|
|
|
re: web browser
Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 7:59 am
Posted by Pappy
(959 messages posted)
?
On Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 7:17 am, Richard Smith wrote:
>winxp-change IE to mozzila
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
So what's your question...
Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 9:38 am
Posted by Ricer46
(22013 messages posted)
how to write a complete sentence?
On Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 7:17 am, Richard Smith wrote:
>winxp-change IE to mozzila
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: web browser
Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 10:15 am
Posted by John Liebson
(728 messages posted)
Well, you could not only learn how to post meaningful questions, you could even learn
how to spell "Mozilla."
Mozilla.Org
If you decided to use Mozilla or Firebird and/or Thunderbird, you'll need to keep
IE for certain sites that either require IE or that are poorly coded so that they
don't meet standards. IE is more accepting of such sites than the Mozilla products.
On Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 7:17 am, Richard Smith wrote:
>winxp-change IE to mozzila
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: web browser
Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 1:01 pm
Posted by jagged ben
(3536 messages posted)
Saying IE is "more accepting" of poor coding is either vague or wrong, depending
on what you mean exactly.
It's probably true that poor coders are more likely to check how their page looks
in IE, so unstandard code may more frequently work like the author intended in IE.
(This applies to companies that make plugins as well.) If IE is "more accepting",
it is only because people code for it more often. The opposite would be true if
Mozilla were the more popular browser. It has little to do with the code of the
browsers themselves.
But if you are implying that bad coding leads to stuff like crashes in Mozilla, you're
just wrong. Such problems are as bad if not worse in IE than in Mozilla 1.5. (They
are rare in both these days.) In this sense, both are good at accepting bad code,
Mozilla may actually be better.
On Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 10:15 am, John Liebson wrote:
>Well, you could not only learn how to post meaningful questions, you could even
learn
>how to spell "Mozilla."
>
>Mozilla.Org
>
>If you decided to use Mozilla or Firebird and/or Thunderbird, you'll need to keep
>IE for certain sites that either require IE or that are poorly coded so that they
>don't meet standards. IE is more accepting of such sites than the Mozilla products.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: web browser
Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 1:46 pm
Posted by John Liebson
(728 messages posted)
I neither implied nor stated that poor coding causes crashes in Mozilla; in fact,
I did not say anything about that. What I said was that, even using Mozilla or Firebird,
you need to also have IE for those times that Mozilla/Firebird just won't work. This
is true even with the User Agent Switcher extension, for some pages just won't work
properly except in IE, even when Switcher is used to make MozFire imitate another
browser.
Furthermore, I don't use Mozilla 1.5, as I prefer Firebird; right now, I'm using
the first beta-release version of the next Firebird milestone release, which will
be 0.8. I don't often have crashes using Firebird, but someone found an IE-only page
a few days ago that will crash Firebird every time.
As for IE accepting poor coding, first, I'm not a programmer. However, given the
number of people on the various MozillaZine forums who are web programmers, and the
constant traffic about this subject, I can only conclude that what I said was, in
fact, correct. This traffic often points out the specific coding errors on IE-only
pages; one of those pages is for a private school whose web site I have reason to
use, and whose "webmother," given the information I was given on MozillaZine a number
of months ago, still has not made the requisite changes, so I have to use IE.
On Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 1:01 pm, jagged ben wrote:
>Saying IE is "more accepting" of poor coding is either vague or wrong, depending
>on what you mean exactly.
>
>It's probably true that poor coders are more likely to check how their page looks
>in IE, so unstandard code may more frequently work like the author intended in IE.
> (This applies to companies that make plugins as well.) If IE is "more accepting",
>it is only because people code for it more often. The opposite would be true if
>Mozilla were the more popular browser. It has little to do with the code of the
>browsers themselves.
>
>But if you are implying that bad coding leads to stuff like crashes in Mozilla,
you're
>just wrong. Such problems are as bad if not worse in IE than in Mozilla 1.5. (They
>are rare in both these days.) In this sense, both are good at accepting bad code,
>Mozilla may actually be better.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
|
re: web browser
Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 2:34 pm
Posted by jagged ben
(3536 messages posted)
It's a fine point, and we're not really disagreeing here, and of course people need
to keep IE around.
It's a matter of wording. I just think that saying that IE is "accepting" of bad
code implies that IE is somehow programmed to deal with errors in html, which isn't
the case. You had already put it correctly, and said enough, when you said that
some sites are poorly coded so that they don't meet standards. Indeed, you could
have said these sites require IE BECAUSE they are poorly coded.
BTW, I also use firebird, but as far as actual display of web pages, I believe it
uses bascially the same code (latest version of Gecko) as Mozilla 1.5.
On Thursday, December 18, 2003 at 1:46 pm, John Liebson wrote:
>I neither implied nor stated that poor coding causes crashes in Mozilla; in fact,
>I did not say anything about that. What I said was that, even using Mozilla or Firebird,
>you need to also have IE for those times that Mozilla/Firebird just won't work.
This
>is true even with the User Agent Switcher extension, for some pages just won't work
>properly except in IE, even when Switcher is used to make MozFire imitate another
>browser.
>
>Furthermore, I don't use Mozilla 1.5, as I prefer Firebird; right now, I'm using
>the first beta-release version of the next Firebird milestone release, which will
>be 0.8. I don't often have crashes using Firebird, but someone found an IE-only
page
>a few days ago that will crash Firebird every time.
>
>As for IE accepting poor coding, first, I'm not a programmer. However, given the
>number of people on the various MozillaZine forums who are web programmers, and
the
>constant traffic about this subject, I can only conclude that what I said was, in
>fact, correct. This traffic often points out the specific coding errors on IE-only
>pages; one of those pages is for a private school whose web site I have reason to
>use, and whose "webmother," given the information I was given on MozillaZine a number
>of months ago, still has not made the requisite changes, so I have to use IE.
>
>
[Reply or follow-up to this message]
| |
Tip: Use one of the [Reply or follow-up to this message] links above to add a message to this thread
| |
Return to the Windows XP Discussion Forum
|
|
|
|
