In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
<newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 05:44:54 +0100
<2183427.lLIAQCdT05@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 27 September 2006 04:00 \__
>
>> In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Roy Schestowitz
>> <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote
>> on Wed, 27 Sep 2006 02:02:46 +0100
>> <3520459.8WpiIgeWHM@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>>> __/ [ The Ghost In The Machine ] on Wednesday 27 September 2006 02:00 \__
>>>
>>>> Yep, ran into another one. This one's not security-related but
>>>> it is annoying.
>>>>
>>>> Objective: candy-color-coated text for local Engineering bugs, as I
>>>> test a product of ours. Logical enough, using fairly basic
>>>> HTML with CSS, since I'm a touch typist. For example:
>>>>
>>>> <li class='p1'>CRASH BANG TINKLE!</li>
>>>>
>>>> for a level 1 problem, with CSS in a local <style>:
>>>>
>>>> .p1 { color: ... }
>>>> .p1:before { content: 'Priority 1 BUG:'; background-color=#ff0000;
>>>> color=#ffffff; }
>>>>
>>>> Guess which browser had a problem with this construct?
>>>>
>>>> I was able to engineer a rather ugly workaround by using XML and
>>>> XSL, and ultimately decided to make it more general, but really,
>>>> the stupidity of having to do this because IE can't seem to
>>>> figure out :before should be embarrassing to Microsoft.
>>>>
>>>> Argh!
>>>
>>>:before and :after don't work in IE. It's utterly broken when it comes to
>>> supporting CSS. Even Netscape and old versions of Moz have support for
>>> these fundamental things. Preventing and avoiding site tests with IE is
>>> the path to the bliss of ingorance. Sadly, IE is the ignorant one.
>>
>> How much did you want to wager that a certain poster
>> (initials one after RM) here will say that IE is doing
>> this correctly? :-)
>
> I'll sell short. I'll wager you minus one billion US dollars. Deal or no
> deal?
>
And I thought *I* was in deep. :-P
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
