I thought, I say I THOUGHT, that the whole issue of creating browser specific code had been pretty much condemned based on the problems of having web pages that only support M$ IE. Now you want to create web page code specific to Mozilla? It looks like some people, such as the author of this article, will never "get it". Browser specific web code is just plain stewped.
I'll take this opportunity to gripe about TR's apparent use of nonstandard code to implement the blog comment editor. It doesn't work in Opera. That is also stewped. When I complained about this the response was "It's Opera's fault". I suspect that it is TR's fault for using something that doesn't work in Opera. God forbid that TR should fix this. Oh no. That isn't going to happen. You can't use a standards based web browser on the TR site. It won't work but that's the browser's fault. Right.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
on the browser specific code issue.
it's one of the things people rant against with websites constantly.
why promote doing the same thing with another browser?
since I don't have a java vm installed, can't use opera. so no idea what you are reffering to with it and the blogs.
it's one of the things people rant against with websites constantly.
why promote doing the same thing with another browser?
since I don't have a java vm installed, can't use opera. so no idea what you are reffering to with it and the blogs.
As Yogi Berra was reported to have said:
It's deja vu all over again!
I remember - too well - the browser wars that pitted Netscape (NS) against Microsoft (MS) and how MS killed NS by bundling MS Internet Explorer (MSIE) with the Operating System (OS) included with new machines so every user got it by default. Some/most code would only work on MSIE. And after a jillion security etc. patches to MSIE, Mozilla Firefox (FF) emerged and we could go to some W3 standards; mostly. But you still had to be able to do MSIE to get MS updates and security patches. Luckily, there was an extension to see MS pages in FF so that bridged that gap.
Now, this is another crack in the standards? Please, Please don't build a browser specific page unless you have to - then please explain why you have to. That would be interesting.
It's deja vu all over again!
I remember - too well - the browser wars that pitted Netscape (NS) against Microsoft (MS) and how MS killed NS by bundling MS Internet Explorer (MSIE) with the Operating System (OS) included with new machines so every user got it by default. Some/most code would only work on MSIE. And after a jillion security etc. patches to MSIE, Mozilla Firefox (FF) emerged and we could go to some W3 standards; mostly. But you still had to be able to do MSIE to get MS updates and security patches. Luckily, there was an extension to see MS pages in FF so that bridged that gap.
Now, this is another crack in the standards? Please, Please don't build a browser specific page unless you have to - then please explain why you have to. That would be interesting.
you don't have an interest in using c++ and the gre to build a cgi for use in a website?
that works only through thier own browsers?
why.. you... ingrate.
you ought to be ashamed of yourself for not wanting to lock users into a different browser.
don't yell at em, send letter bombs to them.
that works only through thier own browsers?
why.. you... ingrate.
you ought to be ashamed of yourself for not wanting to lock users into a different browser.
don't yell at em, send letter bombs to them.
To build public Internet Web pages, I agree: it's stupid using browser specific code.
But it may be quite useful for internal purpose (intranet, web-based applications...).
You could make the browser (Firefox, in this case) to be part of your deployment, and then you'll have a pretty well tailored Web application...
I find it worth enough to be evaluated as an option.
But it may be quite useful for internal purpose (intranet, web-based applications...).
You could make the browser (Firefox, in this case) to be part of your deployment, and then you'll have a pretty well tailored Web application...
I find it worth enough to be evaluated as an option.
Can someone tell me what to "stewp" means?
Maybe I've been stewped and don't know about it - nah, that would be stupid.
Maybe I've been stewped and don't know about it - nah, that would be stupid.
This technique could be useful in building an intranet or extranet for an organization with specific desired behaviours that was internally standardized on Mozilla (and likely firefox as well).
That said, until the use of XML and its related technologies become a widespread supported standard rather than HTML the last thing we need is more proprietary web site code.
Having survived the early Netscape/IE code idiosyncray wars I have no desire to return to those days. We have useful web standards (albeit seldom fully utilized). Lets not erode ten years of progress towards an interoperable web. Becasue something *can* be done, doesn;t necessarily mean it *should* be done.
That said, until the use of XML and its related technologies become a widespread supported standard rather than HTML the last thing we need is more proprietary web site code.
Having survived the early Netscape/IE code idiosyncray wars I have no desire to return to those days. We have useful web standards (albeit seldom fully utilized). Lets not erode ten years of progress towards an interoperable web. Becasue something *can* be done, doesn;t necessarily mean it *should* be done.
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
