<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Random griping about Dreamweaver/Firefox/HTML</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/</link>
	<description>Phil Steinmeyer's rumblings on the game biz, programming, and life</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Jun 2010 12:48:14 -0700</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Factory</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-33</link>
		<dc:creator>Factory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:30:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-33</guid>
		<description>Dunno if you changed the code or not, but the sidebox is now displayed fine in Firefox 1.5.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dunno if you changed the code or not, but the sidebox is now displayed fine in Firefox 1.5.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Steinmeyer</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-32</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Steinmeyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:57:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-32</guid>
		<description>Jos - What you say is true.  The visitors to this blog run about 55% Firefox, 35% I.E., and 10% all others.

But my company website (www.newcrayon.com) is targeted at casual game players/buyers, and I&#039;m guessing they&#039;ll be at least as much I.E. loyal as the web population as a whole, perhaps somewhat more so.

I may draw a bit disproportionately high for Mac/Safari, as the game does have a Mac version - I&#039;ll keep an eye on that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jos &#8211; What you say is true.  The visitors to this blog run about 55% Firefox, 35% I.E., and 10% all others.</p>
<p>But my company website (www.newcrayon.com) is targeted at casual game players/buyers, and I&#8217;m guessing they&#8217;ll be at least as much I.E. loyal as the web population as a whole, perhaps somewhat more so.</p>
<p>I may draw a bit disproportionately high for Mac/Safari, as the game does have a Mac version &#8211; I&#8217;ll keep an eye on that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jos</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-31</link>
		<dc:creator>Jos</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:36:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-31</guid>
		<description>While you are right that dev&#039;s need to look at market share, you also have to look a bit more deeply then just &quot;IE has 90% of the market&quot;. If you are targeting technically minded people, IE might not be 90% of that market. Or, if your software is cross-platform, but your market is the type that buy mac&#039;s as often as PC&#039;s, you&#039;d want to support Safari.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>While you are right that dev&#8217;s need to look at market share, you also have to look a bit more deeply then just &#8220;IE has 90% of the market&#8221;. If you are targeting technically minded people, IE might not be 90% of that market. Or, if your software is cross-platform, but your market is the type that buy mac&#8217;s as often as PC&#8217;s, you&#8217;d want to support Safari.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Phil Steinmeyer</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-30</link>
		<dc:creator>Phil Steinmeyer</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:32:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-30</guid>
		<description>PJay - thanks for the tip.  And I&#039;ll take a look at that DOM inspector after I do a general Firefox upgrade when 1.5 comes out this week.

Factory - I agree that it&#039;s hard to ask Firefox to replicate I.E. bugs.  For that matter, when I see pages displaying incorrectly on one browser or the other, I don&#039;t know whose &#039;bug&#039; it truly is.  But that doesn&#039;t really matter - pure market share forces developers (smart ones anyways) to pay closest attention to the bigger player, and as you move down the scale from I.E. -&gt; Firefox -&gt; Safari -&gt; Opera -&gt; Konqueror -&gt; etc, you&#039;re going to see fewer and fewer webmasters testing their pages on these browsers, much less optimizing for them.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>PJay &#8211; thanks for the tip.  And I&#8217;ll take a look at that DOM inspector after I do a general Firefox upgrade when 1.5 comes out this week.</p>
<p>Factory &#8211; I agree that it&#8217;s hard to ask Firefox to replicate I.E. bugs.  For that matter, when I see pages displaying incorrectly on one browser or the other, I don&#8217;t know whose &#8216;bug&#8217; it truly is.  But that doesn&#8217;t really matter &#8211; pure market share forces developers (smart ones anyways) to pay closest attention to the bigger player, and as you move down the scale from I.E. -&gt; Firefox -&gt; Safari -&gt; Opera -&gt; Konqueror -&gt; etc, you&#8217;re going to see fewer and fewer webmasters testing their pages on these browsers, much less optimizing for them.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: PJay</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-29</link>
		<dc:creator>PJay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 28 Nov 2005 19:07:41 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-29</guid>
		<description>delete line 82 and 156:

82 =


156 = 



I don&#039;t know why IE doesn&#039;t display those lines though, the code looks like you deliberately put them there.


And, I think you might have had less trouble finding these error if you write the html by hand from the beginning. Ofcourse, I know you are no web designer, but it&#039;s always hard find your way in such a generated-code. 

A tip for easier debug html in firefox: the DOM inspector lets you click through a tree-like structure of the code and you see the corresponding item flash in the browser: http://www.codestore.net/store.nsf/unid/BLOG-20050228</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>delete line 82 and 156:</p>
<p>82 =</p>
<p>156 = </p>
<p>I don&#8217;t know why IE doesn&#8217;t display those lines though, the code looks like you deliberately put them there.</p>
<p>And, I think you might have had less trouble finding these error if you write the html by hand from the beginning. Ofcourse, I know you are no web designer, but it&#8217;s always hard find your way in such a generated-code. </p>
<p>A tip for easier debug html in firefox: the DOM inspector lets you click through a tree-like structure of the code and you see the corresponding item flash in the browser: <a href="http://www.codestore.net/store.nsf/unid/BLOG-20050228" rel="nofollow">http://www.codestore.net/store.nsf/unid/BLOG-20050228</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Factory</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-28</link>
		<dc:creator>Factory</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2005 11:55:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-28</guid>
		<description>&quot;Microsoft and has a 90% share, any other browser that displays pages differently is out of luck.&quot;
  In defence of Firefox, coding to replicate bugs is just asking for HTML coding to be more complex in the long run.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Microsoft and has a 90% share, any other browser that displays pages differently is out of luck.&#8221;<br />
  In defence of Firefox, coding to replicate bugs is just asking for HTML coding to be more complex in the long run.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: William Willing</title>
		<link>http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/comment-page-1/#comment-27</link>
		<dc:creator>William Willing</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:54:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/19/random-griping-about-dreamweaverfirefoxhtml/#comment-27</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t take this the wrong way, but part of the problem is that you&#039;re not using HTML right. You really shouldn&#039;t use tables for layout; use CSS instead. There&#039;s a bit of a learning curve, but you&#039;ll be able to create much better web pages. You might even (re)discover why HTML behaves the way it does. :-)

I agree with the IE/Firefox problem, though. It doesn&#039;t really matter who&#039;s more standards compliant, it just sucks that they treat the same HTML differently. I take it you are not about to test on Opera, Safari and other browsers. :-p</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t take this the wrong way, but part of the problem is that you&#8217;re not using HTML right. You really shouldn&#8217;t use tables for layout; use CSS instead. There&#8217;s a bit of a learning curve, but you&#8217;ll be able to create much better web pages. You might even (re)discover why HTML behaves the way it does. <img src='http://www.philsteinmeyer.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>I agree with the IE/Firefox problem, though. It doesn&#8217;t really matter who&#8217;s more standards compliant, it just sucks that they treat the same HTML differently. I take it you are not about to test on Opera, Safari and other browsers. :-p</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
