Browser Issues with Websites
-
Crazy idea. Next thing, you'll suggest running Windows on a Mac
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Univoter? oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
-
Univoter? oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac
Never underestimate the power of human stupidity RAH
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac
Probably means something dirty in French.
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
OK you design it. I'll do the marketing. We could call it 'Russian Doll'. FireFox has an Add-in called IETab that can load a page using the IE engine. Was that the sort of thing you had in mind?
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Henry Minute wrote:
FireFox has an Add-in called IETab
That IE is already on the system, and that tab isn't part of FF, but a third-party add-on. The engines that render HTML are proprietary; I doubt that Steve will allow the Safari-application to become a part of your mothership. ..and how would this work in Europe? The user has to have the choice of the browser that he wants to use, and that's not negotiable. It would be unfair if a site designed for IE could only be viewed using the
Mothership.IEmodule.Hello. I'm new to browser and I have a doubt about IE and FF :)
-
Henry Minute wrote:
FireFox has an Add-in called IETab
That IE is already on the system, and that tab isn't part of FF, but a third-party add-on. The engines that render HTML are proprietary; I doubt that Steve will allow the Safari-application to become a part of your mothership. ..and how would this work in Europe? The user has to have the choice of the browser that he wants to use, and that's not negotiable. It would be unfair if a site designed for IE could only be viewed using the
Mothership.IEmodule.Hello. I'm new to browser and I have a doubt about IE and FF :)
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That IE is already on the system, and that tab isn't part of FF, but a third-party add-on
Well I did say it was an Add-in. As far as IE already being on the system, wouldn't that have to be the case for any rendering engine in this imaginary multi browser browser?
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
That IE is already on the system, and that tab isn't part of FF, but a third-party add-on
Well I did say it was an Add-in. As far as IE already being on the system, wouldn't that have to be the case for any rendering engine in this imaginary multi browser browser?
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Henry Minute wrote:
Well I did say it was an Add-in.
You did, and I wanted to highlight it :)
Henry Minute wrote:
As far as IE already being on the system, wouldn't that have to be the case for any rendering engine in this imaginary multi browser browser?
That's the point. FF isn't pre-installed, and couldn't be loaded as a plugin. Thus, IE can't use FF as a plugin. Vice versa is possible, since IE is also a pre-installed ActiveX component. Now, given the fact that writing good software is expensive, why would Steve want his expensive rendering-engine to be used to display a page in IE? Where's the money in that for Apple if they start giving away their browser as an ActiveX control? Worse, what if a site is designed for IE/FF - what add-on would a mothership use in that case? And what if that site was compatible with Chrome, but it wasn't marked as "designed for". Would you disallow that engine? Would that be "fair" to give Microsoft a competitive advantage over Google?
-
Henry Minute wrote:
Well I did say it was an Add-in.
You did, and I wanted to highlight it :)
Henry Minute wrote:
As far as IE already being on the system, wouldn't that have to be the case for any rendering engine in this imaginary multi browser browser?
That's the point. FF isn't pre-installed, and couldn't be loaded as a plugin. Thus, IE can't use FF as a plugin. Vice versa is possible, since IE is also a pre-installed ActiveX component. Now, given the fact that writing good software is expensive, why would Steve want his expensive rendering-engine to be used to display a page in IE? Where's the money in that for Apple if they start giving away their browser as an ActiveX control? Worse, what if a site is designed for IE/FF - what add-on would a mothership use in that case? And what if that site was compatible with Chrome, but it wasn't marked as "designed for". Would you disallow that engine? Would that be "fair" to give Microsoft a competitive advantage over Google?
Curse you Vluggen!!! :) I really hate it when people use logic in the lounge. Your points are valid and well made and I shall retire hurt unless a flash of inspiration occurs. :-D
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Curse you Vluggen!!! :) I really hate it when people use logic in the lounge. Your points are valid and well made and I shall retire hurt unless a flash of inspiration occurs. :-D
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac
Probably means something dirty in French.
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
Probably means something dirty in French.
Everything means something dirty in French! :~
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
Oakman wrote:
Probably means something dirty in French.
Everything means something dirty in French! :~
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopesJimmyRopes wrote:
Everything means something dirty in French
Well, in English. "French" is at least a little risque.
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Mycroft Holmes wrote:
oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac
Probably means something dirty in French.
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
Mycroft Holmes wrote: oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac Probably means something dirty in French.
Your relevancy is so low, it is now close to paranoia...
You can't turn lead into gold, unless you've built yourself a nuclear plant.
-
Oakman wrote:
Mycroft Holmes wrote: oh no you mentioned the dreaded word Mac Probably means something dirty in French.
Your relevancy is so low, it is now close to paranoia...
You can't turn lead into gold, unless you've built yourself a nuclear plant.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Your relevancy
Okay, I get it. You learned a new word today and want to use it. But you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think, say, or do.
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
-
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
Your relevancy
Okay, I get it. You learned a new word today and want to use it. But you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think, say, or do.
Jon "One loves to possess arms, though they hope never to have occasion for them." --Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1796. Soap Box 1.0: the first, the original, reborn troll-less
Oakman wrote:
But you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think, say, or do.
But still, you keep on replying... You did not explain how French people had something to do with the Mac? So unless yo do it, I'm left with your low relevancy.
You can't turn lead into gold, unless you've built yourself a nuclear plant.
-
Oakman wrote:
But you have mistaken me for someone who cares what you think, say, or do.
But still, you keep on replying... You did not explain how French people had something to do with the Mac? So unless yo do it, I'm left with your low relevancy.
You can't turn lead into gold, unless you've built yourself a nuclear plant.
Pierre Leclercq wrote:
You did not explain how French people had something to do with the Mac?
They didn't! If Pierre is any indication of their abilities they are not innovative enough to have anything to do with a Mac! :rolleyes: And you’re so dumb you think people want to engage in conversation with you.
Simply Elegant Designs JimmyRopes Designs
Think inside the box! ProActive Secure Systems
I'm on-line therefore I am. JimmyRopes -
At firs I found that funny. But now, I don't think it is a bad idea per se. Almost all the browsers (not sure about Chrome) support embedding. So a super browser can automatically embed the right browser for the right page.:)
This would require some funky coding - either double serves or some fancy internal proxy code. You have to generically grab the HTML, read your meta tag - and then either fire up the embedded broswer object and tell it to go get the same page you just grabed and partially parsed (double server hit) or proxy the data to the embedded object by starting the embedded browser with a request to your mothership, where your mothership would "SERVE" (like a webserver) the data it downloaded already. From that point forward I think the embedded object would work normally.. until the user navigated off the website in question in which the meta data wouldn't be getting parsed... uless you proxied EVERY web call to preparse and decide the best render... Seems kinda thick
Know way too many languages... master of none!
-
Ok, i was just thinking on a way to resolve making websites that work for any browser. Then, i had an idea, why not make a browser that can load instances of other browsers within it. Then a website can just specify what browser it was designed for. i.e Then when the custom browser gets the page it just looks for an instance of that app and loads it into a tab window. Anyone got any ideas? I know, I know your saying to load a whole bunch of versions on a client machine?... exactly!
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
-
Ok, i was just thinking on a way to resolve making websites that work for any browser. Then, i had an idea, why not make a browser that can load instances of other browsers within it. Then a website can just specify what browser it was designed for. i.e Then when the custom browser gets the page it just looks for an instance of that app and loads it into a tab window. Anyone got any ideas? I know, I know your saying to load a whole bunch of versions on a client machine?... exactly!
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
Idea is not so bad. But don't think that loading foreign engines is a good solution. As somebody already noted here, you'll bring to your new product the old sores. May be it has sense to create a kind of "syntactically oriented interpreter". With changable rules table. So this browser will use different rules tables for different browser models. From my experience, it's not a simple task though. Regards, Gennady
My English is permanently under construction. Be patient !!
-
Ok, i was just thinking on a way to resolve making websites that work for any browser. Then, i had an idea, why not make a browser that can load instances of other browsers within it. Then a website can just specify what browser it was designed for. i.e Then when the custom browser gets the page it just looks for an instance of that app and loads it into a tab window. Anyone got any ideas? I know, I know your saying to load a whole bunch of versions on a client machine?... exactly!
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
QTWeb already does that, which is why I've been playing with it for the last few days. I'm impressed.
I wanna be a eunuchs developer! Pass me a bread knife!
-
Ok, i was just thinking on a way to resolve making websites that work for any browser. Then, i had an idea, why not make a browser that can load instances of other browsers within it. Then a website can just specify what browser it was designed for. i.e Then when the custom browser gets the page it just looks for an instance of that app and loads it into a tab window. Anyone got any ideas? I know, I know your saying to load a whole bunch of versions on a client machine?... exactly!
"I do not know with what weapons World War 3 will be fought, but World War 4 will be fought with sticks and stones." Einstein "Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example." Mark Twain
-
Henry Minute wrote:
Well I did say it was an Add-in.
You did, and I wanted to highlight it :)
Henry Minute wrote:
As far as IE already being on the system, wouldn't that have to be the case for any rendering engine in this imaginary multi browser browser?
That's the point. FF isn't pre-installed, and couldn't be loaded as a plugin. Thus, IE can't use FF as a plugin. Vice versa is possible, since IE is also a pre-installed ActiveX component. Now, given the fact that writing good software is expensive, why would Steve want his expensive rendering-engine to be used to display a page in IE? Where's the money in that for Apple if they start giving away their browser as an ActiveX control? Worse, what if a site is designed for IE/FF - what add-on would a mothership use in that case? And what if that site was compatible with Chrome, but it wasn't marked as "designed for". Would you disallow that engine? Would that be "fair" to give Microsoft a competitive advantage over Google?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Worse, what if a site is designed for IE/FF - what add-on would a mothership use in that case? And what if that site was compatible with Chrome, but it wasn't marked as "designed for". Would you disallow that engine? Would that be "fair" to give Microsoft a competitive advantage over Google?
1 - Every add-in has the potential to be customizable by featuring a settings form. So, if the site is designed for two different sites you can set a "preferable engine". 2 - You can simply not use the Add-In if you always want to keep using Chrome engine. 3 - In the Add-In settings you could always set which sites you want to use with which engine.
-
Curse you Vluggen!!! :) I really hate it when people use logic in the lounge. Your points are valid and well made and I shall retire hurt unless a flash of inspiration occurs. :-D
Henry Minute Do not read medical books! You could die of a misprint. - Mark Twain Girl: (staring) "Why do you need an icy cucumber?" “I want to report a fraud. The government is lying to us all.”
Logic my arse.... You guys are straight out of Dilbert. Thanks for stepping all over this guy's good idea in the most unhelpful way possible. Anyone can throw road blocks in the way of a project ... Why don't you guys bring potential solutions. I think it's a cool idea. For implementation, I'd just make sure that the end user has control over the process-- options to listen to or not listen to the tag fora specific browser type. Suggest alternates for missing types/versions, but allow the user to define other alternates. Oh -- and a nice non-obnoxious messaging system with links to download missing browser types ( with the option to turn off recommendations for that browser type or all browser types, of course...)