"The Ghost In The Machine" wrote in message
news:j1ib35-qq3.ln1@sirius.tg00suus7038.net...
>
> No doubt they approached the problem from the wrong angle;
> they wanted to actually implement the W3C standards
> *correctly*, and display such difficult tests as
>
> http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/
>
> 100% correctly, as opposed to following IE's footsteps.
>
> Opera: 100%. Everything's in the right place, the
> thing looks just like the reference rendering. If
> one fiddles with the width the face does discombobulate
> slightly, but that's expected -- and explained in the
> containing text.
>
Well, if they went to all that trouble, they should tell all the people in
the world who agree with them that they have the one and only 100% compliant
product on the planet and everyone who values that attribute should buy from
them. Unfortunately, it now appears that everyone wants their browser to
show sites in a neatly viewable form and don't really care one fig how that
is done. It is enough to know the time of day, one need not know how to
build a watch.

* amicus_curious fired off this tart reply:

> Well, if they went to all that trouble, they should tell all the people in
> the world who agree with them that they have the one and only 100% compliant
> product on the planet and everyone who values that attribute should buy from
> them. Unfortunately, it now appears that everyone wants their browser to
> show sites in a neatly viewable form and don't really care one fig how that
> is done. It is enough to know the time of day, one need not know how to
> build a watch.

In most markets, it works because companies hew somewhat to the same
standards.

In the browser market, they hew to Microsoft's standards.

--
Tux rox!