Browser Problems

[herme3]

Read: http://www.scivisum.co.uk/press-releases/200506_firefox_web_test_study.htm

 

It says that one in ten web sites don't work with Firefox. I have tested my web sites with Firefox, and I found them all to be compatible. As a web site designer, I would like to know why some web sites don't work with non-Internet Explorer browsers. I have read that the main problem is that some web sites use code that only IE recognizes.

 

What type of code is exclusive to IE? Why can't Firefox be programmed to read both IE code and the code that complies with the web standards?

[Dak]

Why can't Firefox be programmed to read both IE code and the code that complies with the web standards?

 

why should they have to?

 

I'd guess that firefox are trying to encourage adherance to the w3c standards by refusing to incorrectly interpret HTML, even the common non-w3c HTML.

 

Having said that, I believe that they do interpret some HTML in a non-w3c way...

[Klaynos]

The point of standars are so that everyone complies with it to make everyones life easier.

 

The IE only code is closed source MS wont really say what it is.

 

They have weird CSS standards and allows non-standard tags to be used which results in other browsers (not juse firefox) ignoring them as there is no implementation of them in the standards.

 

All webdevs should code to fit the standards that way everyone has good documentaion on how everything should work.

 

When they say doesn't work with Fx they genrally mean does not display as designed, which is most offten due to the way IE implements box's in css (it does it completely differntly to the standards).

 

Also it is very very very difficult to do a cross reference of websites to say "x amount don't work with IE" or the other way around due to the nature of teh web, there are alot of small sites out there that tbh no one really cares about that have been written in frontpage and other crap tools which kickout AWFUL html that should never be used and contains alot of weird and wonderful tags that no one other than the people who work for MS know wtf they do...

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sayonara would be one to ask about this, but anyways...

 

IE has a few oddities such as the box model, which controls how objects are placed one the page when they're contained inside another object. IE does this its own way, rather than following the standards, which means web designers have to compensate for that. This is just one example, of course.

 

Firefox does have a "quirks mode" that it uses if pages do not declare a DOCTYPE, but many have a doctype and use IE-specific HTML at the same time.

[RyanJ]

What type of code is exclusive to IE? Why can't Firefox be programmed to read both IE code and the code that complies with the web standards?

 

I'd say the question should be why should it? Firefox supports the correct standards IE does not, its obvious who should change Microcrap are too lazy and will not make the effort too do so!

 

cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[herme3]

why should they have to?

 

Because so many web sites use extra code that isn't in the standards, but works with IE. Since IE is more common than Firefox, it would be a logical business decision to include IE compatibility with Firefox. By not including this extra code, they are harming themselves, not Microsoft.

 

I don't understand how compatibility with IE HTML code will prevent them from complying with the standards. There are extra HTML commands that IE recognizes that aren't included in the standards. Firefox could include these extra commands and still include all of the commands that are listed in the standards. It would make their browser compatible with more web sites so that more people will want to use it. Right now, compatibility seems to be the main reason why many people won't use Firefox. Firefox does have some good features, but people want a web browser that they can rely on to display every web site they want to visit.

 

Even if the Firefox developers don't have access to the IE source code, they should be able to figure out how certain IE commands work. The commands themselves are made available to the public, so Firefox just needs to figure out how to make their browser respond to these commands.

 

Firefox should still comply with the web standards. However, they should also be compatible with the current ways that HTML is used. That way, both web site developers and browser users can be happy with Firefox.

[RyanJ]

Even if the Firefox developers don't have access to the IE source code' date=' they should be able to figure out how certain IE commands work. The commands themselves are made available to the public, so Firefox just needs to figure out how to make their browser respond to these commands.

[/quote']

 

If it were that easy do you not think it would have been done? the fact is its not worth the effort, the I code would conflic with the correct code.

 

Firefox should still comply with the web standards. However' date=' they should also be compatible with the current ways that HTML is used. That way, both web site developers and browser users can be happy with Firefox.[/quote']

 

Like I said it's not that easy!

 

cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[the tree]

Because so many web sites use extra code that isn't in the standards, but works with IE. Since IE is more common than Firefox, it would be a logical business decision to include IE compatibility with Firefox.

Mozilla are there to make a good program, not to do buisness.

By not including this extra code' date=' they are harming themselves, not Microsoft.[/quote']Mozilla are there to make a good program, not to harm Microsoft.

I don't understand how compatibility with IE HTML code will prevent them from complying with the standards.

Google box model.

There are extra HTML commands that IE recognizes that aren't included in the standards. Firefox could include these extra commands and still include all of the commands that are listed in the standards.

It does, at least for marquee and blink.

It would make their browser compatible with more web sites so that more people will want to use it.

Why not make it even stricter so more websites will adhear to standards.

Right now, compatibility seems to be the main reason why many people won't use Firefox. Firefox does have some good features, but people want a web browser that they can rely on to display every web site they want to visit.

I'm quite happy with a browser that is only compatable with 99% of sites I vist.

Even if the Firefox developers don't have access to the IE source code, they should be able to figure out how certain IE commands work.

It's open source, so why don't you do it? Don't have the time? Well most of the developers want to spend there time keeping up with current standards and adding new features.

Firefox should still comply with the web standards. However, they should also be compatible with the current ways that HTML is used. That way, both web site developers and browser users can be happy with Firefox.

Largely it is, it gets issues with CSS (the box model again) and Javascript (but why copy IEs approach, really?). But as far as HTML is concerned, IE and the standards mostly match up.

[RyanJ]

But as far as HTML is concerned, IE and the standards mostly match up.

 

don't be so shure:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support_html.php?uas=IE6-FX1_5

 

Also:

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support_css.php?uas=IE6-FX1_5

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support_dom.php?uas=IE6-FX1_5

http://nanobox.chipx86.com/browser_support_ecmascript.php?uas=IE6-FX1_5

 

cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[the tree]

Well meh! Firefox is missing big chunks there too, some of wich IE isn't missing support on.

I still say that IEs big standards issues are not the ones it has with HTML.

[RyanJ]

Well meh! Firefox is missing big chunks there too' date=' some of wich IE isn't missing support on.

I still say that IEs big standards issues are not the ones it has with HTML.[/quote']

 

I agree with you don't ge me wrong! As a developer myself I'd say is the css incompatabilities ha are the problem.

 

Oh, and the reason that is not finished yet, it is still being updated from the beta version

 

cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[herme3]

If it were that easy do you not think it would have been done? the fact is its not worth the effort, the I code would conflic with the correct code.

 

I believe that it would be worth the effort. It is probably making a difference between Firefox being in first place, or Firefox being in a very distant second place. I have used Firefox, and I have a feeling that it would easily become more popular than IE if it was only more compatible with other web sites. It has some very nice features, but I get really annoyed when I see an error message on a web site that says I need to use IE for the page to display. Instead of switching between browsers all the time, I would rather just stick with IE. I'm sure that many people feel the same way. I don't think the extra IE compatibility would conflict with the standards. Yes, it would be a lot of work, but they could have the browser recognize the difference between a web site that is following the standards, and one that is not following the standards.

 

Why not make it even stricter so more websites will adhear to standards.

 

Because nobody would use it. If you release a new web browser, you can't expect everybody to change the code on their web sites just for your browser. If Firefox wants to be at the top, they are going to need to gradually switch from the IE commands to following the web standards. The web standards have been ignored for so many years. You can't expect that to suddenly change just because a new browser is released that follows the web standards. If people can't use Firefox to access the web sites they want, they aren't going to use it. If everybody is using IE, do you think businesses are going to care whether or not their sites follow the standards?

 

I'm quite happy with a browser that is only compatable with 99% of sites I vist.

 

I have been to many web sites that aren't compatible with Firefox. In some online stores, you don't even realize there will be a compatibility issue until you are in the middle of a purchase. It can be really annoying to have to switch to IE, and start the purchase process over again.

[RyanJ]

I believe that it would be worth the effort. It is probably making a difference between Firefox being in first place' date=' or Firefox being in a very distant second place. I have used Firefox, and I have a feeling that it would easily become more popular than IE if it was only more compatible with other web sites. It has some very nice features, but I get really annoyed when I see an error message on a web site that says I need to use IE for the page to display. Instead of switching between browsers all the time, I would rather just stick with IE. I'm sure that many people feel the same way. I don't think the extra IE compatibility would conflict with the standards. Yes, it would be a lot of work, but they could have the browser recognize the difference between a web site that is following the standards, and one that is not following the standards.

[/quote']

 

Is the developers job too folow the standards and then fix for any supid rupbbish like ie after, no matter what the raio of browsers are.

 

1) How would Firefox know when it is suppposed to be working on ie code or the correct one?

 

2) Adding all the crap Microcrap came up wiht would nto only slow down the browser by more than doubling the processing code but would cause conflics wiht pre-existing Firefox code!

 

Those sites should be made compaible with Firefox not the other way arround, you can't tell a disabled person too get better to walk up the stairs too a store, the same goes here - Make the sites compatible as per the accessabiliy laws (Which should be extended too this effect!).

 

cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Whoa there.

 

Firefox already has a quirks mode that will run IF the site has no doctype declaration. If it does have one, then that means that the webmaster is essentially saying "this site uses x standard" so Firefox assumes that it can render it that way.

 

Unfortunately, IE renders things differently. Like the box model. Using exactly the same commands will result in something entirely different. Simply because IE screws it up while Firefox follows the standards.

 

IE also doesn't have support for alpha channels in PNGs, which means transparency in high-quality images is impossible (GIFs are limited to 256 colors, PNGs 16 million) and forcing designers to work around it.

 

And so on.

[Dak]

tbh, the only time that ive had a problem with FF compatability is reguarding active-x incompatablility... and even then, I hardly ever come across a site that i cant view in FF.

 

It says that one in ten web sites don't work with Firefox. I have tested my web sites with Firefox, and I found them all to be compatible.

 

And, if i remember correctly from the first time that we had this conversation, i believe that it emerged that you were using valid transitional HTML 4.01

 

So, its possible to make sites that render correctly in both IE and browsers that interpret html strictly.

[Klaynos]

There is ONE issue here and ONLY one issue. This is

 

DEVELOPERS SHOULD ALWAYS ADHERE TO STANDARDS.

 

Nothing else should be an argument, everyone who writes websites should code in xhtml 1 strict (I can live with html 4 transitional). If everyone did this we wouldn't be having this discussion we'd be having the discussion of. Why don't our browsers support all the standards?

 

One small note to clarify for people who might not get it.

 

When you state a doctype at the beginning of a webpage you are telling the browser which standards your are using. If you have a doctype you SHOULD adhere to that standard perfectly. If you do not you are claiming to use the standard and then completly ignoreing what the standard is, which is terrible. It's like me posting on this forum claiming to be writing in English and writing everything in Dutch...

[TeenKing]

if it truly is that bad they should reconsider owning the website http://www.iesucks.com hehe

[Dave]

To be honest, there are a couple of major issues when it comes to so-called "incompatabilities" between IE and Firefox.

 

Firefox does not support either DirectX or ActiveX (although there is an unsupported 3rd party plugin for ActiveX controls in Firefox). Frankly, I find the idea of running ActiveX controls that can possibly manipulate my computer to be rather unnerving. Why, through accessing a simple website, should a control be allowed to touch anything on my hard-drive (as per Windows Update)?

 

DirectX is another issue, but honestly, is it really such a big deal? I mean, no, you don't get pretty effects and filters and other un-needed bloatware with Firefox. However, you do get PNGs with proper alpha support - something lacking with IE for quite some time now. Plus, with 1.5, snazzy features like SVG which will eventually pave the way for much more creative freedom when it comes to creating new designs.

 

As for IE's box model - well, frankly, it's astounding that they've got away with it for this long. It should probably be noted that the only reason they chose to ignore the standards is that they knew they could get away with it. If Firefox was shipped with every copy of XP sold, then I'm fairly certain that IE would be recoded pretty sharpish to be 100% standards compliant.

 

At the end of the day, though, it all comes down to lazy web designers. If they choose to make their site for IE only, then that's their decision. However, at the end of the day they will only lose out because eventually, that website will stop working on IE - not to mention that people will simply go elsewhere anyway.

[Aeternus]

...but I get really annoyed when I see an error message on a web site that says I need to use IE for the page to display. Instead of switching between browsers all the time' date=' I would rather just stick with IE....[/quote']

 

I'm not getting involved in any FF v IE debates... I've had enough of them . But just to address this issue, I thought you might find this helpful. I think someone on the forums may have already mentioned it or perhaps I heard of it elsewhere. It is an extension for Firefox that gives you the option to open IE-only pages in a new tab in firefox which it will render with the Trident Engine but display in a Firefox tab, as well as the ability to specify pages or domains to use this option in so that you don't even have to think, it'll automatically do it. This helps avoid the need to open another browser window simply to view a dodgy page and in my opinion is quite simple and easy to use (although I don't use it myself as I don't have the need for it as haven't come across a site that was IE-only that was genuinely useful for me in a VERY long time).

[Klaynos]

so if I put "Optimised for standard complient browsers, please do not use IE whilst viewing this website" on my sites, the you'd have to use FireFox all the time to stop swapping browsers?

 

TBH I can't even use IE without restarting my computer, and any site that tells me I need to then I get seriousely worried about WTF they need in IE that firefox hasn't got, as I think activeX is just an invitation for people to send you viruses...

[the tree]

Nothing else should be an argument, everyone who writes websites should code in xhtml 1 strict (I can live with html 4 transitional).

What? Unless your mixing XML applications then why use xHTML strict over HTML strict. I can't stand transitional either but using an XML application for a website? What on earth is the point?

I believe that it would be worth the effort. It is probably making a difference between Firefox being in first place, or Firefox being in a very distant second place.

So, why haven't you done it? You don't stand to gain any less than any of the Firefox developers.

they could have the browser recognize the difference between a web site that is following the standards, and one that is not following the standards.

Well done you've invented quirks mode. Even IE is ahead of you on that one.

If Firefox wants to be at the top...

As I've already said, Mozilla want to make good programs, full stop.

[Dak]

What? Unless your mixing XML applications then why use xHTML strict over HTML strict. I can't stand transitional either but using an XML application for a website? What on earth is the point?

 

I thought that XHTML was supposed to eventually replace HTML?

[RyanJ]

I thought that XHTML was supposed to eventually replace HTML?

 

It should, its stricter and better suitable fror cross platform compatability.

 

cheers,

 

Ryan Jones

[the tree]

I thought that XHTML was supposed to eventually replace HTML?

xHTML is just an XML application posing as HTML, with time maybe XML applications will become more commonplace and there'll be less need for the original SGML languages but currently, xHTML has nothing on HTML unless you're mixing in languages like MathML.

its stricter

In the sense of being well formed yes, but as far as anything else goes, it is not stricter, at all.

and better suitable fror cross platform compatability.

IE doesn't support the correct MIME type for xHTML 1.1, so no.

[Dak]

xHTML is just an XML application posing as HTML, with time maybe XML applications will become more commonplace and there'll be less need for the original SGML languages but currently, xHTML has nothing on HTML unless you're mixing in languages like MathML.

 

What I meant was that I thought that it was actually a w3c reccomendation to use XHTML over HTML in order to eventually transition to a purely XML based language.

 

I could easily be wrong, but I was under the impression that that was the case.