GOOGLE CHROME

I might install to test websites if i start having a lot of visitors use it but I'm sticking with Firefox, just too many damn good extensions for web development like firebug which I've come to rely on.

BTW, how's the site look in Chrome, normal hopefully?

Razzler wrote:except for when i click on active posts everything is huge?

Bad tag, should be fixed.

Some browsers will "fix" things and it wasn't evident in FF or IE. *censored* should just break if there is something wrong instead of being helpful


------edit--------

Fixed, downloaded chrome to check it out myself. First impression is that is quite fast.

Well this was bug caused by me but as i said stuff should just break. It's easier to fix if you know it's there. Another example is IE produces the red ex if the image is missing which is good as far as I'm concerned. FF instead will either put a text link that goes no where. Not very helpful as it might not be noticeable.

The group is the WC3. They have no official recognition as far as I know if you wanted to compare them to someone like those that control building codes in more ways that one such as being able to actually download the documentation. All browsers try to adhere to the rules, and they set specification for any open web document like HTML, CSS, etc. Opera I beleive is considered the most compliant at least of any that has any significant usage. The test for compliance is the acid test, Ilinked to the Acid2 test on wiki because it has a nice gallery of how much rendering can vary in different browsers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2

rberq wrote:For IE8 that means some of the idiosyncrasies that worked in IE6 and IE7 will fail in IE8

You can add a meta tag in the header to force IE to render a document as IE7, IE6 etc.

that standards promote efficiency, or that standards stifle innovation.

Yes it's double edged sword but I don't see the WWW being what it is today without a set of standards, the innovation comes from it's largess. If their was no standards it would be like a bunch of power companies all offering electricity at different voltages. Where's that leave the people making appliances?

Browsers need to adhere to them, once they meet the standards they can add extras from their such as Flash. There is still to this day no way to reliably embed a video into a web page without Flash or Silverlight. That's for variety of reasons but at the top of the list there is standard way to do it and there is no open source standard codec adopted, there is only one codec that can reliably played on any platform and that's MPEG1 which requires about 5X the bitrate of a modern codec like WMV9, DIVX, or any of the MPEG4 derivatives. Embedding it in a page is without the use of plug-in like flash is for all intents and purposes impossible even when you break the rules.

The issues are many, the people setting the standards are slow to set them, as I look at it we are still in the era of the model T. They need to speed it up. The next issue is that browsers makers are so slow to adopt them. Some of them don't even fully support CSS2 which came out years ago. Lastly people simply want to stick with old reliable for whatever reason. Almost 20% of the traffic I get is still using IE6.

Yanche wrote:A check of nepadigital.org shows five errors. Bad, bad Richard. Correct use of the w3 tools can improve your web site.

They are related to the paypal link, as I'm forced to use what they provide please direct your complaints to paypal.com

Edit: for all their bluster about build good pages check out Google.com

56 Errors, 14 warning(s)

While on the topic when using that tool be aware errors can cause a cascading effect. So if you're checking your pages with it fix the first error then recheck as the others may magically go away.