Serge Popper wrote:
>[...]On certain URL's the original design of the page
>is not reproduced faithfully by Seamonkey.
>One of those URL's is American Express.


This issue is addressed here repeatedly.

When corporations stop hiring idiots to mung together sites
and start hiring COMPETENT Web developers to build their sites,
**THEN** you can start making valid comparisons.
Until then, all a browser can do
is GUESS what the codemonkey was trying to do.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...anexpress.com/
343 Errors, 48 warning(s)

Compare:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...wehaveawinner/

If clueless codemonkeys use IE as the measure of their code,
then their pages will "look right" ONLY when using Internet Exploder.
IE is the LEAST standards-compliant of all browsers
--by a HUGE margin:
http://google.com/search?q=cache:NTG...71+020&strip=1

If, OTOH, those developer would make standards-compliant code,
it would render properly in the majority of browsers
and their pages would look differently only in Internet Exploder
--unless IE-speciic tweaks are applied.

David addressed this when he mentioned "sniffing".
The problem is that browser sniffing is often done completely wrong.
When sniffing is done PROPERLY, it is necessary to sniff ONLY for IE;
when any other browser is detected,
only a **standards-compliant** page need be served.
For Internet Exploder, a cascading style sheet should be included
to make the tweaks needed for the LEAST-COMPLIANT browser.

A smart developer will quote a cost to design a **compliant** Web
page.
To get the page to work with ONE version of the M$ browser
doubles[1] the time required and should be quoted accordingly.
Repeat this for EVERY version of IE for which support is desired.
(IE isn't even compliant with itself, version to version.)
..
..
[1] Over time, a developer builds up a kit of IE-specific workarounds
and the time required goes down a bit.