In Firefox, I went to this page:
  
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878130.aspx
  
and there were 2 gray areas on top, obscuring some of the text.  I cut-and-pasted 
that URL into MSIE and it came up fine.
  
When I do a cut-and-paste in Firefox on the text on this page, and paste it into 
an email, it works fine, and none of the text is obscured.
  
Can someone help me understand what's going on here? Is this something Microsoft 
is doing to annoy Firefox users? 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

|In Firefox, I went to this page:
|http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878130.aspx
| MrCurious
|
If you use the QuickLink button to enter URLs (as I have done),
those are made into clickable links.
...and *I* like it when folks remove the **target=_blank ** part.

|and there were 2 gray areas on top, obscuring some of the text.
|
When it comes to anything Web-related, Microsoft is GARBAGE.
Their HTML authoring tools are garbage, their browser is garbage,
and their web site pages are garbage
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/bb878130.aspx
(because they're created using M$'s garbage tools).

THIS is what you want
to see when you test an HTML page:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.mozilla.org/projects/calendar/sunbird.html
...and you *DO* want to test (and correct) a page before putting it on the Web.


The group responsible for Web standards is The 
Worldwide Web Consortium.

Microsoft goes out of its way to NOT be compliant with those standards. 
cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
(Anything that M$ can't CONTROL, it deprecates.)

Mozilla, on the other hand, makes a serious effort to comply with the standards.
For instance: 
cache of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2
http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html
The Mozilla guys are dedicated to making sure that the next major release
--Gecko 1.9 (Firefox 3; Seamonkey 2; ...) will pass the Acid2 test.

OTOH, M$ has added a dumb gimmick to IE8 whose nature ensures IE8 will fail Acid2.
http://www.google.com/search?q=IE8+will.not.pass+Acid2+IE6+render.modes+site:slashdot.org


Professional Web developers universally DESPISE M$ HTML editing tools
as well as the M$ browser.
The former produces junk output--making them useless--
and the latter makes additional work for them to try to make their pages look good
on a browser that intentionally makes that difficult.


[1] SeaMonkey is Firefox's big brother; it used to be called Mozilla Suite.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

The Web site works fine in Firefox on a XP Computer, but I had the issue you did with 98 computer, in My case the Web Site even crashed My Internet Explorer. I.m not sure what 98 might be missing to display that site, but the Operating System is starting to show signs of being obsolete for some things. One possibility is XP has a newer Version of Java available.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I did Ctrl+U in Firefox and looked at the error messages. The error analysis noted the DOCTYPE was declared as:

"-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"

but had this statement:

div class="title" xmlns:msxsl="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xslt"

That is a proprietary. The report concluded that this page misreports itself as a standard XHTML but is some proprietary HTML.


On Tuesday, February 5, 2008 at 8:37 pm, Steve wrote:
>The Web site works fine in Firefox on a XP Computer, but I had the issue you did
>with 98 computer, in My case the Web Site even crashed My Internet Explorer. I.m
>not sure what 98 might be missing to display that site, but the Operating System
>is starting to show signs of being obsolete for some things. One possibility is XP
>has a newer Version of Java available.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

dhm wrote:
|I did Ctrl+U in Firefox and looked at the error messages.
|The error analysis[...]had this statement:
| div class="title" xmlns:msxsl="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:xslt"
|
|That is a proprietary.
|
So far, what you say is on-target.

|The report concluded that this page misreports itself as a standard XHTML
|but is some proprietary HTML.
|
To pick a nit, "proprietary HTML" is an oxymoron.
Code either conforms to the W3C standard or it ain't HTML.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Excellent work!  Thank you.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Interesting that My WinXP, or Linux boxes don't seem to care about the html error, so User goes Happily about His business, and Windows98 can't display site properly, so the User thinks his PC is broken.:)

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I imagine that you're suggesting that this is something MSFT has done deliberately 
so as to give users a push towards later operating systems.
  
In general, that's plausible thinking, but in this case, I don't think so, because 
after all, it's the *browser* that's doing the rendering, not the OS (at least, not 
directly). 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

|I imagine that you're suggesting that this is something MSFT has done deliberately 
|so as to give users a push towards later operating systems.
| MrCurious
|
It's not unprecedented:
(from Friday) "Hotmail Doesn't Work With Linux Firefox 2.0"[1]
http://linux.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/02/08/1355246&threshold=5&mode=nested

|In general, that's plausible thinking,
|
Quite plausible:
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:browser+sniffing
...and they can sniff for ANYTHING (e.g. OS--which the example linked above shows).

|but in this case, I don't think so, because after all,
|it's the *browser* that's doing the rendering, not the OS (at least, not directly). 
|
"Versions" of pages can be delivered by the site,
depending on what its sniffing detects.

It is obvious that you don't understand enough
about the ways Internet Exploder is NOT standards-compliant
and about the hoops Web developers have to jump thru
to make pages render as desired on that broken-by-design family of browsers
...and *that* is AFTER these conscientious, hard-working folks
have constructed a page that 
*is* standards-compliant
and *does* render properly ON ALL OTHER BROWSERS.

THAT is the **ONLY** LEGITIMATE USE for browser sniffing
--but The Borg (and others) often use it[2] in punitive and surreptitious ways.

The usual way around this is to FAKE 
OUT THE OFFENDING SITE'S DETECTION SCRIPT:
http://www.google.com/search?q=change.*.user.agent.string+Firefox


[1] Hotmail is a M$ property.

[2] It's done incorrectly so often (e.g. SeaMonkey isn't recognized as Gecko)
that it's obvious that it is mainly used by clueless script monkeys
(I won't dignify them by calling them "Web developers")
...and all of this IS NOT NECESSARY for standards-compliant browsers;
the only thing that has to be sniffed for is M$'s NON-compliant (crap) apps.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

I'm not suggesting that this is something MSFT has done Deliberately

I think it was sloppy Web page authoring, but I suspect a lot of sites have sloppy work..

I think that Windows XP. and probably the Linux distro I use have been changed to ignore many Web authoring Mistakes. The User doesn't have as much impact on his web surfing.

Since all three Browsers on My XP computer, and 3 mostly Different Browsers work in a Suse Linux install it appears something in the Operating system allows the Browser to render the Bad written Web site.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

Testing your hypothesis re different pages delivered to a user's computer as a function 
of the browser being used is a simple matter, and I hope you will do the test and 
report your results here:
  
use FFox and MSIE to go after the same pages on the MS site, then save the page and 
compare the code. 

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

|Testing your hypothesis re different pages delivered to a user's computer
|as a function of the browser being used is a simple matter,
|and I hope you will do the test and report your results here:
|
|use FFox and MSIE to go after the same pages on the MS site,
|then save the page and compare the code.
| MrCurious

The only use IE gets on my box is looking at an HTML page that *I* have created.
For me, Internet Exploder is PERMANENTLY firewalled-off from the Internet
and has been since October 2002.

[Reply or follow-up to this message]

• Search this forum
• Start a new thread on a different subject

• Report abuse of the forum