21–28 of 28 posts
I gave up on IE a long time ago. If they don't support the standards, I don't support them. Of course my pages still render on IE, but I don't do any quirks mode stuff, that just causes too much pain. Oh, well, that's not strictly true, since I have to have two different things in the CSS for rounded corners (webkit vs mozilla), but apart from that I try to keep quirks to a minimum, and IE can go die in a fire for al…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
But they have a standard, and this is good for consistency across their development. What may be better is "follow the standard that you are working on", meaning, don't change coding style because you prefer your own, adopt what is already there, or the norms for a project (e.g. 2 space indents for all that Ruby code we have).
Agreed. Maintaining consistency is key.
The W3C HTML validator gives up after the second line of the document: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fna.isobar.com...
Here's the source: Code Standards | Isobar I see a couple of problems. First up, they're not indenting. The validator is spitting the dummy because of two things, the first is the spurious whitespace before the doctype tag, the second is the title (which it thinks is missing), but the real problem is with the meta tag which isn't properly closed. But hey, free dinosaur. With hat.
The W3C HTML validator gives up after the second line of the document: http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fna.isobar.com...
Here's the source: Code Standards | Isobar I see a couple of problems. First up, they're not indenting. The validator is spitting the dummy because of two things, the first is the spurious whitespace before the doctype tag, the second is the title (which it thinks is missing), but the real problem is with the meta tag which isn't properly closed. But hey, free dinosaur. With hat.
I gave up on IE a long time ago. If they don't support the standards, I don't support them. Of course my pages still render on IE, but I don't do any quirks mode stuff, that just causes too much pain. Oh, well, that's not strictly true, since I have to have two different things in the CSS for rounded corners (webkit vs mozilla), but apart from that I try to keep quirks to a minimum, and IE can go die in a fire for al…
Do you not worry about viewers that still use IE?
The difficulty with such "standards" and "best practices" is that what is standard can often be subjective. For example, under Indentation, they have: For all code languages, we require indentation to be done via soft tabs (using the space character). Hitting Tab in your text editor shall be equivalent to four spaces. Umm, who died and made you king? I don't like using 4 spaces. I find it a waste of space, literally.…
As much as you don't like using 4 spaces, it's much worse to have a codebase littered with some sections using 4 spaces, some sections using tabs, some sections using 2 spaces, some sections using 8 spaces, and some sections using a random assortment of nothing in particular.
Just as you accept the apparent standard of 2 spaces when working within the Ruby community, for consistency's sake I'd hope you would accept the standard of whatever other team you're working with.
The difficulty with such "standards" and "best practices" is that what is standard can often be subjective. For example, under Indentation, they have: For all code languages, we require indentation to be done via soft tabs (using the space character). Hitting Tab in your text editor shall be equivalent to four spaces. Umm, who died and made you king? I don't like using 4 spaces. I find it a waste of space, literally.…
Isobar front end engineer here...
What you're looking at is a document that serves as OUR internal standard. We just made it public because we think people might find it useful. We understand what we do internally may not work for everyone, but that's part of the fun of sharing documents like this. We learn too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do you not worry about viewers that still use IE?
He just implied he doesn't. Not that his pages doesn't render, he just don't care to polish them for IE.
Take border-radius for instance. It is 'fluff'. It makes no functional difference to the page whether it is there or not.
Now, for Moz and Webkit, I get nice looking rounded corners for negligible effort. In order to duplicate that look on IE there are any number of ways to do it, but all of them involve enormously much more effort, and are much more fragile (anything where you need pixel perfect positioning is fragile and easily broken by different browser versions).
Additionally, the longer WE support IE's blatant disregard of standards, the less incentive they have to adhere to those standards.