Mozilla - enough for me!
-
What I'm stating here is a simple fact: the massive HTML made today is only tested with Internet Explorer. Coding a browser TODAY that cannot read this HTML and whining that "MS does not conform to the standards" is plain stupid, this will not get more people using your browser. Like the original post, people will start uninstalling Mozilla. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
Conforming to Microsoft's "standard" is a lot easier said than done. I think it would probably be a poor decision. If Mozilla was 100% IE compatible, all it would take is a single revision from Microsoft to break Mozilla. The Mozilla team would spend all of its time trying to implement Microsoft's latest feature set. In this senario, there no longer is a standards commitee, it is just what ever Microsoft feels like doing. The bottom line is that Microsoft should not be able to set the standard just because it currently has market dominance.
-
:confused: Sorry, didn't follow that. Could you use smaller words for those of use who aren't web developer gurus? :) Chistopher Duncan Author - The Career Programmer: Guerilla Tactics for an Imperfect World (Apress)
What that was supposed to say is: I hope you forgot the tags, but I couldn't preview the message because the Preview button is missing!!!
-
I have also been giving it a go and I don't think it's that bad at all. I like the look - but I have had some minor, though annoying, problems: 1. I like to use larger fonts than normal (120%), but Mozilla loses the damn setting each time it's closed. 2. Printing. I can't get this to work - I often need to print bank statements and Mozilla just hangs displaying a "Printing" dialog. 3. Some sites do not render very well. Using fonts larger than 100% makes the CP navigation bar on the left look crappy. It does seem to start up faster than IE. The lack of Mozilla cookies has been a pain though! (can IE cookies be imported?).
Faith. Believing in something you *know* isn't true.
I had the same problem with the fonts. I can't use Mozilla until they fix that bug. Todd Smith
-
Conforming to Microsoft's "standard" is a lot easier said than done. I think it would probably be a poor decision. If Mozilla was 100% IE compatible, all it would take is a single revision from Microsoft to break Mozilla. The Mozilla team would spend all of its time trying to implement Microsoft's latest feature set. In this senario, there no longer is a standards commitee, it is just what ever Microsoft feels like doing. The bottom line is that Microsoft should not be able to set the standard just because it currently has market dominance.
Ryan Johnston wrote: Conforming to Microsoft's "standard" is a lot easier said than done. This is because IE is a really good browser. Ryan Johnston wrote: I think it would probably be a poor decision. If Mozilla was 100% IE compatible, all it would take is a single revision from Microsoft to break Mozilla. That's not true: how many pages you see today that only work in IE 6.0 ? Most pages work equally well on IE 4.0 and up. If MS releases IE 7.0, and there's a 100% compatible browser to IE, let's say 6.0, no one will use the "new standard". And MS will need to be backward compatible. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
-
Ryan Johnston wrote: Conforming to Microsoft's "standard" is a lot easier said than done. This is because IE is a really good browser. Ryan Johnston wrote: I think it would probably be a poor decision. If Mozilla was 100% IE compatible, all it would take is a single revision from Microsoft to break Mozilla. That's not true: how many pages you see today that only work in IE 6.0 ? Most pages work equally well on IE 4.0 and up. If MS releases IE 7.0, and there's a 100% compatible browser to IE, let's say 6.0, no one will use the "new standard". And MS will need to be backward compatible. Concussus surgo. When struck I rise.
Daniel Turini wrote: This is because IE is a really good browser. I totally agree. Daniel Turini wrote: That's not true: how many pages you see today that only work in IE 6.0 ? Most pages work equally well on IE 4.0 and up. If MS releases IE 7.0, and there's a 100% compatible browser to IE, let's say 6.0, no one will use the "new standard". And MS will need to be backward compatible. Most of those pages that work just fine on IE 4.0 and up are the same ones that work just fine in Mozilla. The ones that don't are in the minority. I'm not saying that people shouldn't use Microsoft's cool extensions to the standard, but I think that anyone who is designing a web site for mass audiences should either write two versions of their site, or follow the standard (which should work in all browsers most of the time).
-
What is a web developer supposed to do when 95% of the web's users use IE? Well, they could code to W3C standards. But then again, who needs standards. The whole point of standards is that someone using a NON IE browser cannot see the site at all in some cases because there is no Internet Explorer browser for my chosen platform (SGI O2). Same thing goes with programming languages. Agreeing on a standard makes everyone compatible. Standards eliminate the need to code for anything specific. But some people are having trouble with that idea. Shawn
Shawn Horton wrote: Well, they could code to W3C standards. But then again, who needs standards. I agree, but then, for whatever reason IE doesn't fully follow the "paper" standard (or extends it, or whatever, I'm not a web developer). IE accounts for 90%+ of the market. So, my question is: for the "practical" point of view which one is the "real" standard: IE or W3C?
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Eddie Velasquez wrote: use IE? Code for Mozilla, Netscape, etc? Umm.. Perhaps you don't understand the word STANDARD. The Standards, as described by the W3 and IETF (others, too), for HTML, XML, CSS, etc all render properly in Mozilla. E.g. If you code to the STANDARDS, it will render PROPERLY IN ALL BROWSERS THAT ARE STANDARDS COMPLIANT - Yes, this includs Internet Explorer, Mozilla, Konq, ... The problem is that I.E., the browser of choice because of a monopolistic practice (grin), renders pages improperly when they don't comply to the standards - that is, guess what the author meant when the page doesn't comply to the standard. It then allows people to make mistakes, like vs. .. A properly standards compliant browser would flip out on one of those.. ;-)
negacao wrote: Umm.. Perhaps you don't understand the word STANDARD I understand it pretty well. The thin is that the "ideal" world clashes constantly with the "real" world and a developer that has to pay rent and feed a family cannot swim upstream, and fight a "de facto" standard. That's why I ask myself: Which one should be the "real" standard: the one used by 90%+ of the market or a "paper" standard defined by a comitee. I'm not trying to underestimate the effort and the value of all the comittes that work hard on defining a standard, but in the real world thing are tough. I'm not an X-Files fan, so I don't see conspiracies all over the place. I believe that the IE development team made honest mistakes when working on IE (I believe that everybody is innocent until proven guilty by a court of law). What would happen if the IE team suddenly decides to "correct" it's parsing and rendering engines and fully follow the "standard"? What would happen to the millions of websites that no longer work correctly? That's not a valid option. Standard evolve from common practice, and whether we like it or not, IE is common practice.
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
-
Maybe you ought to try getting an actual _release_ of Mozilla - 1.0 is much faster on my boxen than any version of Konq. :)
-
Shawn Horton wrote: Well, they could code to W3C standards. But then again, who needs standards. I agree, but then, for whatever reason IE doesn't fully follow the "paper" standard (or extends it, or whatever, I'm not a web developer). IE accounts for 90%+ of the market. So, my question is: for the "practical" point of view which one is the "real" standard: IE or W3C?
All of my opinions are correct, even when reality makes the mistake of disagreeing with me.
Well, considering that Microsoft is a member of the W3C, they are lending credibility to the paper standard. The whole point of a standard is to prevent users (all users, not just the 90% majority) from having trouble accessing a site. The bigger question for me is why do some designers think they need the Microsoft extensions? Constant use of extensions precludes users of older versions of IE from utilizing the site. So what has a developer gained? Where does that 90%+ number come from? I see it all the time, but I would like to see the study that determined that number. Shawn
-
Conforming to Microsoft's "standard" is a lot easier said than done. I think it would probably be a poor decision. If Mozilla was 100% IE compatible, all it would take is a single revision from Microsoft to break Mozilla. The Mozilla team would spend all of its time trying to implement Microsoft's latest feature set. In this senario, there no longer is a standards commitee, it is just what ever Microsoft feels like doing. The bottom line is that Microsoft should not be able to set the standard just because it currently has market dominance.
Ryan Johnston wrote: The bottom line is that Microsoft should not be able to set the standard just because it currently has market dominance. Exactly. Standards should be set by an independant group. "Religion is based on faith, and faith is immune to logic. Therefore, it's impossible to have a logical conversation about religion." -Christopher Duncan, CP Lounge
-
Of course, we all must remember that if Mozilla fails it will be caused by the EVIL MICROSOFT EMPIRE. It will have nothing to do with questionable quality. Tim Smith "Programmers are always surrounded by complexity; we can not avoid it... If our basic tool, the language in which we design and code our programs, is also complicated, the language itself becomes part of the problem rather that part of the solution." Hoare - 1980 ACM Turing Award Lecture
Tim Smith wrote: It will have nothing to do with questionable quality. And likewise will have nothing to do with Microsoft's business practices. I guess it's all based on the positions of stars and planets in the sky. I'll get my telescope out tonight and tomorrow I'll tell you the future. "Religion is based on faith, and faith is immune to logic. Therefore, it's impossible to have a logical conversation about religion." -Christopher Duncan, CP Lounge