Firefox oddities
-
I've been playing with Firefox to see what the big deal is. So far I'm not terribly impressed; it seems to have many of the same bugs and oddities that previous Mozilla efforts have had for years. Perhaps the most glaring thing was when I replied to a message here on Code Project, the Text box is about 2/3 the size of the one in IE (and clearly way too small) and the signature box is about half the width. Oddly the list of smiley's is 50% longer (like they're double-spaced.) This bug/quirk goes back several years as does the next one. (The other very annoying thing about Firefox is that they don't add enough vertical space between menu items, making them appear to be crammed together. Oh and how they don't sort the favorites the way I like them and the list goes on. [And I hate tabbed browsing, so that's not a selling point for me.]) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote: Perhaps the most glaring thing was when I replied to a message here on Code Project, the Text box is about 2/3 the size of the one in IE (and clearly way too small) and the signature box is about half the width. If you view the source of a 'reply' page and look at the textareas 'ContentText' and 'Sig' they have a 'cols' property value of 50 and 40. Which Mozilla is rendering correctly. Now look for the function
ResizeTextArea(You'll only find it if you are using IE, it is not served up to mozilla). This function resizes the textareas to better fit the current browser window size. It uses the IE specific document object model to access the control's properties. Granted, 99% of users wouldn't, and indeed shouldnt, investigate why something doesn't work (heck, its not their job). They just see that their favorite sites don't work quite the same in mozilla, and immediately dismiss mozilla as rubbish.Searching the web without Google is like straining sewage with your teeth.
Userfriendly, 2003/06/07 -
I've been playing with Firefox to see what the big deal is. So far I'm not terribly impressed; it seems to have many of the same bugs and oddities that previous Mozilla efforts have had for years. Perhaps the most glaring thing was when I replied to a message here on Code Project, the Text box is about 2/3 the size of the one in IE (and clearly way too small) and the signature box is about half the width. Oddly the list of smiley's is 50% longer (like they're double-spaced.) This bug/quirk goes back several years as does the next one. (The other very annoying thing about Firefox is that they don't add enough vertical space between menu items, making them appear to be crammed together. Oh and how they don't sort the favorites the way I like them and the list goes on. [And I hate tabbed browsing, so that's not a selling point for me.]) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Maybe you should stick with IE? I use Moz but then I like it, not everyone has too :) (and the chappie above is correct in saying that Moz does the textbox right, we are just used to the errors of IE.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Ian Darling wrote: "and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python." Crikey! ain't life grand?
-
Maybe you should stick with IE? I use Moz but then I like it, not everyone has too :) (and the chappie above is correct in saying that Moz does the textbox right, we are just used to the errors of IE.) regards, Paul Watson Bluegrass South Africa Ian Darling wrote: "and our loonies usually end up doing things like Monty Python." Crikey! ain't life grand?
u know until i started using my linux laptop for day to day work and tasks i didnt realise just how much ms have shaped peoples concept of computing ... even mine and i should know better there are other ways of doing things that sometimes are better and sometimes worse ... its just kinda important to remember that ms isnt the only game in town and certainly arent always right in what they do or produce
-
I've been playing with Firefox to see what the big deal is. So far I'm not terribly impressed; it seems to have many of the same bugs and oddities that previous Mozilla efforts have had for years. Perhaps the most glaring thing was when I replied to a message here on Code Project, the Text box is about 2/3 the size of the one in IE (and clearly way too small) and the signature box is about half the width. Oddly the list of smiley's is 50% longer (like they're double-spaced.) This bug/quirk goes back several years as does the next one. (The other very annoying thing about Firefox is that they don't add enough vertical space between menu items, making them appear to be crammed together. Oh and how they don't sort the favorites the way I like them and the list goes on. [And I hate tabbed browsing, so that's not a selling point for me.]) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
I just love Firefox but on some sites I encounter problems. Here on CP when replying to messages the "QUOTE SELECTED TEXT" button disappears. When checking the HTML-source it turns out that the server decides to send a slightly different page to FF! So how can I make this server (and others) think that I am using IE? I have tried using "user agent switcher" for this but it is no help. Any Ideas? Thx Adam _____________________________________ Action without thought is not action Action without emotion is not life
-
I think that the Gecko engine is pretty good (powers Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape), but the way they handle the standards causes me problems. It is simply go be standard or else. Does not matter if it is compatible with other browsers or not, just make sure it is the standard, even if the standard is wrong (which the css are in many areas). Now that everyone is running around in the FireFox frenzy (reminds me of the MAC groupies ;) ), claiming things like it is so much faster or so much safer or .... It means that I have to make sure my sites are compatible or close to it. At least it is not as hard to make compatible as the old Netscape was though! At the current time from my logs it appears FireFox/Mozilla/Netscape are pulling 5-8 percent and Opera is about gone. IE is still over 90% most of the time though. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
Rocky Moore wrote: Does not matter if it is compatible with other browsers or not, just make sure it is the standard, even if the standard is wrong Who really defines a "standard"? A bunch of guys on some meetings or 90% of the market? I don't care if a commitee somewhere defined a "standard"... IE is the standard as far as I'm concerned (and I have 89.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the market to back me up on this one :))
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
-
Rocky Moore wrote: Does not matter if it is compatible with other browsers or not, just make sure it is the standard, even if the standard is wrong Who really defines a "standard"? A bunch of guys on some meetings or 90% of the market? I don't care if a commitee somewhere defined a "standard"... IE is the standard as far as I'm concerned (and I have 89.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the market to back me up on this one :))
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
I dont agree with you. The problem is that MS makes their own "standards" which are no standards at all. If you have a real standard every company can go and make their own products for the whole market which is at least good for everybody cause he can choose which product he or she prefers. I love MS for .Net which is a really cool thing :) but I prefere firefox for surfing and want to have the choice thats all. IE sucks, thats my privat opinion and I have a right for having my own opinion which I don´t want to be dictated by the mass. (sorry for my bad english :|)
-
Rocky Moore wrote: Does not matter if it is compatible with other browsers or not, just make sure it is the standard, even if the standard is wrong Who really defines a "standard"? A bunch of guys on some meetings or 90% of the market? I don't care if a commitee somewhere defined a "standard"... IE is the standard as far as I'm concerned (and I have 89.999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the market to back me up on this one :))
If Java had true garbage collection, most programs would delete themselves upon execution - Robert Sewell
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Who really defines a "standard"? Yes, I do agree with you on that issue. They set standards that take years if not decades to become available in products. IE is a standard of it's own. There are some things that even IE does not get straight from version to version which can be headache. I personally do not beleive that one checks their brain at the door when implementing a standard. If that standard is going to break how 90% of the people use the product, then I would think you should power up a few brain cells and add a compatible mode that makes it 100% compatible even if not the standard. You can always have your standard's mode that is 100% standards compatible for the one browser that supports them. Personally, I do not think any of this would be an issue and flair up as much if IE was not produced by Microsoft, they would probably still retain 99.9% of the market ;) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
I just love Firefox but on some sites I encounter problems. Here on CP when replying to messages the "QUOTE SELECTED TEXT" button disappears. When checking the HTML-source it turns out that the server decides to send a slightly different page to FF! So how can I make this server (and others) think that I am using IE? I have tried using "user agent switcher" for this but it is no help. Any Ideas? Thx Adam _____________________________________ Action without thought is not action Action without emotion is not life
megaadam wrote: So how can I make this server (and others) think that I am using IE? Use IE :) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
I've been playing with Firefox to see what the big deal is. So far I'm not terribly impressed; it seems to have many of the same bugs and oddities that previous Mozilla efforts have had for years. Perhaps the most glaring thing was when I replied to a message here on Code Project, the Text box is about 2/3 the size of the one in IE (and clearly way too small) and the signature box is about half the width. Oddly the list of smiley's is 50% longer (like they're double-spaced.) This bug/quirk goes back several years as does the next one. (The other very annoying thing about Firefox is that they don't add enough vertical space between menu items, making them appear to be crammed together. Oh and how they don't sort the favorites the way I like them and the list goes on. [And I hate tabbed browsing, so that's not a selling point for me.]) Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
It's a similar situation to C++ compilers. As long as you have a complex enough language each of the different interpreters will handle it slightly differently. Some pages render better in IE others in firefox. Supporting multiple browsers definitely makes things more complicated. However I really believe that competition is good for the market. If Firefox can get enough of the market, it will convince Microsoft to put out a new version of the browser, something it hasn't really done since IE 4.0, and I can't wait for Microsoft to release a fully managed browser.
The architect has placed his bets, but the odds are long -Poster Children
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: Who really defines a "standard"? Yes, I do agree with you on that issue. They set standards that take years if not decades to become available in products. IE is a standard of it's own. There are some things that even IE does not get straight from version to version which can be headache. I personally do not beleive that one checks their brain at the door when implementing a standard. If that standard is going to break how 90% of the people use the product, then I would think you should power up a few brain cells and add a compatible mode that makes it 100% compatible even if not the standard. You can always have your standard's mode that is 100% standards compatible for the one browser that supports them. Personally, I do not think any of this would be an issue and flair up as much if IE was not produced by Microsoft, they would probably still retain 99.9% of the market ;) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
Rocky Moore said: If that standard is going to break how 90% of the people use the product, then I would think you should power up a few brain cells and add a compatible mode that makes it 100% compatible even if not the standard. I love MS and I also love Firefox. The above statement appears to say "Why develop a standard that 90% of the market doesn't comply with?" (If I read you right). The problem is actually that the standards were there first and MS just refuses to play ball in order to make things work because of IE is old, large, and has a inept code base. The CSS standards started around 1994, HTML around 1990, and IE 1.0 wasn't released until 1995. Sometimes I have to go back to IE and open a page because it just won't render right in Firefox. That's due to IE though. I've been on the web developer end, having to add stupid tags just for IE and it SUCKS. Whether it's CSS, HTML, or even C++, the standards are there for a reason. Nobody really fully complies with any set of standards. They just get as close as they can while keeping their implementation unique. The difference is that MS won't even TRY. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
-
Rocky Moore said: If that standard is going to break how 90% of the people use the product, then I would think you should power up a few brain cells and add a compatible mode that makes it 100% compatible even if not the standard. I love MS and I also love Firefox. The above statement appears to say "Why develop a standard that 90% of the market doesn't comply with?" (If I read you right). The problem is actually that the standards were there first and MS just refuses to play ball in order to make things work because of IE is old, large, and has a inept code base. The CSS standards started around 1994, HTML around 1990, and IE 1.0 wasn't released until 1995. Sometimes I have to go back to IE and open a page because it just won't render right in Firefox. That's due to IE though. I've been on the web developer end, having to add stupid tags just for IE and it SUCKS. Whether it's CSS, HTML, or even C++, the standards are there for a reason. Nobody really fully complies with any set of standards. They just get as close as they can while keeping their implementation unique. The difference is that MS won't even TRY. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams
BrianEllis wrote: That's due to IE though. I've been on the web developer end, having to add stupid tags just for IE and it SUCKS That depends at what your target is you design for, if you are building with IE, you have to change a few things to get Mozilla to comply. Same diff. BrianEllis wrote: The difference is that MS won't even TRY. They have most of the market, they should not have to. That is the problem. If you are talking a 90% market base, who is the standard? Just because a group of people say it is one way, then maybe the standard need to be more compatible with the market base. Mozilla people do not care. They say by the standard or death just about. Does not matter if the standard is wrong, let it change in a future verison of the standard is always the answer. Yeah, another 20 years down the road! So, I target the market leader and make sure it works well with them and then attempt to work in Mozilla. And there have been a few long nighters fighting to get things to render properly with that monster! Of course, I think web browser rendering is still in the dark ages... Too much thought of document and not enough on presentation. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
It's a similar situation to C++ compilers. As long as you have a complex enough language each of the different interpreters will handle it slightly differently. Some pages render better in IE others in firefox. Supporting multiple browsers definitely makes things more complicated. However I really believe that competition is good for the market. If Firefox can get enough of the market, it will convince Microsoft to put out a new version of the browser, something it hasn't really done since IE 4.0, and I can't wait for Microsoft to release a fully managed browser.
The architect has placed his bets, but the odds are long -Poster Children
andy brummer wrote: If Firefox can get enough of the market, it will convince Microsoft to put out a new version of the browser, something it hasn't really done since IE 4.0, and I can't wait for Microsoft to release a fully managed browser. Do you think they ever will? I lost a lot of hope for anything in the browser world form MS when the stopped the Mac IE and said there would be no more updates except in OS's. Was more like they were moving away from the browser and it did not have any importance. Maybe it is time to go BEYOND the browser into some new kind of interactive presentation system. I used to think Flash might be it, but it did not work out that much. It may be in a lot of places but full flash sites just do not work well. Although I have not checked out their new version that has the ability to do individual forms. For me though, it is now making sure it tied into ASP.NET easily. I am too hooked on C#/ASP.NET to migrate away to something else. Now a C#/Flash type system could be interesting :) Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
-
BrianEllis wrote: That's due to IE though. I've been on the web developer end, having to add stupid tags just for IE and it SUCKS That depends at what your target is you design for, if you are building with IE, you have to change a few things to get Mozilla to comply. Same diff. BrianEllis wrote: The difference is that MS won't even TRY. They have most of the market, they should not have to. That is the problem. If you are talking a 90% market base, who is the standard? Just because a group of people say it is one way, then maybe the standard need to be more compatible with the market base. Mozilla people do not care. They say by the standard or death just about. Does not matter if the standard is wrong, let it change in a future verison of the standard is always the answer. Yeah, another 20 years down the road! So, I target the market leader and make sure it works well with them and then attempt to work in Mozilla. And there have been a few long nighters fighting to get things to render properly with that monster! Of course, I think web browser rendering is still in the dark ages... Too much thought of document and not enough on presentation. Rocky <>< www.HintsAndTips.com www.GotTheAnswerToSpam.com
All valid points. I design for IE if necessary because it's the most common browser. I do think open-source people tend to be too "STANDARDS OR DEATH!" most of the time. Most of all though I agree web browser technology is so far from where I thought it would be at this point. However, once again the standards at least set a goal for everyone to try for, a theoretical "limit" that would keep the functionality of them going in the same direction while leaving new features and innovation to the individual companies. I don't think that just because the market leader says so, you throw the end goal out the window and go with their approach. Brian "In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move." - Douglas Adams