[OSM-talk] OSM web forums?

[Jim Ley]

"Tom Carden" <tom at tom-carden.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:16e8cf860604040811j16a4c242l79c05732b090ec46 at mail.gmail.com...
On 4/4/06, Jim Ley <jim at jibbering.com> wrote:
>>
>> "Tom Carden" <tom at tom-carden.co.uk> wrote in message
>>
>> >And then get rid of the browser sniffing thing in pngfix.js.
>>
>> It would actually be a lot better to get rid of pngfix entirely, relying 
>> on
>> behavior's for functionality is a very bad idea, particularly for 
>> something
>> which is not relevant for IE7
>
>Firstly, pngfix doesn't rely on behaviors.  That's a different way of
>fixing PNGs.

Sorry, filters themselves are just as optionally supported in IE, so the 
point is equivalent.

>IE7 isn't going to make browser compatibility hacks go away, and if we
>know how to support IE6 users, why shouldn't we?  [1]

Because you can support it without complicating matters, the very fact that 
those of who use IE are getting script errors shows the problem of using 
scripts, the onload change the document behaviour harms rendering, it's much 
better for things to degrade gracefully than continually adding more hacks 
and more scripts for more and more situations - kill the script and no-one 
is harmed at all, with the script people are getting errors.

I use IE, the pngfix fails due to the bug, OSM is completey usable other 
than the script errors - the only logical conclusion is remove the script, 
then there can't be any errors from the code. [1]

> We should keep the option open to do that again.

Not really, it would seem likely that any compositing would be done in 
script and pngfix.js which only works on images that exist when the document 
is loaded (which is of course miles after the images appear to the user) and 
not those that are created later.

> Personally
>I think it's patronising, and I also don't like the fact that it's yet
>another Google Toolbar bundling product, but never mind.

I assumed it was for money raising reasons, I'm very disappointed if it's 
some sort of ideological reason.

Cheers,

Jim.

[1] Well actually a background colour would be nice too, but it is still 
usable if not a little odd looking...