On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 23:28, Kent West wrote:
> Karsten M. Self wrote:
>
> >Moreover: even in the corporate world, if two business needs make
> >conflicting browser demands, you may not be able to accomodate them
> >(particularly for specific versions of MSIE after 5.x).
> >
> >For this and other
Karsten M. Self wrote:
Moreover: even in the corporate world, if two business needs make
conflicting browser demands, you may not be able to accomodate them
(particularly for specific versions of MSIE after 5.x).
For this and other reasons, I consider the browser user-agent string to
be harmful.
on Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 04:20:14AM -0800, Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:13:53AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> > And how many people have their browser dictated by corporate policy?
>
> How many people are allowed to use the browser for non-business
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:42:26AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney
wrote:
> > In general, people who think of the way pages are "intended to be seen"
> > are missing the point of the web. Will your pixel-perfect design look
> > the way you intended it to look on my PDA? The standards emphasize
> > s
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> complex). Unless the HTML writer makes the needed concessions to
> text-only browsers, graphics rendering is worthless.
Well, ALT is *not* optional in HTML and newer. If webmasters are
going to use HTML 4 still, they should bother to
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:13:53AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> But that's not even the point. How many people upgrade their browsers
> regularly? Do you remember how hard it is to do when you're on a dial-up
> line (due to the download sizes)?
Yup. The trick I used to use, and the on
nate wrote:
>Gary Turner said:
>
>
>> page of nested tables, simply because that seems the best way to present
>> your ideas. Then take a look at the page with Lynx.
>
>i don't think that's fair. lynx is not what I would call a feature
>complete browser. links may be better to compare with. But f
Colin Watson wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:04:15AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>> Colin Watson wrote:
>> >Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm
>> >not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen
>> >in the quest to do so, I honestly d
Gary Turner said:
> page of nested tables, simply because that seems the best way to present
> your ideas. Then take a look at the page with Lynx.
i don't think that's fair. lynx is not what I would call a feature
complete browser. links may be better to compare with. But for me
as long as a pa
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:04:15AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> Colin Watson wrote:
> >Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm
> >not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen
> >in the quest to do so, I honestly don't care if their renderi
Colin Watson wrote:
>On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>>
>> What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or
>> vice versa?
>
>Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm
>not trying to sell something and therefore achi
-- Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Friday, 21 February 2003, 01:06 PM +):
> On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> > Paul Johnson wrote:
> > >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> > >> Telling your (potential) customers they're not wel
-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Friday, 21 February 2003, 12:10 AM -0600):
> Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>
> >-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> >(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600):
> >> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary T
-- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Friday, 21 February 2003, 01:54 AM -0800):
> On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:17:46AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> > And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding
> > standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote:
> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> >> Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is
> >> not an option.
> >
> >I never suggested it was. What I did state, thou
Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>> It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script,
>> Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does
>> Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff
Robert Ewald wrote:
even with comlpiant browsers, valid html and valid css you can still get
display difference between browsers!
take the following (abrevieted) example
#big {width : 100px; height :100px; background-color : red;}
#small {width : 50px; height: 50px; background-color : blu
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script,
> Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does
> Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if
> they choose to u
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:17:46AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding
> standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one
> browser, than[sic] it'll work anywhere." Not all browsers implement
> standards the same or
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:19:39AM -0600, DvB wrote:
> I've found that lots of web developers (who are more aesthetically
> oriented than programmers, as a general rule), tend to be very picky
> about the little details of how a page looks, even if it looks
> "correct."
Then they need to move to X
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> even with comlpiant browsers, valid html and valid css you can still get
> display difference between browsers!
>
> take the following (abrevieted) example
>
>
>
>
> #big {width : 100px; height :100px; background-color : red;}
> #small {width : 5
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
>(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600):
>> Paul Johnson wrote:
>>
>> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>> >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant.
>> >> Th
-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600):
> Paul Johnson wrote:
>
> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant.
> >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS al
Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
>> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant.
>> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not
>> compliant, while IE for Mac is.
>
>So slap the appropriate W3C compl
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote:
> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant.
> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not
> compliant, while IE for Mac is.
So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:17:46AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney spake thus:
> -- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> (on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800):
> > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > > I've never done
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
-- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800):
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote:
I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I
don't think it worked as well as the native Linux
-- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800):
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I
> > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably
> >
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I
> > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably
> > would crash as soon as it started doing its Direc
Paul Johnson wrote:
>On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote:
>> I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I
>> don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably
>> would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your
>>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote:
> I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I
> don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably
> would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your
> purposes, it would probab
-- Chris Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
(on Tuesday, 18 February 2003, 09:25 PM -0500):
> Robin Putters wrote:
> >On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 21:43, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> >>Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install?
> >>Is it possible to get different versions to
Robin Putters wrote:
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 21:43, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install?
Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install
directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me s
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 21:43, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
> Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install?
> Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install
> directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some
> pointers?
>
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 9:43 pm, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote:
>Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install?
The only success I've had is by using Crossover Office's wine setup and IE
5.x. Some things don't work (i.e. favorites)...
Jeff Elkins
http://www.elkins.org
Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install?
> Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install
> directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some
> pointers?
>
I've n
Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install?
Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install
directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some
pointers?
Afaik this will not be enough for you. Even if it works, making all th
I'd be shocked if IE worked reliably under wine, but would also be happy
to find out otherwise. My experience is that MS apps are the worst trying
to run under wine (presumably because of "undocumented" OS features). If
I were in your shoes I'd spring for a copy of VMWare and run a virtual
machine
38 matches
Mail list logo
