through the posts, you will notice that I have placed
emphasis on the fact that if cleartype produces a negative effect, it is
because hardware has become damaged or is not performing to spec (to the
point where it is considered by most people to be "broken").

Cheap hardware is not the issue. I've seen cleartype work just as well
on a cheap $CDN300 LCD display just as on the latest $CDN1,700 LCD
display. Different hardware is also not the problem. I've seen it work
on old 14 and 15" "bubble" monitors (monitors so old their screens
bubble outwards with a very strong curvature) just as well as the latest
22" flat screened CRT's. I've seen it work on RGB monitors as well as
(with the arrival of Service Pack 1 for XP) the rare RBG style of monitor.

Where I haven't seen it work well is on damaged hardware. On hardware
that wasn't working right in the first place, and was performing so
poorly that it had already been earmarked for repair or replacement well
before cleartype was even attempted.

So a "check for upgrades" is not the issue. Nor is an upgrade required
for hardware that is functioning within specifications, and is producing
a nice, sharp image; as cleartype will function just fine there.

Besides, how do you determine shoddy materials in today's tech world? I
have seen cheap components operate in high-traffic servers for years and
have seen expensive components sizzle and fizzle almost as soon as they
have been plugged in. Companies that purposely make shoddy products
don't exist long in today's tech world; Darwinian processes ensure that
nearly everyone is making components with a reasonable degree of
reliability. Beyond that, guessing if your hardware will last or not is
a technological Russian roulette.

Besides, how many users have experienced problems with Cleartype,
compared to other Windows annoyances? I Googled several different
combinations of words involving "cleartype", and every set of results
were mostly of either what cleartype was, or how to turn it on. Maybe
I'm just not Googling the right terms. Google link, anyone?

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Toby Inkster]

Remember, you took the argument to chapter 4 by claiming the contents of
chapter 4 to be definitive as only "suggestions". Now either prove your
argument from what chapter 4 contains or leave me alone.

I really ought to remember the mantra, "never argue with an idiot -- they
drag you down to their level, then beat you with experience."

Chapters 2 and 3 define the rules for XHTML 1.0. Chapters 1, 4 and 5 are
full of suggestions, clarification and additional info. When determining
the conformance of an XHTML 1.0 document, you only need to pay any
attention to chapters 2 and 3 -- the others can be ignored totally.

Chapter 3 says that conforming documents must conform to one of the XHTML
DTDs. The XHTML DTDs in turn forbid improper nesting, unquoted attributes,
unclosed elements, etc. Hence improper nesting, unquoted attributes and
unclosed elements are not legal in conforming XHTML 1.0 documents.

Chapters 2 and 3 don't anywhere mention silly <![[CDATA[ tricks, so such
things are not required for a conforming document.

Q.E.D.

Consider yourself plonked.

 

[Spartanicus]

Apples and oranges. One can reasonably expect a color monitor to be in
proper working order.

What seems to be the case here is a technology that relies on some special
type of monitor is being used

That's not my impression.

, and the blame for poor results is placed on
the user's equipment.

Neo suggests that an inability to render clear-type is due to faulty
hardware, I don't know if that is true, but if it is my monitor with a
faulty gun analogy applies. I don't know anything about, nor do I care
about clear-type, so I only followed the thread with half an eye.

 

[rf]

That's not my impression.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/gdi/fontext_0xgn.asp

The telling point is in the second paragraph:

<quote>
However, ClearType is dependent on the orientation and ordering of the LCD
stripes. Currently, ClearType is implemented only for LCDs with vertical
stripes that are ordered RGB. In particular, this affects tablet PCs, where
the display can be oriented in any direction, and those screens that can be
turned from landscape to portrait.
</quote>

Note that Microsoft does *not* say that cleartype is disabled for these
"affected" devices. Cleartype can not determine if your pixels are rgb or
bgr. Switch on cleartype on a bgr screen and the results are dismal.

There are also a lot of application "don't"s. Don't repaint text, don't use
xor to highlight text etc. If an application does one of these things then
that application may screw up with cleartype enabled. This is, of course,
not the fault of the web site that turned on cleartype, is it now? No, its a
hardware problem <removes tongue from cheek>

 

[Toby Inkster]

Switch on cleartype on a bgr screen and the results are dismal.

The Linux equivalent, FreeType, supports RGB, BGR, VRGB and VBGR.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Note that Microsoft does *not* say that cleartype is disabled for these
"affected" devices. Cleartype can not determine if your pixels are rgb or
bgr. Switch on cleartype on a bgr screen and the results are dismal.

As I said in an earlier post, RBG is supported under Service Pack 1.
Besides, only idiots run without service packs, as they do a lot to
close the many security holes that Windows comes with. Note that I
didn't say, "every last update", just "service pack". Applying every
last critical update isn't always the best for an unusual or custom system.

Besides, I've seen several tilt-screens that look just as good in
portrait mode as they do in landscape mode, with or without cleartype
enabled. Of course, they were all Samsung, LG and Viewsonic 20"+ models.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Sam Hughes]

Besides, only idiots run without service packs, as they do a lot to
close the many security holes that Windows comes with.

Going by that logic, only idiots run Windows ;-)


Oh wait, I run Windows.

 

[Neo Geshel]

Going by that logic, only idiots run Windows ;-)

True. And all the really smart people use Mac (non-scientific yet
statistically viable polls in the last few years have shown that 60+% of
Mac users have a Bachelor's degree or better, but less than 20% of
Windows users can claim the same).

Oh wait, I run Windows.

LOL. Same for me, and not by choice (my primary system, at least). My
ideal primary system would be a Mac, except there are a number of
programs that do not have Mac equivalents, and I do not have the time or
resources to create Mac variants.

....Geshel
--
**********************************************************************
My reply-to is an automatically monitored spam honeypot. Do not use it
unless you want to be blacklisted by SpamCop. Please reply to my first
name at my last name dot org.
**********************************************************************

 

[Toby Inkster]

True. And all the really smart people use Mac (non-scientific yet
statistically viable polls in the last few years have shown that 60+% of
Mac users have a Bachelor's degree or better, but less than 20% of
Windows users can claim the same).

But most of them are poncy arts degrees so they don't really count.

 

[Kris]

True. And all the really smart people use Mac (non-scientific yet
statistically viable polls in the last few years have shown that 60+% of
Mac users have a Bachelor's degree or better, but less than 20% of
Windows users can claim the same).

But most of them are poncy arts degrees so they don't really count.[/QUOTE]

Doesn't that prove that Mac people are also more creative than Windows
people?

 

[Els]

Doesn't that prove that Mac people are also more creative
than Windows people?

Nah, I found the most creative artists are those that dropped
out of artschool within the first year or so. Too creative to
stick to what the teachers think is artistic.

 

[Kris]

Doesn't that prove that Mac people are also more creative
than Windows people?

Nah, I found the most creative artists are those that dropped
out of artschool within the first year or so. Too creative to
stick to what the teachers think is artistic. [/QUOTE]

Funny enough, most of my friends prove that when they do stick around
they end up being art teachers themselves.

 

[Els]

Nah, I found the most creative artists are those that
dropped out of artschool within the first year or so. Too
creative to stick to what the teachers think is artistic.

Funny enough, most of my friends prove that when they do
stick around they end up being art teachers themselves.[/QUOTE]

Funny, but logical too, seems to me
Same would happen if you'd have a school to learn FrontPage...
Only those that stick with what's taught can teach the others,
plus they can't do much more than that ;-)

 

[Toby Inkster]

Nah, I found the most creative artists are those that dropped
out of artschool within the first year or so.

Plus I think engineering is plenty creative.

 

[Els]

Plus I think engineering is plenty creative.

True.

 

[rf]

Plus I think engineering is plenty creative.

At least one can KICK a piece of recaltricant engineering.

All one can to with a PSP image, say, is to swear at it.