Browser Issues with Websites
-
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...)
-
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.”
How bout this. Create a pseudo browser that looks at the meta-data of a page, if it is marked as created for it opens the page in a tab with the correct browser embedded. Give the user the option to identify their preferred browser for unmarked pages. You could provide a link to the download pages for each of the popular browsers to download them when needed. Basically just a big ole wrapper :)
-
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.
Fabio Franco wrote:
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".
..if, and only if, you get the permission to use that engine. You won't be able to deliver a FF-addin without the written consent of the creators of FF. That's copyrighted material, and I doubt that they'll give away their investment.
Fabio Franco wrote:
2 - You can simply not use the Add-In if you always want to keep using Chrome engine.
It's simpeler to use Chrome as is. Not to mention that a mothership-browser would be slower than IE, since it needs to load all those engines.
Fabio Franco wrote:
3 - In the Add-In settings you could always set which sites you want to use with which engine.
The EU will certainly love that! How are you going to determine who's on top in that add-in list? I'm not enthousiastic about the idea since it's comparable to hosting Google or Bing in a frame, and then selling that as a search-engine.
-
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
Check out http://www.lunascape.tv In the Lunascape browser, you can switch between the three major rendering engines (Trident = IE, Gecko = FF, WebKet = Chrome or Safari). You can configure Lunascape to always use a certain engine on a specific site or page. Some sort of autodiscovery tag like you've outlined would be a nice complement to it, though.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
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".
..if, and only if, you get the permission to use that engine. You won't be able to deliver a FF-addin without the written consent of the creators of FF. That's copyrighted material, and I doubt that they'll give away their investment.
Fabio Franco wrote:
2 - You can simply not use the Add-In if you always want to keep using Chrome engine.
It's simpeler to use Chrome as is. Not to mention that a mothership-browser would be slower than IE, since it needs to load all those engines.
Fabio Franco wrote:
3 - In the Add-In settings you could always set which sites you want to use with which engine.
The EU will certainly love that! How are you going to determine who's on top in that add-in list? I'm not enthousiastic about the idea since it's comparable to hosting Google or Bing in a frame, and then selling that as a search-engine.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fabio Franco wrote: 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". ..if, and only if, you get the permission to use that engine. You won't be able to deliver a FF-addin without the written consent of the creators of FF. That's copyrighted material, and I doubt that they'll give away their investment.
Isn't that already done for IE, in the IE Tab add-in for firefox? Don't think there is any legal implications in that, if there was, IE Tab would've been long gone.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fabio Franco wrote: 2 - You can simply not use the Add-In if you always want to keep using Chrome engine. It's simpeler to use Chrome as is. Not to mention that a mothership-browser would be slower than IE, since it needs to load all those engines.
Yes, in the startup maybe, but I think it's worth the initial long load time for having an all-around browser.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fabio Franco wrote: 3 - In the Add-In settings you could always set which sites you want to use with which engine. The EU will certainly love that! How are you going to determine who's on top in that add-in list? I'm not enthousiastic about the idea since it's comparable to hosting Google or Bing in a frame, and then selling that as a search-engine.
This would be a local setting, on the user machine. The user determines which sites are prefered by which engine. No problem with that. Take a look on the IE Tab Add-In for firefox, and you'll know what I mean. It works great!
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fabio Franco wrote: 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". ..if, and only if, you get the permission to use that engine. You won't be able to deliver a FF-addin without the written consent of the creators of FF. That's copyrighted material, and I doubt that they'll give away their investment.
Isn't that already done for IE, in the IE Tab add-in for firefox? Don't think there is any legal implications in that, if there was, IE Tab would've been long gone.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fabio Franco wrote: 2 - You can simply not use the Add-In if you always want to keep using Chrome engine. It's simpeler to use Chrome as is. Not to mention that a mothership-browser would be slower than IE, since it needs to load all those engines.
Yes, in the startup maybe, but I think it's worth the initial long load time for having an all-around browser.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Fabio Franco wrote: 3 - In the Add-In settings you could always set which sites you want to use with which engine. The EU will certainly love that! How are you going to determine who's on top in that add-in list? I'm not enthousiastic about the idea since it's comparable to hosting Google or Bing in a frame, and then selling that as a search-engine.
This would be a local setting, on the user machine. The user determines which sites are prefered by which engine. No problem with that. Take a look on the IE Tab Add-In for firefox, and you'll know what I mean. It works great!
Fabio Franco wrote:
Isn't that already done for IE, in the IE Tab add-in for firefox? Don't think there is any legal implications in that, if there was, IE Tab would've been long gone.
No, it's not "done for IE". FireFox didn't need their permission, since IE is available as a component on the system. In other words, the creators of the IE Add-in tab needn't the distribution-rights to IE, since it's already installed on the system. Sorry, but this is a non-solvable legal problem :sigh:
-
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
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
Isn't that already done for IE, in the IE Tab add-in for firefox? Don't think there is any legal implications in that, if there was, IE Tab would've been long gone.
No, it's not "done for IE". FireFox didn't need their permission, since IE is available as a component on the system. In other words, the creators of the IE Add-in tab needn't the distribution-rights to IE, since it's already installed on the system. Sorry, but this is a non-solvable legal problem :sigh:
FireFox is open source...licensed under GPL. Problem solved.
-
Fabio Franco wrote:
Isn't that already done for IE, in the IE Tab add-in for firefox? Don't think there is any legal implications in that, if there was, IE Tab would've been long gone.
No, it's not "done for IE". FireFox didn't need their permission, since IE is available as a component on the system. In other words, the creators of the IE Add-in tab needn't the distribution-rights to IE, since it's already installed on the system. Sorry, but this is a non-solvable legal problem :sigh:
Oh...and so is Chrome...so, you basically have your three main engines taken care of (IE, WebKit, Gecko). If your site doesn't work with one of those, you did something wrong.
-
FireFox is open source...licensed under GPL. Problem solved.