New Internet Explorer

[Dak]

I have come to the conclusion that yes, that is javascript.

 

the "script language=javascript" was so obviouse, i felt it had to be a trick.

 

But no, that is indeed javascript, and not active-x.

 

Same goes, i believe, for the page which it points to.

[NeonBlack]

if it isn't compatible with my browser, they shouldn't use it.

 

I don't know if you realize this, but that's essentially the same as saying that standards should conform to your browser.

 

Whoever thought that herme should respond to the heroin bit, that is an absolutely ridiculous argument. 'Everyone does heroin' is certainly not the same as 'Everyone uses IE'

The 'everyone' who uses heroin is not the vast majority of the population. Everyone has a different number but I would guess that anywhere from 80-90% of computer users browse with IE for general purposes.

 

Which leads me to my next point, the difference in the browser statistics from the several different sites. Obviously, if you look at the demographics from http://www.hellokitty.com and from http://www.omgpr0n.com you can't make a statement about internet users in general. Likewise, if you look at which browsers people are using to access certain sites, http://www.msn.com and http://www.linux.org are going to be very different. That's to be expected.

 

There are a lot of analogies for the standards situation. Here's mine:

We have this thing called 'Standard English.' Way back during the Middle English speaking peroid, perhaps 1200-1300 various regions came up with their own local spellings for words. As you might imagine, this could be confusing when people from different regions tried to communicate in writing. So sometime I'm guessing around 1500 or shortly after a few people got together and decided to standardize spelling and grammar of the English language. The same thing happened with browers. I remember when Netscape was still in competition with IE. IE had scrolling text, Netscape had blinking text, IE had inline frames, Netscape didn't and so on. Eventually someone decided that all webpages should work the same in every browser.

So, the next time someone uses a non-standard english word or breaks some obscure grammar rule should we jump all over them and say that they are 'blatantly ignoring the standards just to piss everyone off because they have their own agenda to take over the world?'

Some standards are important, how does a table work, how do basic sentence structures work, some others are not.

Everyone breaks some English rules sometimes because it's really not that big of a deal. I'd even say that the vast majority of people break rules and nobody cares.

 

I want to say that I finally decided to give Firefox a try. I've been using both IE and Opera for the past few months and I have to say that I was somewhat disapointed with Opera.

FF isn't too bad, but already I've found that certain pages just don't look as good as they do when viewed with IE. Sometimes there are some spacing and alignment problems and a lot of times table and frame borders can look pretty bad.

Interestlingly, my.msn.com does not display at all in FF. I don't know if the MS people don't want you to use FF or if the FF people don't want you looking at a MS page.

Also, it was kind of a pain in the a to change the default Google search (I don't like Google) to the msn search.

I was pleased that it is easy to make new pages open in an entirely new window (I don't like tabs).

 

Okay, it's getting kind of late and I think that's all I have to say about that other than I think these 'Browser Battles' really ought to stop. Most of them are nothing more than

O WELL THAST BCUZ IE IS FULL OF SACURITY HOLES

 

Well, I think that's about all for now.

 

Kind regards.

[Sayonara]

When compared to the number of IE users, yes. IE users make up the majority, so web sites should be designed with them in mind.

No, they shouldn't. Web sites should be designed to meet the standards.

 

That's why we have them.

 

IE is one commercial product of many and there is no reason to arbitrarily remould the world around it.

 

 

Look at the stats in the image I posted. These stats are 100% real and come from several different types of web sites.

They. Cannot. Be. Trusted.

 

Webserver retrieval stats are notoriously unreliable. THIS IS A FACT that is known by ALL SERIOUS WEBMASTERS.

 

 

I'm not saying that Microsoft was being fair by ignoring the standards.

They did not "ignore" the standards. They took a look at how everyone else was implementing them, and implemented them in a different way that very cleverly changed the whole box model of CSS design. They also dropped out 24-alpha png support, and SVG, purely because they were new standards that the rest of the industry was excited about.

 

 

However, since most Internet users are IE users

I disagree. Again, a poor comment that stems from your inability to grasp that the internet is not the web.

 

 

web sites should be written for them.

No.

 

 

IE users never told Microsoft to ignore the standards.

What does that have to do with anything? Most web users don't even know what HTML is.

 

I don't know a thing about standards in the medical world, for example, but next time I'm in hospital I'm damned well going to expect the equipment and/or drugs my visit involves to have been developed according to all the applicable standards. Deviating from standards for your own gain is always a bad thing for the end user.

 

 

They are simply using the software, and they shouldn't be inconvenienced because of Microsoft's mistakes. This is because they are the majority.

So non-IE users are doing something other than "using software"? Something that makes them deserve to be "inconvenienced"?

 

What is wrong with IE7 meeting standards, exactly? It will cost IE users nothing, and according to your own arguments they will see no difference. The first and most impacting consequence will be that web sites are designed more easily and in less time, with much better features.

 

What kind of a "web professional" opposes that? One that's broken inside, I'll warrant.

 

 

I haven't found a web site that doesn't work with IE except for a few that are trying to show the bugs in IE.

You most certainly have "found" them, but don't necessarily know it. What you personally do or do not see is not really important to the discussion.

 

 

I did know that.

I suggest you expand your knowledge of that topic.

 

 

However, many of the creators of the web and Internet don't know anything about the modern Internet.

Let me make this enduringly clear to you, one final time:

 

"The internet"

has

**** all

to do with web standards.

 

You clearly have never researched the origins of the web or its development process. To say that TBL and the World Wide Web Consortium "don't understand" the internet or the web is so patently wrong it's just hilarious. What is wrong with you?

 

 

I once had a teacher that was part of the team that created the original Internet for the Government. He retired, and hasn't used a computer since. Now, he doesn't even know how to get online with a newer computer. He was a really nice teacher, and he could really talk about protocols and everything. However, he didn't know anything about Internet Explorer.

None of that means anything.

 

TBL and the working groups (which, by the way, are made up of vendors such as Microsoft, Sun, Netscape etc, as well as designers, technology leaders etc) continue to develop the philosophy and language of the web. This is a work in progess and TBL has not been festering in a retirement home with his fingers in his ears letting changes to his own creation pass him by.

 

To suggest that you are more up-to-speed on the state of the web than the W3C is mind-boggling, considering you don't even think standards "matter". Who do you think the W3C is, exactly? As far as the web is concerned, they truly represent the phrase "by the people, for the people".

 

 

I researched ActiveX and read that Ebay requires it. That is a major web site.

Ebay may use an ActiveX applet somewhere, but it obviously can't be that important.

 

I use every major browser on the market and ActiveX is turned off in all of them. I have 21 auctions running right now, and six bids placed, and guess what - I have never been prompted to allow ActiveX.

 

Also guess what - ActiveX is a proprietary language, like VBScript, and there's no reason it should be supported by any browser. Any designer who is worth a crap will provide an alternative for content or functionality that is delivered through non-standard means.

 

 

I am a professional web site designer, and I've made some very nice web sites that work with IE.

Yeah, everyone's a professional web designer.

 

 

I didn't spend very much time on my ghost web site. A web site design that I am very proud of is for my company. Check out the design at http://www.bluealan.com and prepare to be amazed. Of course, I don't know if it works right in other browsers besides IE.

It's difficult to be amazed by that page because the code is tag soup. There's obviously a lot of inline styling and obsolete attributes in use though.

 

I'm guessing you are forcing styles at the inline level because IE doesn't behave as expected with higher level CSS control. We've all been there - eventually you'll get tired of the "per tag" bollocks and actually learn the IE CSS2 quirks. It's inevitable so you might as well accept it.

 

When I get home I can try that site in different browsers if you like. What you need to remember is that we aren't saying "you can't write pages that Internet Explorer will display properly". What we are saying is "Internet Explorer doesn't display standard, interoperable pages in the same way as all of the other browsers, and tiresome workarounds are needed."

 

This is a problem because it means conscientious designers have to either accomodate two different ways of doing things (and the fixes that go in are invariably for IE's problems, not everyone else), or ignore a whole bunch of their client's customers. Only the Chief Idiot in the Village of the Idiots goes with the second option.

 

 

Ok, I'm confused by the error messages from that link you gave me. Those letters "r, g, b" are for the rectangles. There are several rectangles on my site, and they all seem to be working correctly.

The validator does not check if your boxes "work correctly". It checks if you are using valid entities of the language, with correct syntax and structure.

 

You should be coding to XHTML 1.0 Transitional at the very least, with XHTML Strict being the preferred type.

 

 

It also says "Line 59 column 2159: there is no attribute HEIGHT" which is wrong because the height is 208. It also says some things about the WIDTH.

It does not say that because they are missing, it says that because they are deprecated attributes. They do not exist in HTML 4.01 Transitional. If (and only if) the dimensions need to be specified, this should be done via the stylesheet.

 

 

eBay ActiveX stuff

Can we stop accusing herme3 of lying about the ActiveX on eBay? It's perfectly conceivable that they do have an applet somewhere. If they do use ActiveX objects, they obviously aren't business critical, so we can still win the point without getting nasty.

 

 

If ActiveX is required for important web sites, it would be an advantage to Internet Explorer.

I think you mean "If ActiveX is required for important web sites, then that is a major shortcoming on the designer's part."

 

 

I do know that certain advertisements require ActiveX.

Exactly why people with brains in their heads, like me, turn it off.

 

 

If an advertiser tells me to put an ActiveX ad on one of my sites, I would get paid each time that ad is displayed. If somebody visits my site without ActiveX enabled, then I won't get paid for the ad

Advertisers do not and should not dictate host policy. Use a proper ad content provider, such as cj.com.

 

 

This is bad for the owners of web sites who want to get paid.

No, it's bad for the web site owners who are too stupid or lazy to avoid the devil's own banners. Natural selection at work.

 

By allowing a third party the ability to run ActiveX objects from your pages, you are giving them the opportunity and mechanism to run arbitrary and potentially damaging instructions on your visitors' machines, possibly without their permission or even knowledge. That is user hostile.

ActiveX is simply not required and definitely not appropriate for adverts, or any other frivolous content.

 

 

Why on earth would an ad require active-x?

So that it can silently download beacons or malware.

 

 

I really don't know anything about ActiveX. However' date=' advertisers pay a lot of money if I display them on my site. Here is the code for an ActiveX ad:

<script language="JavaScript" src="http://www.paid-to-promote.com/active.php?zoneid=142236&uid=1&type=active" type="text/javascript"></script>[/quote']

That looks like a call to an offshore javascript. About the worst it could do is download or read cookies, or open the CD tray. Conceivably the .js could write an AxtiveX object to the page, but that would be a really weird thing to do.

Test it by turning off ActiveX and seeing if the ad still runs.

 

 

Can you tell me why it requires ActiveX? Could it be any security risk to the visitors of my web site?

Yes, an advert that uses ActiveX would be an obvious and significant threat.

 

 

Herme3, I asked you to think carefully before replying. You clearly did not bother, and also did not address the vast majority of my points. I am guessing you did not bother to follow the links I provided either, or research any of the topics I brought up.

 

You are arguing in this thread in exactly the same way you argue about things like ghosts.

 

 

 

 

I don't know if you realize this, but that's essentially the same as saying that standards should conform to your browser.

He was turning the tables on herme3, hence the big cheesy grin.

 

 

So, the next time someone uses a non-standard english word or breaks some obscure grammar rule should we jump all over them and say that they are 'blatantly ignoring the standards just to piss everyone off because they have their own agenda to take over the world?'

No, that's a red herring.

 

The argument is not that standards should never be changed by anyone, but that we all move forward together. Rogue elements that are out for their own financial gain are ruining it for everyone. This is quantifiable.

 

 

Some standards are important, how does a table work, how do basic sentence structures work, some others are not.

Standards such as the box model are crucial to the design of all pages. Hence the major problem with Microsoft not following the standard.

 

 

I think these 'Browser Battles' really ought to stop. Most of them are nothing more than O WELL THAST BCUZ IE IS FULL OF SACURITY HOLES

The fact that some evangelists don't actually uderstand the arguments does not mean the arguments don't exist, or can be ignored.

 

IE has a raft of problems, most of which are a direct result of Microsoft trying to muscle out all competition. Now, there's nothing wrong with that in business terms, but in an environment like the web where interoperability is key, they are just ****ing everyone else over. It really is that simple. The worst part is that they really don't need to.

 

Why would you NOT want your browser to support alpha transparency?

Why would you NOT want to support native SVG?

Why would you NOT want to allow an open library of plugins? (Actually, that one is obvious).

[Sayonara]

This whole "inverse standards" argument is retarded anyway:

 

Internet Explorer is closed source, and an industry can't arrange itself around standards that nobody can see.

[Aeternus]

I think i may have an incomplete understanding of what active-x actually is' date=' so im going to go and look it up.

 

Untill then, ill just say that im pretty sure thats a javascript, and not an active-x.[/quote']

 

ActiveX isnt a scripting language all of its own, ActiveX components are available in IE's Javascript and VBScript implementations, such as I have mentioned before with the use of XMLHttpRequest Object and others. This does not mean that the functionality available with ActiveX isnt available in Javascript in other browsers, it simply means it isn't available as an ActiveX Object. Hence, with a few if statements to check the browser the client is using, one can simply use ActiveX's version if it is IE, or use the version implemented straight into the JS DOM Model with other browsers. This is not to say that there aren't some things in ActiveX that aren't available in other browsers but I doubt we are talking much.

 

Looking at the script that that includes, I see no calling of an ActiveX Object, so it may be that herme3 quoted the wrong section of code, or it could be that some of the function calls that are being made to functions declared outside that code contain the ActiveX Object creation code. Either way, as Sayonara has said, the fact that Ebay uses ActiveX doesn't mean in any way that it is detrimental to other browsers, either because it is used for extremely minor or possibly annoying (ads) functionality, or as I have suggested that possibly said functionality has been catered for using normal DOM functionality in other browsers.

[Sayonara]

I say chaps, here is some whizzer fun.

 

Look at this image in any non-IE-engine browser. Then look at it in IE (save outstanding work first):

http://sylvana.net/test/AP4.jpg

 

I'd like to believe that was an engine flaw in IE, but I can think of at least one way it might be faked. Opinions?

 

 

[edit]

 

Turns out this is flawed corrupt image handling, and was fixed by one of the (four) IE patches released on 9th August.

[Dak]

Why on earth would an ad require active-x?

So that it can silently download beacons or malware.

I meant what legitimate use could adverts have for using active-x?

 

(apparently flash is handled as an active-x in IE, so there's a possible reason).

 

Beacons can be done with simple <img /> tags, why would you use active-x?

 

and cheers for the description aeternus

[calbiterol]

I have come to the conclusion that yes' date=' that is javascript.

 

the "script language=javascript" was so obviouse, i felt it had to be a trick.

 

But no, that is indeed javascript, and not active-x.

 

Same goes, i believe, for the page which it points to.[/quote']

Aha, this is what it appears to be. However, look at the target location: "http://www.paid-to-promote.com/active.php?zoneid=142236&uid=1&type=active"

 

This is a trick that I've been aware of for quite some time now. You can use <script type="javascript" src="[blah.php]"> to call and excecute an external .php file. This has potential to be very detrimental, depending on the php file, but is commonly employed by advertising companies to dictate what ad to display. This could mean that it either randomizes the ad, or changes the version to the user's browser - meaning the actual content wouldn't require activeX if the browser didn't support it. As far as the page it points to, you'll never see the actual php unless you hack into the system to get the source php code. That's just the way that php works. Back to the original link, the bold part is the file (active.php) and the stuff after that is declaring variables in the php script it's running. Again, standard procedure with php scripts.

 

Interestlingly, my.msn.com does not display at all in FF. I don't know if the MS people don't want you to use FF or if the FF people don't want you looking at a MS page.

Hmmm... I don't know what's causing this error for you. I have Firefox and my.msn.com is my homepage, but I have never once had a problem with it displaying (unless msn's server was down.)

 

As far as the rest of your post, I completely agree with Sayo.

 

 

 

On a side note, why all the <tag />? I feel rather out of the loop - is the slash in "/>" now standard coding? If it is, I feel sorely outdated.

[Aeternus]

While your point about a php script detecting which browser the client is using and providing different javascript code and variables is indeed possible (in fact easy, using $_SERVER['HTTP_USER_AGENT']), it doesnt seem to be what is happening here (check it in IE). Yes, it can give different ads obviously, php is all about dynamic content, but in this case i dont think its random, rather it is determined by the GET variables passed to the script and possibly randomised by ebay as I have received the same code each time.

 

----------

 

<tag /> is because xhtml requires a closing tag or to know that a tag is singular, <tag /> indicates its singular so it knows not to look for a closing tag.

 

http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/#h-4.6

[calbiterol]

I have to admit, I didn't actually check to see what the link was doing, so I was just speculating there.

 

About the xhtml /> : Thanks.

[herme3]

They did not "ignore" the standards. They took a look at how everyone else was implementing them, and implemented them in a different way that very cleverly changed the whole box model of CSS design. They also dropped out 24-alpha png support, and SVG, purely because[/i'] they were new standards that the rest of the industry was excited about.

 

Why would Microsoft ever do that? If they supported these things, their browser would look even better. How could anybody destroy the competition by lowering the quality of their own products? Bill Gates isn't stupid. He became the world's richest man, so he must know what he is doing.

 

I disagree. Again, a poor comment that stems from your inability to grasp that the internet is not the web.

 

I'm sure that the majority of Internet users use the web. Most of them use the web with IE.

 

What is wrong with IE7 meeting standards, exactly?

 

I don't think anything is wrong with that. I support IE because it works with the web sites I need to access, not because they don't obey the standards.

 

TBL and the working groups (which, by the way, are made up of vendors such as Microsoft, Sun, Netscape etc, as well as designers, technology leaders etc) continue to develop the philosophy and language of the web. This is a work in progess and TBL has not been festering in a retirement home with his fingers in his ears letting changes to his own creation pass him by.

 

Bill Gates seems to have taken the throne.

 

To suggest that you are more up-to-speed on the state of the web than the W3C is mind-boggling, considering you don't even think standards "matter". Who do you think the W3C is, exactly? As far as the web is concerned, they truly represent the phrase "by the people, for the people".

 

The W3C is a bunch of old people trying to regain their territory. They can try, but they fail because they don't understand the modern Internet. They don't understand how some of the "IE-only" commands work. This is because Microsoft keeps them a secret. This isn't the W3C being stupid, or Microsoft being mean. It is simply an intelligent business practice that keeps Microsoft at the top. Whether or not it is fair doesn't seem to concern Microsoft. The money keeps coming, so they are happy. In the meantime, most people use IE. Therefore, I need to "go with the flow" as a web site designer.

 

I would avoid using elements that I know aren't compatible with non-IE browsers. However, my customers don't want to wait months for their web site while I try to fix bugs that won't even be a problem for most of their customers. Therefore, I am providing the best possible service at the best speed when I design my web sites and test them in IE.

 

It's difficult to be amazed by that page because the code is tag soup. There's obviously a lot of inline styling and obsolete attributes in use though.

 

I didn't post a link to my site so everyone can see how close my web site follows the standards. In fact, a lot of that code was written by the web site design software I use.

 

The point is that a really nice web site can be displayed in IE. I could have even added more elements to the web site, but that would have made it too slow for dial-up users.

 

When I get home I can try that site in different browsers if you like.

 

Could you please let me know what the site looks like? The way it looks in IE is how my web site is supposed to look. If it looks really bad in other browsers, please let me know if there are any simple ways to fix it. Thanks.

 

By allowing a third party the ability to run ActiveX objects from your pages, you are giving them the opportunity and mechanism to run arbitrary and potentially damaging instructions on your visitors' machines, possibly without their permission or even knowledge. That is user hostile. ActiveX is simply not required and definitely[/i'] not appropriate for adverts, or any other frivolous content.

 

I've never used the ActiveX ads on any of my pages. I was just curious about them because the advertisers pay a lot of money when I display them. Now I know that I should avoid them.

 

 

You are arguing in this thread in exactly the same way you argue about things like ghosts.

 

I thought I have been supporting my opinions with real facts in this thread. For example, it is known that IE is the most popular browser. It is also known that most web sites display correctly in IE.

[ydoaPs]

you do realise that if IE didn't come with windows, no sane person would use it, right?

[herme3]

you do realise that if IE didn't come with windows, no sane person would use it, right?

 

The reason many people stay with IE is because of all the compatibility issues between web sites and non-IE browsers.

 

It reminds me of that joke I posted in the general discussion forum. It was making fun of Windows ME, which was a really bad operating system. I'm sure you remember that joke. Anyway, when you tried clicking on Internet Explorer, it brought up an error message that said something like:

 

An error has occurred. Possible reasons for this error include:

 

1. You don't have an ISP

2. The Internet is broken

3. You are trying to visit a web site

 

I'm sure that last reason would apply more to non-IE browsers. When I say that standards don't matter, I don't mean that standards would be a bad idea. I mean that many web sites don't follow these standards. Therefore, standards don't really matter to a person using a non-IE browser when they can't view a web site they need. They can't call the police and say, "Oh dear! This site isn't following the standards!" Standards don't have any power when they aren't enforced.

[Aeternus]

They did not "ignore" the standards. They took a look at how everyone else was implementing them' date=' and implemented them in a different way that very cleverly changed the whole box model of CSS design. They also dropped out 24-alpha png support, and SVG, purely because they were new standards that the rest of the industry was excited about.[/quote']

 

 

Why would Microsoft ever do that? If they supported these things, their browser would look even better. How could anybody destroy the competition by lowering the quality of their own products? Bill Gates isn't stupid. He became the world's richest man, so he must know what he is doing.

 

The reason being that by doing so (not simply leaving certain features out but by deviating from standards (that they agreed to and supposedly abide by)) they make it difficult for website designers to write for multiple browsers. Therefore this forces websites developers to either spend longer writing pages for both (IE and standards compliant) or to just write for IE. This results in quite a few "developers" writing solely for IE which propagates a negative image of other browsers as some sites will not work with them due to being written for IE's broken implementation.

 

As you said, yes this is damn good business. It is also a monopolistic tactic that damages the web as a whole, because not only does it prevent appreciation of web standards (as you are a prime example) but also stiffles competition (due to this odd and broken way of implementing their own self proclaimed standards).

 

Now you can shout and scream all you want about how other browsers can simply add in support for all these inaccuracies in the way IE does things but this isnt always the case and either way as IE is propriatory software and the docs will only be released after changes are made, other browsers will always be left in the lurch having to play catchup to these "IE Fixes" which again means they are being down trodden by IE.

 

Now I'm not saying MS are evil and can not claim that this was definitely MS's motive but it definitely bares thinking about as the effects of the action are still there whether the intent was or not.

 

Your point that following standards doesn't matter and that all of our points are mute may seem good to you but as I have evidenced in a webblog, IE7 developers seem to disagree as they are fixing these things and see them as a problem (not taking anything away from the previous point as pressure and public knowledge of the point mentioned about could overturn the decision). As I said, I hope these problems do get fixed in IE7 and I will certainly try it out.

 

------------------------------

 

It's difficult to be amazed by that page because the code is tag soup. There's obviously a lot of inline styling and obsolete attributes in use though.

 

 

I didn't post a link to my site so everyone can see how close my web site follows the standards. In fact' date=' a lot of that code was written by the web site design software I use.[/quote']

 

Indeed, one can tell that by looking at the source for that page. The "generator" metatag along with the numerous Homestead comments (<!-- hs:?? -->) give it away. Most design tools do this for statistics.

[Klaynos]

I would just like to point out that the W3C is a forward thinking, fast paced organisation, that is considering and putting forward options that other people have NEVER EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT.

 

Herme3 most people continue to use ie because the are uneducated, lazy or just stuck in their ways, not because of these mystical "compatibility" issues. The reason we have standards is so that everyone is compatible, what would you do if you got home with a TV you'd just bought pluged it in and turned it on because it required a 12V AC mains power supply?

 

The web is supposed to be an open free way of posting or viewing information...

 

Not some toy to be owned or ruled by somone on a thrown like you think.

 

It's free, therefore the standards used should be free and open entirely to the community.

[Klaynos]

Indeed' date=' one can tell that by looking at the source for that page. The "generator" metatag along with the numerous Homestead comments (<!-- hs:?? -->) give it away. Most design tools do this for statistics.[/quote']

 

 

Which is why I say GO NOTEPAD! (or gedit in my case which does syntax highlighting and lots of other snazzy stuff too, on well actually scite on windows is better than notepad too... well you get the idea I'll stop rambling now)

[Rakdos]

Could you please let me know what the site looks like? The way it looks in IE is how my web site is supposed to look. If it looks really bad in other browsers, please let me know if there are any simple ways to fix it. Thanks.

 

Now you want to make you webpage work with browsers that "nobody uses" Hypocrite!!!

[bloodhound]

Why would Microsoft ever do that? If they supported these things, their browser would look even better.

Sweet irony.

[ydoaPs]

let's see...even if they completely rewrite IE to make it somewhere close to the quality of the other browsers and even if they make it standards complient, it won't last long. IE is made by the same company with the same shady business practices.

[Sayonara]

Why would Microsoft ever do that? If they supported these things, their browser would look even better. How could anybody destroy the competition by lowering the quality of their own products? Bill Gates isn't stupid. He became the world's richest man, so he must know what he is doing.

As Aeternus explained, they did it so that they could lever developers away from interoperable standards, and lock them in to Microsoft's proprietary product. Which, I should point out, will leave the web in one right ****ing mess should the IE product line ever end, which is something few people ever seem to consider.

 

 

I'm sure that the majority of Internet users use the web. Most of them use the web with IE.

Which still doesn't mean that anything to do with "the internet" determines WWW best practice.

 

 

I don't think anything is wrong with that.

If there is nothing wrong with that, then why not agree with the standards issues and advocate a positive rebuild in IE7? IE advocates have nothing to lose, whereas the rest of the web does.

 

 

I support IE because it works with the web sites I need to access, not because they don't obey the standards.

Which is fine. What isn't fine is using the same arguments to defend IE, or to dismiss non-IE browsers.

 

 

Bill Gates seems to have taken the throne.

Meaningless.

 

Until you see the entire industry only signing on to web standards and protocols that did not come from the W3C, they're effectively in charge.

 

 

The W3C is a bunch of old people trying to regain their territory.

You grossly underestimate their role. Bear in mind that the main body of the W3C is made up of the smartest bods in the most important web technology lead organisations.

 

 

They can try, but they fail because they don't understand the modern Internet.

That's an idiotic thing to say because (a) it's not even approaching qualifiable, and (b) as I have said so many times, the structure and processes of the web are independent of "the internet", even if you tack on the word "modern" (as if to imply there have been major architecture changes recently that the W3C and people in this thread haven't heard about yet ).

 

 

They don't understand how some of the "IE-only" commands work.

I rather think that they do.

In fact, their own online standards school makes a pretty huge deal about it. On EVERY PAGE.

 

 

This is because Microsoft keeps them a secret.

I'm not sure what you could mean by that, seeing as it's all mediated by VBScript, which is a proprietary language yet still conspicuously publically available.

 

 

This isn't the W3C being stupid, or Microsoft being mean. It is simply an intelligent business practice that keeps Microsoft at the top. Whether or not it is fair doesn't seem to concern Microsoft. The money keeps coming, so they are happy. In the meantime, most people use IE. Therefore, I need to "go with the flow" as a web site designer.

Your take on the issue is short-sighted and selfish.

 

The web was designed to be interoperable. It still works that way. It always will. If Microsoft want their own subnet that only uses their code, eventually divergence is the only way this can end. They will not win. Believe me, Microsoft may well want to push the de facto standard for web content but they sure as hell don't want to take over the W3C's role.

 

If, as a "web designer", you do not see the need for interoperability, then you are failing your clients, their customers, and yourself.

 

 

I would avoid using elements that I know aren't compatible with non-IE browsers.

Every element that is specced out in the standards for HTML and XHTML is supported by all standards-compliant browsers. That's why it's called a standard - it tells you how the language works. There are slight differences in the way they are implemented, but this is to be expected and is all within scope.

 

SGML entities that are not in the spec are not HTML. They are either deprecated, or made up by specific vendors, and should only be used very carefully by people who know all the implications.

 

 

However, my customers don't want to wait months for their web site while I try to fix bugs that won't even be a problem for most of their customers. Therefore, I am providing the best possible service at the best speed when I design my web sites and test them in IE.

No you aren't. The best possible service would be writing a site that uses standards-compliant code, is fully accessible, and supports all clients (i.e. not just browsers) including IE5-6. Which, as I have already told you, is quicker and easier than just writing for IE (not to mention more rewarding).

 

 

I didn't post a link to my site so everyone can see how close my web site follows the standards. In fact, a lot of that code was written by the web site design software I use.

No shit.

 

 

The point is that a really nice web site can be displayed in IE.

That's never been in dispute.

 

 

I could have even added more elements to the web site, but that would have made it too slow for dial-up users.

Relevant to what points?

 

 

Could you please let me know what the site looks like? The way it looks in IE is how my web site is supposed to look. If it looks really bad in other browsers, please let me know if there are any simple ways to fix it. Thanks.

If there are any differences it's likely to be box margins (due to IE having a different box model to everyone else on the planet), or the javascripts (because, guess what, Microsoft's implementation of Javascript differs from everyone else's - and there's no excusing that one).

 

 

I thought I have been supporting my opinions with real facts in this thread. For example, it is known that IE is the most popular browser. It is also known that most web sites display correctly in IE.

Those are not examples of opinions you were supporting though, are they? Those are examples of facts you reported that ultimately had no bearing on the discussion, or were misrepresenting the situation.

[1veedo]

FYI, something is wierd w/ this page:

http://www.bluealan.com/signup.html

 

The fields are covering up text and arent aligned. (ie, Your Name, Email, etc) I've never seen a website do that before; it almost looks like there are two layers; the text/site layer, and then the forms layer.. http://1veedo.homelinux.com/misc/alansignup.png

 

Other then that page, everything seems to be displaying properly. (and may I add that it looks like your coding javascript for the forms)

 

Btw, a question, does gplflash work on 64 bit IE? I'm having a pain installing it for firefox. I'm about ready to install the 32 bit version to watch flash again

[herme3]

As Aeternus explained, they did it so that they could lever developers away from interoperable standards, and lock them in to Microsoft's proprietary product. Which, I should point out, will leave the web in one right ****ing mess should the IE product line ever end, which is something few people ever seem to consider.

 

I don't understand why Microsoft would care if people use IE or not. They don't make any extra money when people use IE. They already made all of their money when everyone first bought Windows.

 

I rather think that they do.

In fact' date=' their own online standards school makes a pretty huge deal about it. On EVERY PAGE.[/quote']

 

If the W3C understands how the Microsoft proprietary code works, why don't they add it to their standards?

 

No you aren't. The best possible service would be writing a site that uses standards-compliant code, is fully accessible, and supports all clients (i.e. not just browsers) including IE5-6. Which, as I have already told you, is quicker and easier than just writing for IE (not to mention more rewarding).

 

I'm not sure how standards-compliant the Homestead software is. If it isn't compliant, I would have to copy the entire HTML code of my web sites and edit all of it. That might cause problems with certain Homestead elements.

 

FYI' date=' something is wierd w/ this page:

http://www.bluealan.com/signup.html

 

The fields are covering up text and arent aligned. (ie, Your Name, Email, etc) I've never seen a website do that before; it almost looks like there are two layers; the text/site layer, and then the forms layer.. http://1veedo.homelinux.com/misc/alansignup.png

 

Other then that page, everything seems to be displaying properly. (and may I add that it looks like your coding javascript for the forms)[/quote']

 

I don't understand why you are having trouble with the text and fields. Yes, there are two layers. All of the text is in one text box. All of the forms are on top of the text box. However, the fields should be to the right of the text. It looks fine in IE6. Is there something wrong with the way Firefox displays web sites with more than one layer?

[Pangloss]

I don't understand why Microsoft would care if people use IE or not. They don't make any extra money when people use IE. They already made all of their money when everyone first bought Windows.

 

Are you kidding? Microsoft wouldn't be where it is today without embrace-and-extend. It goes right to the core of both the problem that people have with Microsoft, and the very reason for their success.

 

Microsoft cares very much whether people use IE. Very much indeed.

[Klaynos]

I don't understand why you are having trouble with the text and fields. Yes' date=' there are two layers. All of the text is in one text box. All of the forms are on top of the text box. However, the fields should be to the right of the text. It looks fine in IE6. Is there something wrong with the way Firefox displays web sites with more than one layer?[/quote']

 

No actually there is a problem with the way IE6 displays multiple layours and your site is tailored to fix this but by doing so has ignored the correct way of doing it. You see this is why we need standards so this doesn't happen.

[calbiterol]

I don't understand why you are having trouble with the text and fields. Yes' date=' there are two layers. All of the text is in one text box. All of the forms are on top of the text box. However, the fields should be to the right of the text. It looks fine in IE6. Is there something wrong with the way Firefox displays web sites with more than one layer?[/quote']

FYI' date=' something is wierd w/ this page:

http://www.bluealan.com/signup.html

 

The fields are covering up text and arent aligned. (ie, Your Name, Email, etc) I've never seen a website do that before; it almost looks like there are two layers; the text/site layer, and then the forms layer.. http://1veedo.homelinux.com/misc/alansignup.png

Weird - I'm looking at it and don't see any problems on FF 1.0.6.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v669/calbiterol/ScreenShot_002.png

My OS is (currently) windows xp home edition. What's your OS? This is the only thing that I can think of that would cause this problem. From your screenshot it looks like Red Hat linux. I'm not exactly familiar with Red hat, so if that's the issue, I dunno what to say.

 

Cheers.