Topic: Taldren, PLEASE fix this:

[Toasty0]

Quote:
BTW, Toasy?  Remember that chart you posted?  According to that, 30% of users are NOT running IE.  Linux users CAN'T run IE- Mac users have Safari.  AOL users have their browser (Based on Netscape, isn't it?).  Older Mac users are stuck with IE (OS 9 and 10.0/10.1- OS 9 you can download Netscape, but the Mac edition is crap, and all the new browsers are for OS 10.  Some of the browsers work on 10.1, but the majority of the browsers only work on 10.2 or above, so 10.0 and 10.1 users are stuck with IE).

Do you really want to lock out 30% of the world from viewing your web page by writing it sloppily (so only IE can read it)?  

Lock out? You mean dumb down my pages, don't you?

Let's see, 72% use IE while the other 28% use a myraid of broswers that all render pages is a slightly different manner and you ask why I don't wish to expend the labor hours testing for that plathora of minor browsers that together add up to 28%--a fractured 28% I should say again.

That's like asking why PC Game makers don't develop their games for both desktop Window's OS and the Linux Kernel?

Best,
Jerry  

[Toasty0]

Quote:
So tell me, how does IE go "above and beyond" W3C? All they did was take the same standards and change a bit of the way it could be written to trick people into writing pages for IE only.

Trick people?

Pardon me, I thought this was a conversation about brwoser design and usage, not some conspiracy theory about the grassy knoll and a 3rd browser.

*Toasty backs out the door*  

[Praxis]

Quote:

Quote:
Did you know that XML and XHTML and DHTML are all W3C standards? CSS style sheets are standards. I'm not sure if Java or Flash are standards, but almost all modern browsers can read them anyway.
And how are the W3C standards limited? You take out HTML, XML, XHTML, DHTML, and CSS, you have no web pages.

That question was alrady answered. I think Pestalence posted a compelling answer to your question.  

Yes, but you stated that the standards are 'limited'.  They are most certainly not.

[Praxis]

Quote:


Lock out? You mean dumb down my pages, don't you?

Let's see, 72% use IE while the other 28% use a myraid of broswers that all render pages is a slightly different manner and you ask why I don't wish to expend the labor hours testing for that plathora of minor browsers that together add up to 28%--a fractured 28% I should say again.  

Slightly different to the point of unnoticeable.  I coded my page with Dreamweaver and tested it in Safari, Mozilla, and IE.  Guess what?  Mozilla and Safari rendered it exactly the same.  On Mozilla and Safari one of the images was EXACTLY ONE pixel off (almost unnotiecable).  Safari rendered the image more clearly than IE as well, smoothing some jagged corners.

I don't think you understand this.  Safari, Mozilla, Netscape, and Opera follow the standards TO THE LETTER.  That means that they will render the pages almost exactly the same.  That means that if it works in one of them, it should work in all of them, AND it should work in Internet Explorer.

Coding a page sloppily will make it IE only (sloppily by slashes the wrong way, using the wrong type of quotes, etc), but if it is done with proper HTML, it will work on ALL standards based browsers- and it will work on ALL of those other 28% of browsers.

Additionally, the new version of Safari can read a number of IE only web pages, and theres a debug option to have Safari tell web pages that it is IE 6 for Windows, so that might slant the numbers a tiny bit toward IE.

Quote:
That's like asking why PC Game makers don't develop their games for both desktop Window's OS and the Linux Kernel?

That's completely different.  Linux uses a completely different Kernel and graphics system (OpenGL) than Windows (DirectX).  It takes hours upon hours to make something for one or the other

On the other hand, if you make something standards-compliant, it will run in ALL browsers, be it Mozilla, Internet Explorer, Safari, etc.

A better example would be this.

Let's say there were 10 different types of DVD players in the world.  All of these DVD players play DVD's in the standard MPEG format.  One of these DVD players, the most popular one, plays both MPEG and WMV.  70% of DVD players in the world are that type.  However, it is a bit buggy, so a number of people don't like it.  And WMV offers no advantages over MPEG.

Now lets say you were the DVD producer for, say, Disney.  Would you make your DVD's in MPEG (so ALL DVD players can read it) or WMV (so only the one can read it)?

It's the same for browsers.  It's just as easy to make a standards-complaint page as it is to make an IE only one.  But there are NO ADVANTAGES to having an IE-only web page- while making a standards-complaint page allows even more people to view your page.

It's as easy as switching the slash the other way around.

[Praxis]

Quote:


Trick people?

Pardon me, I thought this was a conversation about brwoser design and usage, not some conspiracy theory about the grassy knoll and a 3rd browser.

*Toasty backs out the door*  

It's quite well known that Microsoft will make certain changes to their product and not inform developers that it is ONLY for their product.  The developers think that all of the other versions of the product have the same features, and so they don't realize they've made something Microsoft-only.

They did it with MS-Java (and got their butts sued big time over it) and did it again with Microsoft Internet Explorer (and are in the process of getting their butts sued over it).

[Praxis]

One last thing- the other browsers have quite a few advantages.  Not only is there tab browsing and popup blocking as I mentioned, but the Mozilla and Safari browsers support text smoothing.

I opened the web page in Dreamweaver in both Mozilla and IE.  The text in IE looked like text, while in Mozilla it was smooth as a Photoshop image.

Here's a good site with a comparison:
http://www.newrecruit.org/archives/2003/june/browsers
He compares IE to Firebird- the new version of FireBird is called FireFox and fixes most of the minor complaints (such as inability to drag a bookmark) he mentions.

101 things you can do in Mozilla that you can't do in IE:
http://www.xulplanet.com/ndeakin/arts/reasons.html


A very in depth browser comparison, but a bit outdated:
http://home.earthlink.net/~intelligentlife/ItemMenu/browsers.html

In fact, Toasty, I went to YOUR personal web page, and it looks perfect in Mozilla Firebird.

[Taldren_Admin]

Working on an all new website now.

Ann

[Praxis]

Whooo!
*cheers*
 
 
Cool.  

[Towelie]

 So, when can we get some screenshots of the new website?  

[Towelie]

  Praxis, funny side note. Your avatar and image in your sig are both broken from my POV. I checked the link listed and cannot find the images.

[Taldren_Admin]

Quote:
 So, when can we get some screenshots of the new website?    

Screen shots? Heck very soon you will have a full screen  

I don't have much left to do before it can go live but there will be more work to do once it is up. I am already rethinking for the next rev.

Ann

[Death_Merchant]

Sorry ToastyO, gotta side with Praxis on this one.
(and Praxis: Your avatar and sig image doesn't display in Safari either )
Perhaps this quote from Dave Hyatt's (one of the key devs for Safari) blog  will help:

Safari has draconian XML error handling. If the file isn't well-formed, Safari won't display it. Mozilla does the same, which should come as no surprise, since the two browsers use the same open-source XML parser (expat).
 
I fall squarely into the draconian camp and agree with Tim Bray. Fully half of the bugs I receive in WebCore are not bugs at all, but are essentially differences in error handling and error recovery between Safari and the dominant Web browser, WinIE. None of these issues occur with XML.

If we lived in a world where browsers could refuse to display malformed content (with useful error notification of course so that authors could easily repair their content), then all of these "bugs" would simply disappear. I could focus my efforts on real DOM and CSS bugs, and not have to waste my time emulating the behavior of WinIE.

Relaxing restrictions on well-formedness is a slippery slope, and where does it end? Consider all the "helpful" rules that exist in HTML today thanks to early versions of Netscape and WinIE. Did you know that any h1-h6 tag can close any other h1-h6 tag? Try it. Open an h1, type some text and then put in a close h2. It will close up the h1 in WinIE and Mozilla. (I haven't yet fixed this "bug" in Safari.) Try specifying a close tag for a paragraph by itself. You'll get an empty paragraph in Safari, Mozilla, and WinIE.

 

[SL-Punisher]

Jesus Christ like we need another browser/OS flame war on here.

Here's some humor for everyone: Move out of your parents basement and get a life! KIDDING!

[Death_Merchant]

Huh Pun?
You kidding? I can't tell 'cause my browser won't display the emoticons......  

[SL-Punisher]

lol now thats freakin funny.

[Praxis]

Maybe you don't see my sig and avatar because I don't have one...
LOL!!!

   

I had one a year or so ago but both hosting sites no longer exist.  I should stick a new one on there from my personal web server...

In fact, I'm gonna add my GFL sig now.

[Praxis]

Why doesn't it work...argh...

[Death_Merchant]

Dangit Prax, you're making us Safari guys look bad

I don't think the forum handles .php properly. Make it a jpeg or something.
BTW: If I point Safari directly to http://targ.ottergoose.net/praxissiggen.php, I can see your sig.
Tre kewl....  

[IKV Nemesis D7L]

Quote:
Why doesn't it work...argh...  

Code:

http://targ.ottergoose.net/praxissiggen.php

As far as I know .php is not an extension associated with images.  Perhaps you need to check the image format.  

[Sirgod]

I'm confused, Why am I not reading this on my IE 6 ?  

Stephen