Skip to main content
Software Engineering

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

6
  • 2
    Can you back that second assertion up with some verifiable facts? Commented Jan 22, 2013 at 13:58
  • @Bart I doubt anything like an actual member stating such actually exists, I believe the w3c box model is pretty good evidence that they did this to some degree. Commented Jan 22, 2013 at 14:04
  • 2
    In that case, I would hesitate to ascribe wilful intent for incompatibility to the W3C. Then it could just as well be that the W3C thought that IE would be conforming or that the difference was small enough that IE could be converted to the standard easily enough. Commented Jan 22, 2013 at 14:16
  • 1
    @Bart, IE's main competitor in the first browser war, Netscape, wasn't considerably more conformant with W3C. It wasn't until later versions of Mozilla and early Firefoxes that a reasonably conformant browser was available. But those browsers post-date IE6. Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 7:37
  • @BillyONeal: Thanks. That strengthens my belief that W3C did not set out to bash IE, unless they wanted to bash every browser of that era. Commented Jan 28, 2013 at 7:55