firefox, a moze by any other name

[ihoss.com]

us is FK

ASP.NET is server side, isnt it? Has it got anything to do with browsers?

Oh, and lets try to keep our temper down. Even if someone said something about you, turn the other cheek and be the bigger person. This is a discussion about web browsers, not how good a person writes, reads or can research info

[N_R_D]

there is really tabbed browsing in IE??

[ihoss.com]

Originally posted by N_R_D
there is really tabbed browsing in IE??

Nope

[N_R_D]

I tried that FSBrowser thing.....

Kinda sucks.

I only have IE here at work and cant stand it.

[darkstar]

ihoss.com

Oh, and lets try to keep our temper down. Even if someone said something about you, turn the other cheek and be the bigger person.

i totally agree.

This is a discussion about web browsers, not how good a person writes, reads or can research info

i think you will find that writing, reading and research are the most crucial elements of a discussion. this does however explain a lot about the contents of your threads

N_R_D

there is really tabbed browsing in IE??

i dont remember anyone saying there was.

I tried that FSBrowser thing.....Kinda sucks.I only have IE here at work and cant stand it.

"kinda sucks"?
fsbrowser is a FREE multi-window skinnable Web Browser with a built-in Web Server, a fully functional FTP Client and a Drag & Drop Image Viewer.
can you explain exactly why it "kinda sucks"?

[theallan]

Hi folks,

Thought I would add my thughts to the thread. First off, I'm a Mac person so I use Safari, and sometimes Firefox - because it is so cross platform I can do some testing with it. However, I have a windows PC XPSP1 as well, which I use for testing. I have never come across a site which I need to access, which I can't using Firefox (or Safari for that matter).

As someone said earlier, I though that ASP.NET was a server side technology - so why would it effect the web-browser? Please forgive my ingnarince here, but could someone clarify this... I develop in PHP which is definatly server side, and then sends the resulting html to the web-browser.

To those MSIE supporters: I understand the argument of - it has the biggest browser share and there for defines the standards. However, if you apply that agrument to everything it falls apart: Hovis are the biggest bread suppliers, so should all tosters fit their size of bread? GSM is more widly used than CDMA - lets abandon cdma. most people have a car which can to 100mph, so the 70mph speed limit on motorways is wrong?

There has to be standards bodies, like the ISO and W3C, and people must follow those standards.

There is another factor to consider, at least there is here in the UK. Recently a new law was brought in which said that all new web-sites in the UK must comply with certain accessablitiy standards. If you don't meet those standards then you are breaking the law. And Firefox most certainly does comply with those standards, so theoretically you should never come across a UK site that you can't view in Firefox.

Allan

[cancerinform]

I am also a mac guy and definitely IE is a lowsy browser for macs. Long time ago I used to use the Netscape series (4) but that sucked. So I am happy there is a nice aestetic browser like Firefox out there, which does everything you expect from a browser. Regarding those programmers who don't care about proper web sites ---- well one day nobody's going to look at their site. It's like with Flash. AS2 is proper coding and one day those of us who have mistaken AS1 scripts, which don't run in Player 7 and want to add MX2004 stuff, they have to update their sites and replace faulty coding. Progress is not going to be stopped by a few developers.
I am surprised btw how many of the users who responded here are already using Firefox! I gues IE needs a makeover

[darkstar]

i'm back again! hooray you say! and i have done a bit more research!
it appears that the websites of those who protested so much about adhering to w3c standards are not wc3 compliant.
so i expect you to change them forthwith.

here is the tool to check your pages:
http://validator.w3.org/

and here is the site that i got the link from:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...nyBrowsers.asp
and whilst you are there, read about ie and wc3 compliancy..
well?, what are you waiting for?, get going!

any more questions?


btw, we have a tie for the most uncompliant website front page:
please stand up for..










flashkid105 and snibs sites with 41 errors each!!!
a round of applause please

[asheep_uk]

Originally posted by darkstar
of course they will, and while you are at it would you mind giving me the results of next weeks lottery?

you open ie for the first time and you're welcomed by MSN?
goodness i wonder why what is?
when i installed firefox the homepage was firefox so whats your point?



yes and heres a link on how to display png transparencies properly in ie.
http://www.koivi.com/ie-png-transparency/
perhaps you dont care about people that use internet explorer.
putting the horse before the cart i'd say..

firefox - my preciousss

Well I don't use Firefox, and I'm a Mac user, so I know what it's like to be just considered a minority. Quite frankly, that amount of effort and code just to make a picture look nice isn't worth the effort, especially as most of my users are switching to other browsers.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...%2Fsnooboo.com
Perfection, I believe

[darkstar]

i apologise asheep_uk, nice work.

[LiquidGuy]

Originally posted by darkstar
it appears that the websites of those who protested so much about adhering to w3c standards are not wc3 compliant

Ahem.

[darkstar]

my apologies to you too, LiquidGuy, well done. sorry but i did not check all of the sites on this thread, i only checked the ones i expected to fail the wc3 compliancy test and yours was not one of them.

so i will amend my quote:
"it appears that most of the websites of those who protested so much about adhering to w3c standards are not wc3 compliant"

[FlashKid105]

Originally posted by darkstar
btw, we have a tie for the most uncompliant website front page:
please stand up for..



flashkid105 and snibs sites with 41 errors each!!!
a round of applause please

darkstar,

I am NOT going to put up with this . Not all of the errors you see on my page are my fault. Most of the stuff generated by Yahoo is what's at fault. However, I do realize that the Flash embed code gives errors as well. I WILL GET IT CORRECTED IN THE FUTURE!

[Snib]

flashkid105 and snibs sites with 41 errors each!!!
a round of applause please [/B]

Hey darkstar,

Thanks so much for pointing out php-nuke's lack of support! I totally agree!

Yes, Ben made a valid point: Yahoo puts a lot of advertising crud on free pages. There's one thing about the pages.... they're free. You can't have everything.

[yasunobu13]

hmm, I've seem to have lost what's going on in this thread, I did see a bit about people coding specifically for IE, Firefox or any other specific browser.

That seems rather pointless. In my opinion, web pages should be thoroughly tested on all browsers, and it is possible to create non-specific code if you try.

That MSDN page is quite misleading and promotes using tricks to get pages to work correctly. (I'm against any form of tricks, hacks or browser detections to get pages to display properly) They speak of coding to standards, but IE6 fails to adhere to them. The main problem is right there in the article

"Internet Explorer 6 complies with almost all HTML 4.0 coding standards"
"Thankfully, most browsers are now W3C compliant, which makes creating pages easier, as long as you follow Cascading Style Sheets 1.0 (CSS1) and HTML 4.0 coding standards."

This article was written in 2002, 2-3 years after XHTML (HTML 4.0's successor) and 4 years after CSS 2 was recommended. Obviously, it takes time to create the new browser to conform to the new standards. Opera did it, Firefox/mozilla did it, but IE was and still is behind the times.

IE 6 is the current incarnation for windows and IE5 is for mac, both riddled with problems with standards compliancy. They have also said that they will no longer create new browsers for current versions of windows, and no more for mac. The only way to get IE7 will be to buy the newest version of windows, they have also stated that they will not support XHTML in IE7, nearly a 6 year old standard at this point, and the next IE is still years away (if it comes out in 2006 as I've heard). There is really no excuse for that if they preach standards compliancy like in that article.

So, as long as IE refuses to comply properly to standards, web developers are stuck with HTML4 and CSS1 with partial parts of CSS2 and XHTML to develop with. It would be nice to have more people switch to firefox, to save us the trouble of "fixing" standards compliant code so it will work in IE, but I doubt it will happen soon.

I expect to see a rebirth of "This page viewed best in blah blah blah" on web sites, something that should end for good once all browsers render to standards.


oh yeah, Ahem, Ahem

[cancerinform]

I predict that what was happening to Netscape several years ago is sooner or later happening to IE. When you logon the email system for UC Davis for example there is a warning not to use IE because of security problems. The consequence is that people don't use IE for other web sites either. I think Microsoft is too arrogant not to support a compliant browser and arrogancy will pay back.

[PAlexC]

I honestly don't think Microsoft cares. How much profit to they actually generate off of IE? Their only coup is leaving a few bookmarks in by default. It's a PR black-eye and a security nightmare for them. They spend too much (in their eyes, not enough in others) money patching, fixing and responding to threats.

What do they have to lose if people jump ship?

[mxkidz]

Originally posted by theallan

To those MSIE supporters: I understand the argument of - it has the biggest browser share and there for defines the standards. However, if you apply that agrument to everything it falls apart: Hovis are the biggest bread suppliers, so should all tosters fit their size of bread? GSM is more widly used than CDMA - lets abandon cdma. most people have a car which can to 100mph, so the 70mph speed limit on motorways is wrong?
Allan

Well said.

[iForgotMyPassword]

I just thought this was funny... (and very informative)

Cnet editor has taken on Firefox.
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-...?tag=cnetfd.ld

Because of the new Flaw
http://news.com.com/Double+MyDoom+fo...9.html?tag=txt

[theallan]

Originally posted by mxkidz
Well said.

Thank you

I was wondering if someone was going to address my points...