TfL's website wears a blank expression when viewed with the latest MSIE. I
wonder who's not compliant?

John Rowland wrote:
TfL's website wears a blank expression when viewed with the latest
MSIE. I wonder who's not compliant?

Hint: it's a Microsoft beta product that you're using. (God knows why ...)
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

On Nov 13, 10:45 am, "John Rowland"
wrote:
TfL's website wears a blank expression when viewed with the latest MSIE. I
wonder who's not compliant?

IE has never been compliant since the day it was launched so no prizes
for guessing who.

B2003

IE has never been compliant since the day it was launched so no prizes
for guessing who.

IE8 is a major rewrite with complete support of most common industry
standards - so there is high probability that it is TfL's fault.

"Alex" wrote ...
IE has never been compliant since the day it was launched so no prizes
for guessing who.
IE8 is a major rewrite with complete support of most common industry
standards - so there is high probability that it is TfL's fault.

Give us a break - M$ is famous for being the organisation that fights to get
on every 'standards' committee - then ignores the agreed standards.

Another clue: The site worked perfectly well with the previous MSIE, and
with Opera, FF and Chrome. And suddenyly, because IE8*beta* comes along, and
the site fails, it's TfL's fault?

Which planet are you on? Planet
"I-Love-M$-Despite-The-Obvious-Failings-I-Choose-To-Ignore"?
--

Andrew

Andrew Heenan wrote:
Another clue: The site worked perfectly well with the previous MSIE, and
with Opera, FF and Chrome. And suddenyly, because IE8*beta* comes along,
and the site fails, it's TfL's fault?

Well, it does cause the W3C validator to get terribly confused when parsing
it:

http://tinyurl.com/6fsksz
aka
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Inline&group=0

Theo

On 13/11/08 11:45, John Rowland wrote:
TfL's website wears a blank expression when viewed with the latest MSIE. I
wonder who's not compliant?

I do not know about IE, but the TfL website is not standards compliant.
The W3C HTML validator gives 19 Errors.

On Thu, 13 Nov 2008, Theo Markettos wrote:

Andrew Heenan wrote:
Another clue: The site worked perfectly well with the previous MSIE, and
with Opera, FF and Chrome. And suddenyly, because IE8*beta* comes along,
and the site fails, it's TfL's fault?

Well, it does cause the W3C validator to get terribly confused when parsing
it:

http://tinyurl.com/6fsksz
aka
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...Inline&group=0

19 Errors, 7 warning(s)

That's actually not too bad. For reference, when i feed the validator the
home page of a site my company had a substantial hand in, of a similar
complexity to the TfL home page, i get 85 Errors, 3 warning(s). Mind you,
ours declares itself to be XHTML 1.0 Strict (which is a joke and a half),
whilst TfL's is XHTML 1.0 Transitional. If i relax the doctype for ours to
Transitional, it goes down to just 70 errors and 4 warnings!

On the TfL page, the errors are all due to some unescaped URLs, and an A
tag that should be a. Maybe four actual errors. Not bad!

tom

--
Osteoclasts = monsters from the DEEP -- Andrew

On 13 Nov, 19:28, Tom Anderson wrote:
On the TfL page, the errors are all due to some unescaped URLs, and an A
tag that should be a. Maybe four actual errors. Not bad!

All of them are slight deficiencies in well-formedness, and I don't
think any of them are unacceptable. It's far more valid than I'd
expect.

And validity has only loose relationship with standards compliance.
It's akin to checking the terms of a contract are OK by running it
through spellcheck.

U

"Theo Markettos" wrote :
Another clue: The site worked perfectly well with the previous MSIE, and
with Opera, FF and Chrome. And suddenyly, because IE8*beta* comes along,
and the site fails, it's TfL's fault?
It does cause the W3C validator to get terribly confused when parsing it

So do most sites.
Hey, I'm not saying it's the perfect site.
But if it worked with IE7, FF, Opera, Chrome (which it did),
And IE is famous for NOT keeping to standards,
And it doesn't work with IE8*beta* .... do the math.
--

Andrew