...

View Full Version : Campaign Against FireFox



Deacon Frost
03-12-2009, 07:07 AM
http://www.levicki.net/no_firefox.php

At first I was like "whut?", but then... i lol'd.


This dude is on the wrong end of the spectrum, and needs to be kicked in the *** by w3c. He's complaining because he "zoomed in" while coding a website.

At least with Firefox they're compliant with coding standards, in IE, you get sub par results that are rarely correct. Haha. What a noob.

Fou-Lu
03-12-2009, 08:04 AM
http://www.levicki.net/no_firefox.php

At first I was like "whut?", but then... i lol'd.


This dude is on the wrong end of the spectrum, and needs to be kicked in the *** by w3c. He's complaining because he "zoomed in" while coding a website.

At least with Firefox they're compliant with coding standards, in IE, you get sub par results that are rarely correct. Haha. What a noob.

I find it really interesting I get this message: You have to visit this website using some other browser.. I'm using my work browser, so good 'ol IE7.
Judging from the looks of what they are complaining about, they seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of how to actually use firefox (or likely any other browser). I'm not sure what they are whining about though, its not like their design is any good.
Last time I saw a site that banned FF, it was on digg for like 20 minutes or so before it was dos'd down. Nice.

Deacon Frost
03-12-2009, 08:37 AM
I find it really interesting I get this message: You have to visit this website using some other browser.. I'm using my work browser, so good 'ol IE7.
Judging from the looks of what they are complaining about, they seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of how to actually use firefox (or likely any other browser). I'm not sure what they are whining about though, its not like their design is any good.
Last time I saw a site that banned FF, it was on digg for like 20 minutes or so before it was dos'd down. Nice.

Haha.. If that's the case...

/digg's website.

It's just saddening to see fools on the internet :(.

VIPStephan
03-12-2009, 01:08 PM
Yeah, dear n00b: Feel free to use Opera, Safari, Konqueror, or whatever, nobody is forcing you to use Firefox. That’s why democracy was invented.

drhowarddrfine
03-12-2009, 02:09 PM
His markup is so 1998, also.

ohgod
03-12-2009, 03:31 PM
I'm using my work browser, so good 'ol IE7

haha me too. obviously ff is to fault for even ie not being compliant with an ie only page. and maybe global warming.

_Aerospace_Eng_
03-12-2009, 04:35 PM
I tried using IE7 on Vista to view it but it still said I had to use some other browser so it appears he is blocking IE7 on Vista unknowingly which is kind of ironic. Yet in his main site he has to jump through hoops to get IE to play correctly.

<!--[if lt IE 7]>
<script src="/iepngtransfix.js" type="text/javascript" defer="defer"></script>
<![endif]-->
<!--[if lt IE 8]>
<script src="/iefocusfix.js" type="text/javascript" defer="defer"></script>
<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="/iefocusfix.css" />
<![endif]-->

It looks like this guy isn't happy about the things in his life. He has some rants

http://www.levicki.net/articles/list.php?cat=Rants

oracleguy
03-12-2009, 05:15 PM
It looks like this guy isn't happy about the things in his life. He has some rants

http://www.levicki.net/articles/list.php?cat=Rants

Lol. :D http://www.levicki.net/articles/rants/2008/11/02/Modal_dialogs_are_evil.php

His rant about modal dialogs is hilarious. He complains that the shutdown dialog for windows is modal and doesn't let you do something if you forgot. I guess he doesn't believe in hitting the cancel button.


If they really need to remind users that they cannot continue until they deal with some dialog or prompt then make it a topmost window with the ability to be minimized so it doesn't interfere with your workflow.

Isn't that argument kind of contradicting? LOL

This guy gives that other guy from a few months back with those crappy YouTube videos a run for his money.

VIPStephan
03-13-2009, 01:24 PM
This guy gives that other guy from a few months back with those crappy YouTube videos a run for his money.

Oh yeah, I remember that one and this guy also reminded me of him, hehe. :D However, it also reminds me of something else: People that keep ranting about things in the internet while being ignored or laughed about by many other people worry me a little since the recent incidents (the one in Alabama and one in Germany at the same day).

tagnu
03-13-2009, 03:04 PM
Did any one check his myspace?


"My name is ---- ------. I am a software engineer...
OMG!!

_Aerospace_Eng_
03-13-2009, 04:28 PM
Did any one check his myspace?


OMG!!

Its in his bio as well. I saw that but then read this

I am self-taught and I learn quickly.

I think its just something he likes to call himself. I figured that the no_firefox thing was what you get when you went to that page and it redirect you or something but now I see you get that when you go to his main site. I just changed my user agent. For the most part the site looks fine.

freedom_razor
03-13-2009, 11:00 PM
Lol, what a guy. 'Software engineer', Intel Black Belt, and gets confused by browser zoom, shutdown dialog and about:config.

'pre-emptive igor levicki' comments on that Microsoft's guy blog are funny too.

I'm not sure his anti-FF campaign will take off...

zooeyglass
03-16-2009, 10:32 AM
chrome is much faster than firefox anyway

Millenia
03-16-2009, 07:04 PM
chrome is much faster than firefox anyway
Speed isn't the deciding factor. I would rather have a fast browser with lots of features than a very fast browser with practically no added features.

NancyJ
03-16-2009, 08:16 PM
chrome is much faster than firefox anyway

Chrome is too fast. Its unsettling.

Deacon Frost
03-18-2009, 05:39 AM
Chrome is too fast. Its unsettling.

Haha, why's that?

I use chrome when firefox can't handle things. The way it splits up processes is brilliant because I never get frustrated closing tabs :P.

Gox
03-19-2009, 06:45 AM
http://www.levicki.net/downloads/downloads.php

In this section you will find small utilities, patches and plugins for various applications I have created.


*
Nude Patch for NVIDIA Demo: Dawn
File - DawnNudePatch.zip (downloaded 715 times)
Size - 275672 bytes
MD5 - BD7A5080EADBB88467407761A1022D51

*
Nude Patch for NVIDIA Demo: Nalu
File - NaluNudePatch.zip (downloaded 1014 times)
Size - 4805 bytes
MD5 - 5CA87942613DD40604BFCAE5612B1FF2

Interesting...

levicki
03-20-2009, 01:10 AM
Well, well, well...

It is not nice talking behind someone's back without inviting them to a discussion.


This dude is on the wrong end of the spectrum, and needs to be kicked in the *** by w3c. He's complaining because he "zoomed in" while coding a website.

No, I am complaining because I am sick of Firefox (and open-source zealots advocating it) in general.

As for w3c, they can kiss rather than kick my ***.


At least with Firefox they're compliant with coding standards, in IE, you get sub par results that are rarely correct. Haha. What a noob.

What standards?!?

The way I see it, each browser is only compatible with it's own interpretation of a "standard".


Judging from the looks of what they are complaining about, they seem to have no knowledge whatsoever of how to actually use firefox (or likely any other browser).

Oh yeah, I must be stupid because I believe that new UI features should be opt-in instead of "no way to opt-out unless you change some obscure setting in some even more obscure location". Give me a break please.


I'm not sure what they are whining about though, its not like their design is any good.

Well my website is non-commercial so it doesn't have to be flashy. Design is good enough when you consider the limited amount of time and effort I spent creating it.


It's just saddening to see fools on the internet :(.

Couldn't agree more. A lot of them have Internet access these days.


...nobody is forcing you to use Firefox.

Of course nobody is forcing me.

Problem is that Firefox has a following which can be compared only to Apple products fans in their zealotry and ignoring of everything negative others point out about their precious.


His markup is so 1998, also.

I bet you also think that I actually have .php pages with static content in there.


His rant about modal dialogs is hilarious. He complains that the shutdown dialog for windows is modal and doesn't let you do something if you forgot.

If you think about how people usually do their work you will see that there is nothing modal in our behavior.

An example for the narrow minded:

You start a build for a large project, get up, grab a cup of coffee, peek at the screen, see it hasn't finished yet, walk around a bit and stretch, sit down and read a book or do something usefull, and when the build is finished you continue interacting with it -- you don't sit in front of screen for two hourse and wait for the build to finish. Or do you?

In my opinion software has modal dialogs because developers are lazy to track and maintain user's context.

Anyway, I was saying that there is no reason to have modal dialogs at all, much less a modal user/pass dialog in a browser. Someone prove me wrong. If you can.


People that keep ranting about things in the internet while being ignored or laughed about by many other people worry me a little since the recent incidents (the one in Alabama and one in Germany at the same day).

So now I am a psycho as well?

How can you guys look yourself in the mirror with so much ***uming about someone you don't even know going on inside of your inflated heads?


Lol, what a guy. 'Software engineer', Intel Black Belt...

I am not sure why are you quoting the "software engineer" part. You can check at Intel Software Network C++ compiler forum, as well as in their hall of fame if you have some issues with it.


...and gets confused by browser zoom

Let me elaborate on that zoom:

1. Firefox updates itself to 3.0.7 automatically.

2. There is no mention of the new zoom behavior in Release Notes (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0.7/releasenotes/#).

3. I accidentally change zoom for my website and close the tab.

Now the questions for you:

Q1: How could one learn about a new feature apart from being Firefox developer's groupie?

Q2: How could one know that the newly opened page is zoomed when Zoom factor isn't being displayed anywhere?

Q3: How could one know that the new feature is also partially broken because for Firefox www.levicki.net isn't the same as levicki.net even though they both resolve to the same IP?

Q4: How could one learn how to disable it (browser.zoom.siteSpecific) when it is not documented in Release Notes, and when it is not exposed in regular Firefox Preferences?

Come on genius, I am waiting for you to educate me.

More likely you won't be able to, because the above are the clear signs of poor software and documentation design so typical for open-source projects, it is just that you Firefox zealots are living in denial. How can Firefox have issues when it is so perfect, right?

Just so you know, I am using Firefox since first release, but it is becoming more and more annoying together with the people who are blindly advocating it "because it is safe and follows standards" (blindly I might add).


I'm not sure his anti-FF campaign will take off...

It won't, but it surely increased number of visits, and some of you even changed your user agents just to be able to see my website. Now who is laughing?

twodayslate
03-20-2009, 02:53 AM
Standard: http://acid3.acidtests.org/
The only browsers that get 100 are Opera, Chrome and Safari. So FF is not perfect. I think it is becoming pretty bloated.

Chrome would be a hit if they had plugins :D


edit:// I find out about features like the zoom feature and such from blogs etc; Google your problem and you usually get an answer.

levicki
03-20-2009, 04:04 AM
Standard: http://acid3.acidtests.org/
The only browsers that get 100 are Opera, Chrome and Safari. So FF is not perfect.

Acid is a rendering benchmark, not a standard.

Web "standards" themselves are unfortunately just a set of recommendations, not some strict rulesets with a single way of understanding and implementing them.


I think it is becoming pretty bloated.

I agree.

What is most offending for me is that in Firefox new features == new defaults, usually with no way to revert to the old behavior.

If you are lucky you only have to figure out some obscure setting in about:config, but sometimes you have to tweak browser files or install plugins to accomplish something that could have been accomplished with a simple radio button in Preferences and an if() somewhere in the browser code.

Take AwesomeBar as an example. You can tweak the hell out of it, but you can never get the old behavior back. New UI behavior always interferes with your browsing habits forcing you to adapt so your productivity is taking a serious and completely unneccessary hit. Software should serve you, not vice versa.


Chrome would be a hit if they had plugins :D

The only plugin I would need is Adblock.

Btw, if you like Chrome, you will like Iron (http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php) even more.


edit:// I find out about features like the zoom feature and such from blogs etc; Google your problem and you usually get an answer.

See? That's exactly what I had in mind when I said "Firefox developer's groupie".

You have to be an active follower of a Firefox cult to know about such things. I simply don't have time nor desire to do that.

Btw, I am curious to learn what would be your Google query to find out why your website is suddenly displayed with different size when you visit it using www.your.domain instead of just your.domain?

twodayslate
03-20-2009, 04:23 AM
1. Acid is a rendering benchmark, not a standard.

Web "standards" themselves are unfortunately just a set of recommendations, not some strict rulesets with a single way of understanding and implementing them.



2. I agree.

What is most offending for me is that in Firefox new features == new defaults, usually with no way to revert to the old behavior.

If you are lucky you only have to figure out some obscure setting in about:config, but sometimes you have to tweak browser files or install plugins to accomplish something that could have been accomplished with a simple radio button in Preferences and an if() somewhere in the browser code.

Take AwesomeBar as an example. You can tweak the hell out of it, but you can never get the old behavior back. New UI behavior always interferes with your browsing habits forcing you to adapt so your productivity is taking a serious and completely unneccessary hit. Software should serve you, not vice versa.



3. The only plugin I would need is Adblock.

Btw, if you like Chrome, you will like Iron (http://www.srware.net/en/software_srware_iron.php) even more.



4. See? That's exactly what I had in mind when I said "Firefox developer's groupie".

You have to be an active follower of a Firefox cult to know about such things. I simply don't have time nor desire to do that.

5. Btw, I am curious to learn what would be your Google query to find out why your website is suddenly displayed with different size when you visit it using www.your.domain instead of just your.domain?
1. Acid3 is a test page from the Web Standards Project that checks how well a web browser follows certain web standards, especially relating to the Document Object Model and JavaScript.
2. Never had an issue. Have only had to go into config like twice - ever.
Awesomebar is awesome, why would you want the old behavior back?
3. Iron is free and OpenSource. = awesome. downloading but most likely will not use it. edit://chrome clone - do not want
4. To be honest, most of the 'average' users you speak of won't see many problems. Remember, they used to like IE. If you do have a problem, google it http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fix+firefox+zoom&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=
5. What?

drhowarddrfine
03-20-2009, 04:58 AM
Whoa, baby. Too much to read too quick and on a late Thursday night going into Friday. But I'll do my best.

@levicki,
You are so far out of it I don't know where to start so I'll start from the beginning and work my way down as I find time. I question your knowledge of this subject with some things you say but others seem to show you at least know your way around. I'll do what I can to correct you.

drhowarddrfine
03-20-2009, 05:26 AM
You complain about the standards, and each browser's own implementation of the
standard, yet all browsers pretty much implement most of the standard the same
way except for IE. All browser vendors are members of the W3C and all browser
vendors write those standards, in case you didn't know. I don't think you do.

So if you don't think we should follow the W3C, what should we be following?


Problem is that Firefox has a following which can be compared only to Apple products fans in their zealotry and ignoring of everything negative others point out about their precious.
Like Windows users who can't be taught anything and blindly follow Microsoft's
teachings into the blackhole they are in now (speaking of browsers right now).
The truth is, Firefox, and every other browser, do so much better of a job than
IE that it's easy to get excited about them. Firefox, since you want to pick
on that one, does so many amazing things that IE will never do; it's almost a
web developer's dream. It can do XHTML, and handle the DOM properly and the
new <canvas> element, along with some HTML5 and CSS3 stuff. Some things IE8 can't
do and Microsoft only has on their IE9 wish list (according to IEBlog).



Now the questions for you:

Q1: How could one learn about a new feature apart from being Firefox developer's groupie?
Read the Features List which pops up every time you upgrade or go to
Mozilla's Firefox web site and read it there. Why don't you know this/


Q2: How could one know that the newly opened page is zoomed when Zoom factor isn't being displayed anywhere?Not aware of this issue so won't comment. Looks like you're
making a big issue of this compared to everything you could make an issue of.


Q3: How could one know that the new feature is also partially broken because for Firefox www.levicki.net isn't the same as levicki.net even though they both resolve to the same IP?
That's a DNS issue, not a Firefox issue. Talk with whoever handles your
DNS. Why don't you know that?


Q4: How could one learn how to disable it (browser.zoom.siteSpecific) when it is not documented in Release Notes, and when it is not exposed in regular Firefox Preferences?
Is this whole rant because you can't figure out zoom? Are you not aware of what
release notes are? They aren't documentation, bud.

More likely you won't be able to, because the above are the clear signs of poor software and documentation design so typical for open-source projectsLol! You are
aware that Google and IBM both contribute to Google code, among others, aren't
you? I didn't think so. In any case, closed source IE can't even follow their
own HTTP RFCs, don't follow the DOM from 1998, and has 3x more vulnerabilities
than any other browser. In addition, you can't see IE code so how can you compare
to Firefox?

Let's not even get into Linux and Apache and countless other highly successful
projects that the internet runs on today. Your statement is typical of people
who know nothing of this and have never looked at source.


Web "standards" themselves are unfortunately just a set of recommendations, not some strict rulesets with a single way of understanding and implementing them.
Yes. No one follows HTML or CSS or XML or HTTP. They're all a crap shoot. What
do you follow?

What is most offending for me is that in Firefox new features == new defaults, usually with no way to revert to the old behavior.Neither does Microsoft Office or
Visual Studio or Dreamweaver or most other software projects that move forward.
In fact, those that try to maintain backwards compatibility or bound to suffer,
like Internet Explorer and Windows. And when do you cut off this older behavior?


If you are lucky you only have to figure out some obscure setting in about:config,Obscure?! They're all listed on the Mozilla web site with explanations!

but sometimes you have to tweak browser files or install plugins to accomplish something that could have been accomplished with a simple radio button in Preferences and an if() somewhere in the browser code.Say what? I take back everything I said in my first
post. I seriously doubt your experience with code.

Btw, I am curious to learn what would be your Google query to find out why your website is suddenly displayed with different size when you visit it using www.your.domain instead of just your.domain? Suspcions confirmed. You may not be a rank amateur but you are far too
wet behind the years to put up a page as you did. You need to learn how things
work.

levicki
03-20-2009, 05:32 AM
1. Acid3 is a test page from the Web Standards Project that checks how well a web browser follows certain web standards, especially relating to the Document Object Model and JavaScript.

I know that, but that still doesn't mean all of those standards are good. Take underlining of hyperlinked images as an example.


Awesomebar is awesome, why would you want the old behavior back?

In order of importance:

1. Because I got used to it by using Firefox since version 1 and I hate having to change habits on someone's whim.

2. Because its behavior and design are brain-dead. Why?

- Includes bookmarks in search results -- if I wanted bookmarks I would go and click on them.

- Each entry takes more vertical space and it is ugly -- it emphasizes page titles over URLs as if we browse the web by typing in page titles and not URLs. Not to mention that page titles aren't unique, and often do not bear any relation to the content or the page URL.

- Can't be forced to search from the beginning of text like regular dropdown box -- it is in fact a dropdown box (common UI element in many programs and OS itself) and having it behave differently in Firefox doesn't help user experience.


edit://chrome clone - do not want

You missed an important part -- it is based on chrome but without privacy invading features. I prefer it over Chrome because of that.


If you do have a problem, google it http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=fix+firefox+zoom&btnG=Google+Search&aq=f&oq=

If I knew it was the zoom I would have googled it.


5. What?

Sigh... I thought my explanation of what happened was good enough.

I visited www.levicki.net and accidentally changed zoom then closed tab. I wasn't aware that Firefox remembers zoom setting because it didn't do so before. Then I kept visiting levicki.net and after a while I revisited www.levicki.net, and Firefox rendered it with reduced size.

As I said, if I knew that the zoom was responsible for that, I would have Googled "fix firefox zoom" as you suggested.


I question your knowledge of this subject with some things you say but others seem to show you at least know your way around. I'll do what I can to correct you.

Oh pissing contest, I love those!

Just kidding, I prefer discussion to people badmouthing me and assuming things while I am not around. Looking forward to a civilized discussion.

levicki
03-20-2009, 06:41 AM
all browsers pretty much implement most of the standard the same way except for IE

How about IE8?


All browser vendors are members of the W3C and all browser vendors write those standards, in case you didn't know. I don't think you do.

I did. They do a pretty lame job together IMO.


So if you don't think we should follow the W3C, what should we be following?

How about your rendering intent? Does the site render the way you want? If it does, then why does the standard matter?

Think about it this way -- you write an application for Windows using available API (standard), Microsoft changes API in next Windows version, and now your application doesn't work as intended or doesn't work at all.

How often has that happened so far? And with web standards? What was so wrong with frames and tables, what was so wrong with target="_blank"? Websites of the past were equally if not more accessible than they are now. True, they weren't so flashy and they didn't have so much live content but real question is whether this information overload is of any good for us.


The truth is, Firefox, and every other browser, do so much better of a job than IE that it's easy to get excited about them.

Yes, and I am excited about some pr0n star but I don't go around evangelizing her to everyone and their grandmother. Grow up please.


Firefox, since you want to pick on that one, does so many amazing things that IE will never do; it's almost a web developer's dream.

Will developers for once stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about users of their products? What do they want?

Do I want a website done with Flash with obscured navigation? Do I want JavaScript links which I can't force to open in new window/tab? Do I want stupid overused popup menus jumping out on me when I accidentaly mouse-over? Do I want sites to remember I have visited them? Do I care about the layout if the content is dumb? Do I want favicon wasting space on each browser tab? Do I really need one to be able to recognize a site in bookmarks, or I find it insulting because it implies I am a caveman who doesn't know how to read? Do we really need HTML 5 and CSS3 to display text, images, and video when that was already possible before?


It can do XHTML, and handle the DOM properly and the new <canvas> element, along with some HTML5 and CSS3 stuff.

<canvas> is Apple's thing (Webkit had it first) and it can be made to work in IE as well. What is so exciting about it? Drawing can already be done using SVG and <canvas> is proprietary and not all that well thought out extension anyway. It was intended for Mac OS desktop widgets, what would you use bitmap graphics for when you have vector graphics and when everyone is preaching how pixel counting days of web design are over?


Read the Features List which pops up every time you upgrade or go to Mozilla's Firefox web site and read it there.

Features list pops after you upgrade, that is another ridiculous thing. It would be more logical to see a changelog before upgrading so you can decide whether you want to upgrade or not.


Why don't you know this/Not aware of this issue so won't comment. Looks like you're making a big issue of this compared to everything you could make an issue of.

Because it wasn't in Features List, that's why.


That's a DNS issue, not a Firefox issue. Talk with whoever handles your DNS. Why don't you know that?

A DNS issue? My site is setup properly. You can visit it either using:

- levicki.net

or:

- www.levicki.net

Try it. Open both in Firefox and change zoom on one of them then close and reopen both. Firefox treats them as separate websites, and each has its own zoom setting. They already had a similar bug with cookies. Why don't you know that? You are a full-time web developer, not me.


Is this whole rant because you can't figure out zoom? Are you not aware of what release notes are? They aren't documentation, bud.

Are you being dumb and trying to insult me on purpose? Of course I can figure out zoom, I used it before, but I didn't know that the behavior has changed!

Release notes list important changes in that particular release. If you change something that affects the way people use the program you better list it in there. One shouldn't have to read the manual for that.


has 3x more vulnerabilities than any other browser.

And IE has how many more users than all other browsers together? Come on, you know that such statistics are skewed and useless because they don't consider how big of a target each browser is. Btw, most vulnerabilities in IE are related to ActiveX. Disable that and you will pretty much level the playing field.


In addition, you can't see IE code so how can you compare to Firefox?

True, you can see Firefox code, but what is the point when you cannot audit all those milions of lines of code on your own? Will an Average Joe go through the code to check all their security claims are valid? Who will he hold responsible if his computer gets compromised? Good luck in suing Mozilla Corporation.

What I am saying is that for smaller projects open-source makes sense from a security standpoint, but for larger ones like Firefox there is no difference between open-source and closed-source to the end-user.


Your statement is typical of people who know nothing of this and have never looked at source.

You all make the same mistake of assuming.


Neither does Microsoft Office

That is why I still use Office 2003, can't stand the ribbon. And I can still create documents, thank you.


In fact, those that try to maintain backwards compatibility or bound to suffer, like Internet Explorer and Windows.

And those who break it never gain any substantial user base and are bound to lose identity. There has to be balance between old and new.


And when do you cut off this older behavior?

It is not a question of "when" but rather "how". You can do it abruptly without keeping the old behavior as an alternative and piss off people like many developers do, and you can introduce new behavior as an opt-in.


Obscure?! They're all listed on the Mozilla web site with explanations!

Why would an average user need to concern themselves with all that? I understand that we are developers, and for us it is normal to tweak the registry, edit .ini files, etc, but why would I have to do that when my browser gets updated? Why do I have to waste time on finding and digesting that?


I seriously doubt your experience with code.

I seriously doubt your understanding of what I wrote there. I will presume that you are tired and that you cannot concentrate. Try again when you are fresh.

mathiastheok
03-20-2009, 07:29 AM
The only things that don't cause problems in this world either start with a crank or a pilot light. Everything else is just crap.

VIPStephan
03-20-2009, 12:49 PM
Hi levicky, nice to have you participate in this constructive discussion. :D

Sorry about the “psycho” comment. It just worried me to read that you seem to be ranting about everything. That’s a sign of general discontent which some now well known people also had. Sometimes you’ve just gotta take it easy.



Btw, I am curious to learn what would be your Google query to find out why your website is suddenly displayed with different size when you visit it using www.your.domain instead of just your.domain?

I don’t need any Google query for that, I have a link for you: http://no-www.org
Basically you should redirect to any one of these two domains (with or without “www”) and not have them both be accessible while resolving to the same page(s). This will prevent some redirection/link issues and also potential duplicate content problems with search engines and can easily be done with htaccess (Google query: “htaccess non-www”).

drhowarddrfine
03-20-2009, 02:16 PM
How about IE8?Continues its legacy as the worst browser on the
planet. Like I said, IE, including IE8, is 11 years behind all other web browsers.

How about your rendering intent? Does the site render the way you want? If it does, then why does the standard matter?The standard is there to organize and advance
the methodology and interoperability. Without one you have a hodge-podge that
doesn't mix. Again, if you aren't following HTML 4.01 and CSS2.1 and more from the W3C,
what are you following and how do you get anything to work on the internet?

you write an application for Windows using available API (standard), Microsoft changes API in next Windows version, and now your application doesn't work as intended or doesn't work at all.

How often has that happened so far?Obviously with every Windows version
and sometimes framework change. It's one of the reasons I don't use Windows for
coding anything anymore.

And with web standards? What was so wrong with frames and tables, what was so wrong with target="_blank"?Um. They're still there and they still work and they
exist in HTML5, too. target was deprecated for XHTML but for usability and
security reasons, not on a whim. You can accomplish the same thing with other
methods.


Yes, and I am excited about some pr0n star but I don't go around evangelizing her to everyone and their grandmother. Grow up please.That statement makes no sense at
all and, for one who does not show much knowledge in this area, you should be
more humble. If you want to be educated, we'll educate you.


Will developers for once stop thinking about themselves and start thinking about users of their products? What do they want?If developers didn't think of the users,
they would just write standard markup and not hack it to make it work in IE. Users
be damned; let them figure out why nothing works. That's the only reason people
think nothing is wrong with IE cause they don't have to deal with all its issues.

Your next paragraph has nothing to do with web standards or browsers but you threw
this in:
Do we really need HTML 5 and CSS3 to display text, images, and video when that was already possible before?First you complain about the current standard and
now you complain about the new version which improves upon the older. Much of
the improvements have to do with organization and interoperability. It will clean
up problems with the DOM tree and, in the case of video and audio, allow presentation without
the need of any plugins. Many of these methods work right now in all the modern
browsers except, of course, IE8.

<canvas> is Apple's thing (Webkit had it first) and it can be made to work in IE as well. What is so exciting about it? Drawing can already be done using SVG and <canvas> is proprietary and not all that well thought out extension anyway.Double check the copyright
date of the book you found that in. <canvas> works in ALL the modern browsers (not IE8)
and is in the HTML5 draft. SVG does not work in IE8 either but works in ALL other
browsers. The Adobe plugin for IE has not been worked on in over 5 years and is no longer supported and does not work in Vista or IE8.


Features list pops after you upgrade, that is another ridiculous thing. It would be more logical to see a changelog before upgrading so you can decide whether you want to upgrade or not.You complained nothing happened, now you complain when it happens. How do
you find out what a Windows or Photoshop or Word update does unless you go to their
homepage and look it up?


A DNS issue? My site is setup properly.More on this later. I'm
running out of time.

And IE has how many more users than all other browsers together? Come on, you know that such statistics are skewed and useless because they don't consider how big of a target each browser is.The number of users does not increase/decrease the number of
vulnerabilities. Just like the defects in a car does not increase/decrease due
to the number of sales of that car. It's either in there or it's not.

True, you can see Firefox code, but what is the point when you cannot audit all those milions of lines of code on your own? Will an Average Joe go through the code to check all their security claims are valid? Who will he hold responsible if his computer gets compromised?
Companies like Secunia. Here (http://www.webdevout.net/browser-security)
is a good summary.

btw, there was a security contest yesterday with experts from all over the world where
the winner gets $5000. He was interviewed and stated that Firefox is the most
difficult browser to crack.


Why would an average user need to concern themselves with all that?
I didn't say they should. You said they were obscure. They're not.


I understand that we are developers, and for us it is normal to tweak the registry, edit .ini files, etc, but why would I have to do that when my browser gets updated? Why do I have to waste time on finding and digesting that?As a full time developer, I
don't, so I don't expect users to either and I never have just because I updated.
Why are you doing this? The zoom thing?

levicki
03-20-2009, 02:17 PM
Hi levicky, nice to have you participate in this constructive discussion. :D

LOL


Sorry about the “psycho” comment. It just worried me to read that you seem to be ranting about everything.

Well that's just the Rants section, there are other things on my site as well :D

But you are right, there is an ever-increasing number of things that can piss you off these days.


I don’t need any Google query for that, I have a link for you: http://no-www.org
Basically you should redirect to any one of these two domains (with or without “www”) and not have them both be accessible while resolving to the same page(s). This will prevent some redirection/link issues and also potential duplicate content problems with search engines and can easily be done with htaccess (Google query: “htaccess non-www”).

Point taken, and will be implemented for the sake of SEO.

However, browser still should not keep different settings for www and non-www path because those two paths are the same. That is their bug, not mine.

levicki
03-20-2009, 03:46 PM
Continues its legacy as the worst browser on the planet. Like I said, IE, including IE8, is 11 years behind all other web browsers.

But have you actually tried IE8?

Have you added:



Header set X-UA-Compatible "IE8"


To your website's .htaccess to see how it looks when rendered in IE8 standard-compliant mode?


The standard is there to organize and advance the methodology and interoperability.

That is true. However, standard which is poorly defined and open to multiple interpretations as it has been case with web standards so far, and which is changing so often and in such a way that it breaks interoperability instead of advancing it is IMO a bad standard.


Obviously with every Windows version and sometimes framework change. It's one of the reasons I don't use Windows for
coding anything anymore.

That simply isn't true and you know it. If anyone is striving to keep compatibility and user base and gets criticized because of it, it is Microsoft. Try reading Raymond Chen's blog sometimes, it is educational even though in many cases I don't agree with their stance.


target was deprecated for XHTML but for usability and security reasons, not on a whim. You can accomplish the same thing with other methods.

Usability? How exactly deprecating target attribute helps usability if I need a new page opened for certain content?

Security? Are you saying that requiring Javascript to be able to navigate your website is safer for the visitor? How exactly?

Face it, that was on a whim and it was an intentional breaking change to make developers go around wasting time to figure out how to fix a problem which didn't exist before. Classic bueraucratic way of creating work to keep you busy.


That statement makes no sense at all and, for one who does not show much knowledge in this area, you should be more humble. If you want to be educated, we'll educate you.

That statement was there just to show how silly is to feel excited about a browser feature-set.

90% of the regular users do not share your hype, stop being a fanboy.


If developers didn't think of the users, they would just write standard markup and not hack it to make it work in IE.

You know, web didn't start with Firefox. It existed long time ago when there were only IE and Netscape (not to mention text-only browsers like lynx, etc).

So, because the majority of users were surfing using IE, and there wasn't such a thing as non-standard markup, developers have actually used standard markup in the past.

The problem is that the standard kept changing. They actually had to fix their websites to work in Opera, then in Firefox, etc, as those browsers gained popularity.

It is only now (last two years or so) that you had to hack to make some things working in older versions of IE but that should not surprise you because those versions are several years older than the standards they should follow.

If the Gecko engine wasn't updated for two years and the standards kept advancing as they did, you would be making hacks for Firefox now as well.

Before you start arguing that IE should have been updated think again -- what incenitive Microsoft had to keep wasting resources to update the capability of a free browser included with the OS? They didn't have market share to conquer, nor they were obliged by EULA to improve user experience apart from the obligatory security fixes.


First you complain about the current standard and now you complain about the new version which improves upon the older.

To explain that I have to make an analogy:

Imagine a web standard is a Tide (http://www.tide.com/en-US/index.jspx) detergent. There is a "new and improved" version pushed out very often. Now imagine you are a housewife who goes out and spends money on a new, a bit more expensive version only to figure out that it does the same what it did before.

By spending money I mean "investing time and resources". By "more expensive" I mean more convoluted to implement correctly (try emulating a spreadsheet table using only CSS layout).

Now there is your dear husband (the website user) to whom it is all the same because he isn't concerned with the washing process. You may notice that there is more (or less) foam while washing, that it smells different, that it doesn't dry up your skin, that it gets rinsed more easily, that it perhaps removes the stains with more ease, but all he notices is whether his shirt (your website) is clean or not.

If you haven't got my point yet let me make it clear -- standards have become a part of a consumer mentality, and you got sucked into it.


Double check the copyright date of the book you found that in.

There is no book. Check the wikipedia entry on <canvas> (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canvas_(HTML_element)).

There is a demo for IE (http://me.eae.net/archive/2005/12/29/canvas-in-ie/), it works in IE8 in Compatibility View mode.

You haven't answered what is so exciting about client side drawing into a bitmap?


You complained nothing happened, now you complain when it happens. How do you find out what a Windows or Photoshop or Word update does unless you go to their homepage and look it up?

You keep misunderstanding me, obviously on a purpose, as if that will somehow prove that you are smarter than me.

If Microsoft puts out an update which reverses what the left and right mouse buttons do in Word I can simply skip it. In Firefox I find out what has changed from some random blog or Bugzilla, but only after the fact.


The number of users does not increase/decrease the number of vulnerabilities. Just like the defects in a car does not increase/decrease due to the number of sales of that car. It's either in there or it's not.

Firsst, number of vulnerabilities by itself is not a measure of (in)security.

Second, number of vulnerabilities discovered increases with increased use.

Third, vulnerability is a non-issue unless actually exploited. Only then it can be used as a measure of (in)security.

So, lower number of vulnerabilities means that something is potentially more secure, not that it actually is. I do agree that quoting those numbers is a nice PR gimmick though.


Companies like Secunia.

And why should we trust them? What if someone there overlooked something?

People make mistakes you know. Those who look for other's mistakes can make mistakes themselves. The only way to be sure is to check everything yourself which isn't practical, and even then you couldn't possibly be 100% sure because you might have also overlooked something.

Finally, if you don't trust closely watched commercial entity such as Microsoft why would you trust Secunia or Mozilla or anyone else for that matter?


I didn't say they should. You said they were obscure. They're not.

But they are obscure, unless they are mentioned in Release Notes or available in the Preferences. They aren't mentioned in Release Notes. They aren't available in Preferences. That makes them obscure.


Why are you doing this? The zoom thing?

I said it was by accident, haven't I? I used it to check whether larger or smaller fornt would be more appropriate. In older versions Firefox wasn't remembering the zoom setting.

freedom_razor
03-20-2009, 05:07 PM
Igor,
I have no problem with your qualifications, only find it funny that having those you seem to have major problems with things that are simple [take into account that this is forum for people who work with browsers every day, so maybe simple for us in that area is not so simple for others].

Zoom is mentioned in release notes for version 3, along with its 'memory' behavior.

You can turn off automatic updates of Firefox, it is in Options so you should be able to do that with no problem. Also, you can tell it to ask you before installing updates [so that you can check release notes for example]. It is also in Options, same tab. [Tools->Options->Advanced->Update]

Those questions...
1. From release notes. It is there (http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/3.0/releasenotes/). Or checking menus [since it is major version upgrade, maybe worth taking a look..]. Or maybe being a groupie [that's how you self-learned :p ?]
2. Well, it's your site. Have you changed font size recently? No? So how come it is different? Must be the browser.. And if it's not your site, and it looks too small or too big what would you do? Maybe use the zoom to view it as you want. There's also an article in knowledge base - what to do if a website looks wrong, funnily enough it mentions [with detailed instructions] how to reset zoom.
3. Report it if you think it's a bug [it shouldn't be like that, I agree]
4. One could use Google and easily find tutorials on how to do it - plenty around, all easy to follow [I hope...] Feature is documented, you just didn't see it.

I'm not a Firefox zealot, I checked your site with IE7. Most of us here use many browsers in their work for tests. And which one is used as a main one is a question of personal preferences. No one says Firefox is perfect, it just seems to work better than some others [for some, not for all].

drhowarddrfine
03-20-2009, 07:40 PM
Ugh. I really hate these long posts cause I usually hit/run during breaks.


But have you actually tried IE8?Not the final version. Only had
RC1 for testing.


Have you added:

Header set X-UA-Compatible "IE8"

To your website's .htaccess to see how it looks when rendered in IE8 standard-compliant mode?

The issue is more whether users will try and view your site in IE7 compatibility
mode and get it reported as that. Then you are forever blacklisted as IE7 only
and will never get IE8's standards mode. While my sites render fine in standard
mode, I inserted it to avoid the problem Microsoft has created.


Face it, that was on a whim and it was an intentional breaking change to make developers go around wasting time to figure out how to fix a problem which didn't exist before.
No, it has to do with opening Windows the user doesn't want, security issues
trying to communicate between the two, things I don't have time to go into now.


90% of the regular users do not share your hype, stop being a fanboy.
If getting excited about using new elements is being a fanboy then I'm it.


Before you start arguing that IE should have been updated think again -- what incenitive Microsoft had to keep wasting resources to update the capability of a free browser included with the OS? They didn't have market share to conquer, nor they were obliged by EULA to improve user experience apart from the obligatory security fixes.The company that stands
still will be overtaken. And thus it is so.


If you haven't got my point yet let me make it clear -- standards have become a part of a consumer mentality, and you got sucked into it.Again I ask, if you aren't
going to follow the W3C standard, what are you using?


There is no book. Check the wikipedia entry on <canvas>.

There is a demo for IE, it works in IE8 in Compatibility View mode.

You haven't answered what is so exciting about client side drawing into a bitmap?
Please don't try and teach the teacher. You can't teach me anything. I don't
need your links. I can ask Ian Hicks or Simone Pieter or any of the Working
Group directly if I have any questions.


If Microsoft puts out an update which reverses what the left and right mouse buttons do in Word I can simply skip it. In Firefox I find out what has changed from some random blog or Bugzilla, but only after the fact.Now you are talking of functionality.
Before you were talking of standards.


And why should we trust them? What if someone there overlooked something?
Oh, here we go. The age old question when someone can't respond. You don't know
who Secunia is, do you?

Your complaints are unfounded and amateurish. You don't want to trust anyone and
you don't want to follow the rules. You don't want to have to look anything up
and you want everything laid in your lap. If you want to do anything in this
business, you've got a long way to go to come up to speed and learn how things
work.

If you want to learn how to make web sites, we'll answer your questions, but your complaining makes no sense.

VIPStephan
03-20-2009, 11:46 PM
levicky, don’t argue with drhowarddrfine about Internet Explorer because he has decided to dedicate his entire life fighting it and not stop ranting about it and finding new confirmation everytime some bad news about it come out so you will never convince him that IE isn’t all that bad.
So, actually you two have much in common, just that either of you is standing on the opposite bank of the river. :D

levicki
03-21-2009, 12:37 AM
only find it funny that having those you seem to have major problems with things that are simple

No I don't have a problem with simple things -- I am simply not devoting any time to tracking Firefox feature bloat.


Zoom is mentioned in release notes for version 3...

I do not read every Release Notes for every single release. You might argue that I should have read that one since it is a major update but I was distracted by AwesomeBar and finding a way to revert it back so I haven't noticed.


You can turn off automatic updates

Yes I know that, but then I risk having an unpatched software on my computer. IMO, it would be much better if security updates were not bundled together with feature bloat.


Have you changed font size recently?

I was messing around with CSS and I thought that I did something to make it render differently. I completely overlooked zoom.


3. Report it if you think it's a bug [it shouldn't be like that, I agree]

I am sorry, but I really don't have the nerves to deal with Bugzilla and their bugs that are duplicates of bugs that are duplicates of bugs that are duplicates of ...

I tried doing that once or twice, and regretted it.


I'm not a Firefox zealot

I believe I didn't call you that personally so you don't have to defend yourself. I was just saying that there are many Firefox zealots and that they are provoking the opposite reaction from the one they are expecting, at least when I am concerned.


Not the final version. Only had RC1 for testing.

Final is out yesterday.


Then you are forever blacklisted as IE7 only
and will never get IE8's standards mode.

Are you sure about that? I'd really like to see some references for such claims.


No, it has to do with opening Windows the user doesn't want

Most windows that user doesn't want are opened using the very same Javascript you use to emulate target attribute to be XHTML compliant. Now what?

At least with target attribute user can override the behavior, but good luck with Javascript links.


If getting excited about using new elements is being a fanboy then I'm it.

You still haven't explained what will you use <canvas> for?


The company that stands still will be overtaken. And thus it is so.

IE still holds 67% of browser market after being neglected for how many years? Maybe users don't need fancy, flashy sites? Maybe they care more about the content and functionality than about the form?


Again I ask, if you aren't going to follow the W3C standard, what are you using?

Feel free to take a look at my website, teacher. I am sure you will figure it out.


Please don't try and teach the teacher.

That wasn't my intention. I just showed you that <canvas> existed in WebKit long before Gecko implemented it and that even IE can emulate it.


I can ask Ian Hicks or Simone Pieter or any of the Working Group directly if I have any questions.

Then go ask them what <canvas> is good for since you obviously don't know yourself. While you are at it, tell them to bring back the target="_blank" attribute to XHTML.


You don't know who Secunia is, do you?

No you won't... We were not discussing my knowledge about Secunia -- we were discussing open-source .vs. closed-source security.

Your argument against closed-source was that one cannot audit closed-source projects which somehow automatically makes those projects less secure.

Secunia seems to be auditing closed source projects as well so your argument doesn't stand.


If you want to learn how to make web sites, we'll answer your questions, but your complaining makes no sense.

Thanks for the offer, maybe later.

abduraooft
03-21-2009, 09:18 AM
So, actually you two have much in common, just that either of you is standing on the opposite bank of the river. :D
Yes, drhowarddrfine has got the right opponent( or the reverse of that ;))

levicky, welcome to CF! I was wondering why are you being so late to enter here, when I found this thread in google for your website as a query.


It won't, but it surely increased number of visits, [...]
I still believe it's just a trick by you to increase the traffic. :D

tagnu
03-21-2009, 11:07 AM
Hi Igor,

Welcome to cf. I'm sorry if you felt that we're talking behind your back. But we seriously thought there was some issue.

But reading (not everything) your posts, I understand that you don't either fall under an 'end-user' or 'developer' category completely.

Sometimes you complain about sites/apps remembering the settings where as you also complain about the awesome bar and favicons (Sorry I'm a big fan).

Consider this situation, a normal user uses google/any other search engine to find information, they don't even remember the site's url. They are only concerned about content. So, the aweomebar really does enhance the overall usability by remembering the site titles and bookmarks while entering the text next time.

Normal users just remember the overall structure, look-n-feel, images and main content of a site. But serious users wouldn't want to depend on such a feature as they'll focus more on the links, though awesomebar highly reduces the time spent on typing the url :)

I think the whole discussion was not actually an IE vs FF issue but perspective differences that we all encounter at some point or another.

Sometimes we are developers sometimes end-users, sometimes technicians trying to help someone on a completely new software ...et.al.

I'm tired and really appreciate all your big posts :). How do you actually manage to write so long posts?


Btw, found a nice post on Register about Javascript engines. Hope this won't add more spark :D
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/03/21/google_chrome_experiments/

drhowarddrfine
03-21-2009, 02:27 PM
levicky, don’t argue with drhowarddrfine about Internet Explorer because he has decided to dedicate his entire life fighting it and not stop ranting about it and finding new confirmation everytime some bad news about it
Because IE makes our jobs harders and, if it were to disappear, eliminate significant development time trying to fix it.

Notice that you said "new confirmation". While levicky rants about his problems, I display facts and "confirmations" of the problems with IE. Most, here, will agree with these truths because that's what they are. Known, proven and verifiable.

Rather than fight me over what I say. Developers should support what I say to help new people, like levicky, so they can get better at what they do. After all, most of my information and links comes from people like Ian Hicks, Andy Clarke, Mark Boulton, Molly, Hixie, Simone Pieter, Tommy Olson, (do I need to go on?).

These are not lightweights in the developer world. Nothing I say would be disputed by any of them. After all, I sometimes mouth their own words. You should, too.

gsnedders
03-21-2009, 09:02 PM
Rather than fight me over what I say. Developers should support what I say to help new people, like levicky, so they can get better at what they do. After all, most of my information and links comes from people like Ian Hicks, Andy Clarke, Mark Boulton, Molly, Hixie, Simone Pieter, Tommy Olson, (do I need to go on?).

These are not lightweights in the developer world. Nothing I say would be disputed by any of them. After all, I sometimes mouth their own words. You should, too.

Appeal to authority is not a logical method of argument, and does not prove anything. The fact you got several names wrong doesn't help… I assume you mean Ian Hickson, who is Hixie (and thus appears twice on that list), Simon Pieters is I assume who you mean by Simone Pieter.

Also, you claim to know so much, yet you make factual errors yourself. There are no security issues with windows spawned via a@target above and beyond those that are present with multiple windows spawned in any other way. It is also conforming in HTML 5 (primarily because authors, no matter what the usability state of such things is, will create new windows — if a@target is non-conforming as it is now, they just turn to window.open to create windows without making their (X)HTML non-conforming, and window.open is far harder to override and thus has even worse usability).

Finally, at least Hixie, Molly, and Simon of the group of people you listed have feelings nowhere near as strong as yours with regards to IE as you claim. I can't comment of any of the others as I do not know them (personally, that is: I know who they are).

drhowarddrfine
03-21-2009, 09:55 PM
Yes. As I said, earlier, my posts are sometimes hit/run and I can make errors as above.

If you think Molly and Ian don't have the same strong feelings, you haven't talked to them in a couple years or more, especially Molly's comments about MS since she moved to Opera. No web developer worth their salt has much respect for any version of IE.

Apostropartheid
03-21-2009, 11:11 PM
Do not make generalized comments like that. I do have respect for the work the IE team put in and I'm bloody well worth my salt. Unless you feel like personally attacking me today, and I do not advise that.

drhowarddrfine
03-22-2009, 12:20 AM
btw, I was denounced for duplicating names above. Hixie is Ian Hickson, true, but I sometimes mix him up with Jon Hicks, a well known designer.


Do not make generalized comments like that. I do have respect for the work the IE team put in and I'm bloody well worth my salt.That's fine, you can respect the team all you want. My comment was about IE, the software, and not the people who work on it. It is still, by far, the worst browser on the planet. Known, provable and verifiable. You won't find any of the known top developers who will disagree with that.

bazz
03-22-2009, 01:14 AM
y'know, this thread strikes me as being a bit like this one

http://www.codingforums.com/showthread.php?t=26211&highlight=promoz

There was the notion that there could be a promoz development for promoting the mozilla browser. As written waay back then, the comment was made (I think, by me), that some day, mozilla would not be the best one to promote and that it would be better to psuh for/promote the most secure standards complaint bowser, whatever it may be called, as technologies advance.

I think that notion still stands. unless and until browsers are standardised in terms of their fundamental capabilities ~ whatever enahncements one may have over another ~ the user and the web developer will be disadvantaged and unfairly hit with additional costs.

My view is still that, browsers should be similarly secure and present pages in an identical way. what should make one browser appeal to a user more than another should be its interface.

In the worlds of cars, one person might like the slk mercedes whilst anothe might like the chrysler crossfire. fundamentally they are the same structure and the visuals are what differ. I think browsers should be like this and the real behind-the-scenes issues (technically speaking), should be standard.

This had nothing really to do with an argument about which broswer is better: more wanting to have a choice of which I prefer where, the techy stuff is standard.

bazz

rodneymcname44
03-22-2009, 01:55 AM
Haha, no wonder there's a 404 page up already. :)

Deacon Frost
03-22-2009, 06:36 AM
To kinda get back to the whole point...

I can understand your anger, levicki, when you find out that you didn't pay attention to a new download, and you don't maintain your browser according to how you want it, but is it REALLY worth attacking Firefox with a "You must visit with a different browser"?

A majority of FX's features come from user suggested submissions, or addons which Mozilla decided to make permanent parts of the browser. So someone, somewhere, decided it was a good feature to add to FX, and thus it was added. Therefore, your opinion was lost amongst many users. So what? That's why it's completely customizable, and you can do anything to it you want.

Attacking the software because it made you upset is completely unorthodox.

Why do we attack IE?

Hmm, ok, you say standards don't matter as long as the website displays like you want it to, tables or not.

Right, for you, that website may display fine. But for Mr. Macintosh, the website looks like yahoo under construction. Web standards are intended to make every user, everywhere see the website exactly the same, no matter what.

Internet Explorer fails A LOT in this aspect, and so as developers, a majority of us feel that it is a waste of time, and space. It has too many users, and as such, when we create our sites, we have to think of them and develop for them as well, while trying to maintain a sense of dignity in our designs.

It's a hassle, and a load of bull to deal with.

To the point, Firefox is good with usability, standards, and is less of a headache than IE. It is a community project, unlike IE, and everyone helps create a better web browser for all the good little websites.

And on your point of only women doing laundry, I lol'd. I do my laundry, sir, and I care if my websites display right for me, AND they display right for my users. If I'm not compliant, I don't put it on the web.

It's your job, while owning a website, to make sure your website is available to all users, no matter their browser. Else, you risk losing traffic and look like a bad webmaster. Standards help, and IE just isn't up to par with this... Which is why no developer in their right mind would develop using IE, or even enjoy doing so. That means you too Cyan, you can't argue with results :P.


(sorry, I ranted on.... was chatting in IRC, and watching a movie while typing >.<).


So yeah, glad to see the campaign against Firefox taken off. Instead of blocking, try fixing ;).



(This kinda got me on track for my campaign against IE again... LOL.... /opens notepad)

ShaneC
03-22-2009, 09:15 AM
Wow, I can't believe I read all that!

IMO everyone has valid points here on the wide range of issues. At the end of the day I think we all just want to see the client user benefit as much as possible from the website you develop. Though I am a "firefox fan" (not because of the grassroots marketing but because of the actual browser) I do find myself creating websites custom tailored to Internet Explorer specifically when I'm creating a website for those aged 60+.

In terms of browsing it really is all up to personal preference. I actually like IE's rendering engine better than Firefox's (seems to smooth it out a bit). I would, however, agree with the argument that web standards wise Firefox takes the cake. If you program a website in Firefox and then view it in every other browser 9 times out of 10 it will look identical in every other browser except IE.

I do want to address the comment trivalizing the WW3 standards, though. Think about if the United States started printing money specific for each state and this money had different exchange rates throughout everything. Then think of yourself as a store owner trying to price everything. You certainly could put a price down for every one of the fifty states and your customers would be able to understand it however it would be tedious for them to read and a burden for you to print and update based on the fluctuating exchange rates.

The situation with browsers is hardly different. If all web browsers conformed to a uniform standard then all websites would look the same in all browsers. That way web developers are able to program easier to use websites in a more time efficient manner and the millions of internet users are able to view these websites the way they were intended to be viewed by the developer - most likely making it easier for them to navigate.

levicki
03-24-2009, 09:09 PM
Thanks everyone for the welcome.


So someone, somewhere, decided it was a good feature to add to FX, and thus it was added.

You are missing my point. Let me explain using AwesomeBar as an example.

I do not have anything against adding new features. However, I do have a lot against:

1. Making them a new default (I am for opt-in rather than opt-out)
2. Partially replacing old functionality (thus not being able to completely opt-out)

You see, it all boils down to the discoverability of a new feature -- if they made it opt-in and easily discoverable it would be fine with me.

What they did is to make it a new default so that they don't have to make it discoverable. That is a cheap-*** trick which makes my developer skin crawl, and which makes my end-user stomach upset because I don't like new features being shoveled down my throat.


That's why it's completely customizable, and you can do anything to it you want.

No you can't revert to the old location bar completely because search algorithm has been changed, and there is no setting to change it back.


Attacking the software because it made you upset is completely unorthodox.

Well that is the same thing drhowarddrfine does, only with IE. ;)


Web standards are intended to make every user, everywhere see the website exactly the same, no matter what.

The problem is that those web standards are not enforced. Any standard which is not enforced is not a standard.


Internet Explorer fails A LOT in this aspect

I know it does, but I sometimes find the failure more desirable because I do not agree with the standard.

Here, try this small test in IE and in Firefox, and tell me whose rendering you prefer and give me your rationale for chosing so:



<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
* {
border: 0;
margin: 0;
padding: 0;
}
hr {
color: #00FF00;
background-color: #00FF00;
height: 1px;
}
html {
background-color: #000000;
color: #FFFFFF;
}
</style>
</head>
<body>
<hr>
<hr>
<hr>
</body>
</html>


I don't know which one follows the standard, but if the standard suggests doing as Firefox does, then I think that the standard is broken.


It's a hassle, and a load of bull to deal with.

I agree, but then they all should have adopted IE's way of rendering things as a standard because it was the most popular, and everyone should have followed that. Then you would have much less work to do.

Point is that IE was there before the (current) standard, and before Firefox, Opera, Chrome, Safari, etc.

Furthermore, you already had working code for IE, they made you "fix" it to comply with an arbitrary standard, and you still keep changing it every now and then to comply with a "new and improved" standard even though in reality 90% of the websites could be made to work with plain HTML and would be more accessible as a bonus.

You as a developer have accepted that consumerist mentality, so it is your fault as well for having to deal with this mess now.

Please note that I am not saying that the web standards should not advance -- I am merely saying how I perceive current standard advancement:

It is as if there was a function called DrawCircle() and in next version of the standard it was required to draw a square instead. Then those new browsers which are being actively developed rewrite their rendering code to comply, and the old browsers are considered broken.

If you ask me, that is a typical open-source irresponsible way of handling expansions with total disregard for backward compatibility. Not being paid for your work should not mean that you are not required to keep the compatibility with an existing user base.

Granted, there are places where such "no compromise" approach is justified such as in linux kernel codebase, but there are many other cases where it is utterly undesirable to break things because there is a way to introduce new features without breaking existing stuff.

Lets take CPU vendors as an example:

Q: What would happen if some x86 instruction didn''t perform exactly the same in the latest Nehalem or Phenom II CPU as it did in the venerable 8086?

A: They would get flamed violently by /. lynch mob, and would have to recall a product.

That is exactly what happened when they omitted LAHF and SAHF instructions from 64-bit mode. Needless to say, they had to put those instructions back in.


And on your point of only women doing laundry, I lol'd.

I was just giving an analogy, not implying that only women should do that. In my country usually washing mashines do the laundry :D

Fumigator
03-24-2009, 10:04 PM
This whole argument sucks, because I find drhowarddrfine to be a self-righteous condescending prick most of the time, yet I am compelled to take his side of this issue.

Levicki are you sure you don't want to just embrace FF? :p It'll be fine if you just reinstall v2 and turn off auto-update...

drhowarddrfine
03-24-2009, 10:04 PM
Your markup in your test case is invalid. You need enlightenment. Maybe this page (http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ietf_process.html) and the next (http://www.faqs.org/docs/artu/ch17s04.html) will help but you may have trouble finding the context that applies here and it may be way over your head.

oracleguy
03-24-2009, 10:52 PM
Any standard which is not enforced is not a standard.

I wouldn't say that, typically people adhere to standards because they want people to be able to use their product.

AFAIK there is no one enforcing a car manufacturer to go with the standard layout of a 3 pedals with the clutch on the left, brake in the middle and the accelerator on the right. And in fact in early cars each manufacturer did do something different.

No car manufacturer would dream of not adhering to the standard because if they didn't, no one would use their product.

Standards make things easier for everyone, keeping with a computer example, it was a major pain in the butt back in the day when each computer maker used different proprietary parts, standardizing on layouts and connectors made users and manufacturers lives easier.



Q: What would happen if some x86 instruction didn''t perform exactly the same in the latest Nehalem or Phenom II CPU as it did in the venerable 8086?

That is the thing, they don't, they do those instructions better/different now than they did back then. The output has to be the same but the actual implementation does not.

Rowsdower!
03-24-2009, 11:27 PM
...I agree, but then they all should have adopted IE's way of rendering things as a standard because it was the most popular, and everyone should have followed that. Then you would have much less work to do....

I have to say that this is the exact thought that keeps coming to mind every time I see an errant post from one of what I will lovingly call the "IE hate-base" (you know the type of posts I mean; instead of answering a question they merely point out an idiosyncrasy in IE's rendering/box model/etc.).

If IE still has (and presumably always has had) the largest market share then why wasn't IE's method the foundation of the standards? Maybe I'm displaying my ignorance on the issue, but from a simple HTML hobbyist's perspective this has always been a source of confusion for me. It's like the switch from leaded to unleaded fuel, only without the health/environmental benefit to drive it.

It's as though the standards were designed to break the IE browser monopoly through slow, deliberate subversion. I don't have a particular problem with that per se (competition breeds better products), but from a strictly logical standpoint why wasn't the most common browser the basis of the "standard?" Any thoughts?

drhowarddrfine
03-24-2009, 11:50 PM
instead of answering a question they merely point out an idiosyncrasy in IE's rendering/box model/etc.).It's not an idiosynchrasy. It's a flat out error.


If IE still has (and presumably always has had) the largest market share then why wasn't IE's method the foundation of the standards?First there was the standard. Then there was IE.


from a strictly logical standpoint why wasn't the most common browser the basis of the "standard?"
As I already said, The standard existed before IE. Also, from the link I gave above:


Respect for published standards and the IETF process has become deeply ingrained in the Unix culture; deliberately violating Internet STDs is simply Not Done. This can sometimes create chasms of mutual incomprehension between people with a Unix background and others prone to assume that the most popular or widely deployed implementation of a protocol is by definition correct — even if it breaks the standard so severely that it will not interoperate with properly conforming software.

oracleguy
03-25-2009, 12:10 AM
I have to say that this is the exact thought that keeps coming to mind every time I see an errant post from one of what I will lovingly call the "IE hate-base" (you know the type of posts I mean; instead of answering a question they merely point out an idiosyncrasy in IE's rendering/box model/etc.).

If IE still has (and presumably always has had) the largest market share then why wasn't IE's method the foundation of the standards? Maybe I'm displaying my ignorance on the issue, but from a simple HTML hobbyist's perspective this has always been a source of confusion for me. It's like the switch from leaded to unleaded fuel, only without the health/environmental benefit to drive it.

It's as though the standards were designed to break the IE browser monopoly through slow, deliberate subversion. I don't have a particular problem with that per se (competition breeds better products), but from a strictly logical standpoint why wasn't the most common browser the basis of the "standard?" Any thoughts?

That is an interesting point, a lot of the problem with coding on the web is that browsers will guess at what you want to do. That is the fundamentally wrong approach when it comes to computer programming, because then different implementations will guess differently.

When browsers stop guessing and follow the standard to the letter, it makes the web developers have to right correct code. HTML is one of the few computer languages where you can write syntactically incorrect code and it can still come out mostly of the way you were intending (depending on the browser).

As for part of the point you were getting at where the dominate product can set the standard for an industry. That is true, why I think that hasn't happened is partially to due with Microsoft letting version 6 rot for so long without really working on it. And partially because of a lack of effort on Microsoft to help develop the standard. Though we might be better off because of it (See: EEE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend,_and_extinguish)).

bazz
03-25-2009, 12:21 AM
I think the subject of standards is not being grasped by any of the browser developers. It is as though they add features to try to get higher levels of usage.

Instead, if they were to add features in such a way as to show the new user how they work and then ask 'is this functionality how you want it to be?' click yes for make default and no for remove/switch-off.

I think the key point is that the developemnt of a browser should have nothing to do with a proprietary interest but rather, the benefits ot ther user. As soon as they realise that, we might begin to get a standard set and 'enforced', even though by that stage, enforcement would be irrelevant.

Think back to waaaay before we were born ~ to the industrial revolution. in the beginning, if a bolt was made, the nut had to be made to fit that specific screw. very time consuming and expensive. then someone had the bright idea to standardise things and that is why today, if we go into a shop - a hardware shop mind - and we ask for a nut or bolt, we are asked what size we want. that is so that we know, at the time of purchase, that the nut will fit that bolt we have at home.

As developers, we often talk about not re-inventing the wheel. why do we see multi-national organisations trying to do, just that? no idea. but until they recognise that this is not a proprietary issue but one that will be good for the consumer we will always have a difficulty between them all.

over to the more intelligent of you to work out a way of making that process attractive. otherwise, we'll have no sensible progress at all.

Is there such as thing as the web developers association/institute?

bazz

Fumigator
03-25-2009, 12:57 AM
Interesting analogy, nuts and bolts, because as we all know, there are a thousand different types of threads out there! Often when I try to match a nut with a bolt, it's the distance between the thread from one revolution to another (I'm sure there's a technical term for this distance) that gives me fits finding a match. In addition, the depth of the thread can vary wildly as well.

So quite the contrary to a single standard being set, to this day our bolt and screw threading standards include a rainbow of different thread types. But it's far from random and unregulated-- each thread type has a very specific purpose and there are good reasons for each and every thread type.

How would I apply this to web standards? ... hmm.. I had a point... nm :o

bazz
03-25-2009, 01:29 AM
lol.

My point was that it is a standard. perhaps a multi-dimensional standard but a standard nonetheless. If I go to the shop for a size 8 screw thread, I know it will fit a size 8 nut thread. doesn't matter that some nuts are thicker than others because each pair has a corresponding number for a match. I suppose we could go further and say there is an associated pair. :)

(I am not sure that the two numbers ranges are identical but, certainly, there is a set number of nut that matches a set number of screw/bolt).

Even with that standard it's funny how many times I go into the shop and try matching a nut and bolt myself by trial and error. were I to ask the assistant, they would tell me straight away.

It's a bit like (sorry for the pun) a drill. the size of bit is directly relative to the plug/fixer (another standard) and so you will know before drilling a hole, that it will be the right size for what you intend to put into it. eNUFF or there'll be another less-popular analogy. :p:o

bazz

drhowarddrfine
03-25-2009, 04:07 AM
a lot of the problem with coding on the web is that browsers will guess at what you want to do. That is the fundamentally wrong approach when it comes to computer programming, because then different implementations will guess differently.Exactly.


When browsers stop guessing and follow the standard to the letter, it makes the web developers have to right correct code. HTML is one of the few computer languages where you can write syntactically incorrect code and it can still come out mostly of the way you were intending (depending on the browser).100% agree but browsers are required to accept and do the best they can with what they get.

drhowarddrfine
03-25-2009, 04:09 AM
I think the subject of standards is not being grasped by any of the browser developers. It is as though they add features to try to get higher levels of usage.See my two links in my post above.


Is there such as thing as the web developers association/institute?

There is a webmaster's guild but I don't recall that who makes it up.

VIPStephan
03-25-2009, 12:51 PM
100% agree but browsers are required to accept and do the best they can with what they get.

Why is that? And why is no other programming language (e. g. JavaScript) required to do so? What’s wrong with just displaying error messages until the freaking amateur gets it right?

That’s why we need to get away from classic HTML and promote the advance of XHTML (but browser vendors can only do this together in a common effort).

levicki
03-25-2009, 08:47 PM
Your markup in your test case is invalid.

Yeah, I accidentally left out the closing slash in <hr> tag but that is irrelevant to the example itself and the question I posed -- it doesn't take XHTML compliant document for that.

With that said, you are free to enlighten me -- what does the standard say?

I suppose you already know the answer since you said that I would find it hard to figure it out on my own. So why don't you just tell everyone and spare us the misery of reading some dry, boring, poorly formulated text?

If you are a serious developer and if you use other programming languages as well, you will simply have to admit that the web standards/languages have the most awfull documentation of them all.

So far you havent answered any of my questions in a straight and educating manner, you are just looking from your "high" ground, and waving your hand in dismissal. Lets see if that arrogant all-knowing attitude can change.


I wouldn't say that, typically people adhere to standards because they want people to be able to use their product.

Is that so? Well, why don't you try building a house for sale without following safety standards, and see how far you will get?


That is the thing, they don't, they do those instructions better/different now than they did back then. The output has to be the same but the actual implementation does not.

You said it yourself -- as a C/C++/ASM developer you use FSIN instruction (or sin() function on a higher level), and it always produces the same correct result.

On the other hand as a web developer you use <hr /> or any other element of your choice, and the output isn't always correct.

That happens not only because some browser has broken rendering, but also because standard keeps changing, and your output keeps changing with it unless you keep "fixing" it.


As I already said, The standard existed before IE.

So what if it did? Was it so infallable and so impeccable?

Written in stone perhaps?

Even Bible had revisions you know, and it is an order of magnitude hollier book than your precious *nix standards.


...deliberately violating Internet STDs is simply Not Done. This can sometimes create chasms of mutual incomprehension between people with a Unix background and others prone to assume that the most popular or widely deployed implementation of a protocol is by definition correct — even if it breaks the standard so severely that it will not interoperate with properly conforming software.

This goes to show the sheer arrogance, intolerance and stiffness of people with Unix background and nothing else -- just what I was saying about the open-source earlier.

The vast number of forks for each open-source project just confirms my opinion -- they simply cannot make a compromise because they all believe they are the smartest.

Remember, freedom of choice becomes a burden once you have too many options to chose from.


When browsers stop guessing and follow the standard to the letter, it makes the web developers have to right correct code. HTML is one of the few computer languages where you can write syntactically incorrect code and it can still come out mostly of the way you were intending (depending on the browser).

That is exactly what I was talking about when I said "standard which is not enforced is not a standard".


Why is that? And why is no other programming language (e. g. JavaScript) required to do so? What’s wrong with just displaying error messages until the freaking amateur gets it right?

That’s why we need to get away from classic HTML and promote the advance of XHTML (but browser vendors can only do this together in a common effort).

That's right. What is worse, full-time web developers keep accepting that and then preach about "standards".

If you ask me I would put an end to that very quickly -- everyone would have to write web pages in hex editor byte by byte, no markup, no scripts, just hexadecimal codes... and if you get a single bit wrong you get electrocuted :cool:

EDIT:

Let me end this post by quoting from the article linked by drhowarddrfine:


Where in other programming cultures the instinct would be to patch the monster monolith because you have so much work invested in it, the Unix instinct is usually to scrap and rebuild.

This just reinforces my view that Unix roots developers still cannot grasp the most basic economy concept -- it is not about how much work you alone invested in it, it is also how much work your clients invested in it.

Since in 95% of the cases they are not selling their products but giving them away for free, they think it is ok to show the middle finger to everyone, and to break things on a whim. As soon as they start selling their products they will have to learn that and my guess is they are going to learn it the hard way.

drhowarddrfine
03-25-2009, 09:15 PM
So why don't you just tell everyone and spare us the misery of reading some dry, boring, poorly formulated text?You just said that about esr? My god, man!


If you are a serious developer and if you use other programming languages as well, you will simply have to admit that the web standards/languages have the most awfull documentation of them all.Yep. There are problems, but write and test and you can figure it out.


So far you havent answered any of my questions in a straight and educating mannerCause I'm tired of going round about this every time someone comes around ranting about the same thing a few times every year.
you are just looking from your "high" ground, and waving your hand in dismissal.Yep. I admit it. Like I said, I'm tired of these things. You aren't the first to visit a forum and say the same things.


So what if it did? Was it so infallable and so impeccable?

Written in stone perhaps?What difference does it make. All the browser vendors signed off
on it so it's better than following nothing at all; which is the whole point. You have to
believe in something.


This goes to show the sheer arrogance, intolerance and stiffness of people with Unix background and nothing else -- just what I was saying about the open-source earlier.
To the contrary, people who don't follow a standard are those who are intolerant, wishing
to go it alone without regard for others.


That's right. What is worse, full-time web developers keep accepting that and then preach about "standards".

If you ask me I would put an end to that very quickly -- everyone would have to write web pages in hex editor byte by byte, no markup, no scripts, just hexadecimal codes... and if you get a single bit wrong you get electrocutedActually, I agree. If you wish to write markup that must
be valid or fail, use XHTML and serve it as XHTML. If it's not valid, you get a YSOD (Yellow Screen
Of Death) and nothing happens.

The only reason most people don't serve XHTML is because it only works in modern browsers and
not any version of IE.

oracleguy
03-25-2009, 09:31 PM
Is that so? Well, why don't you try building a house for sale without following safety standards, and see how far you will get?

That is because there are laws in place enforcing you to those standards. I was refuting your claim that a standard has to be enforced by someone to be called a standard. There are a lots of standards that have no one forcing their use but they are used just the same.


That happens not only because some browser has broken rendering, but also because standard keeps changing, and your output keeps changing with it unless you keep "fixing" it.

There are newer versions of the standard but existing versions certainly aren't changing like you imply. If you use a specific doctype on a page, the standards behind it don't change. For example valid XHTML 1.1 written 5 years ago, is still completely valid today.

TheShaner
03-25-2009, 09:41 PM
Welcome Levicki, and sorry such a welcome has to come within a topic such as this. But I must say, there has been great debate on both sides of the discussions.

Anyway, I just have a couple opinions about the certain subjects from my experience developing websites and from what I've read on the subjects.

1) Web Standards

HTML standards has always existed. The W3C began their recommendations in 1997 with HTML 3.2. Remember, though, both Netscape and IE were part of this recommendation team. As the browser market share giants, they also believed in a standard in order to promote accessibility on the internet. As Netscape died and Mozilla rose up, and many other browsers joined the game, they, too, joined the team to promote standards. The problem we see today with IE is that in their battle against Netscape, they developed many technologies and implemented it their own way before a standard could be recommended in order to win market share. Accessibility took a backseat to features.

However, as a standards team, you cannot always make recommendations based on what browser has the most market share at the time. So as great it sounds to just make IE the standards, it's not the way in which any solution should be achieved, whether it be HTML and CSS standards, computer hardware standards, cell phone charger standards, etc. (I note those two as obviously, computer hardware has standardized in many aspects and as for cell phone chargers, there is now a universal cell phone charger standard (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10165603-78.html)).

Standards are recommended to allow for better user experience while also allowing for easier development for the developer. Without standards, user experience fails and a developer is subjected to an unruly development world.

Levicki, you denounce standards, yet subject your website to IE-specific fixes, follow the recommendation of CSS presentation rather than bloated table code, and code to the XHTML1.1 DocType written by the W3C. I find your arguments here against standards and what you've applied in your coding are fairly hypocritical. I'd almost wager that your arguments against standards are said to bring about debate and to further infuriate drhowarddrfine; which by all means, please enjoy, as I've come to close to professing my love for IE in order to rile up drhowarddrfine myself. His fervor for the resentment of IE and his constant name-throwing of developers is enough to make even the most accepting of us want to hit the ignore button, haha. (Sorry drhowarddrfine, but you're often just as bad as the radical evangelists downtown yelling at me that I'm going to hell for getting a drink at the bar :p)

2) Web browser Rendering "Assumptions"

I have to agree that browsers should reject non-conforming (X)HTML like all other programming languages. There's a reason why compilers don't make assumptions; a browser should not either. Making assumptions leads to invalid renderings. Forcing developers to code properly is nothing new in the development world, and thus web development should not be an exception.

-Shane

gsnedders
03-25-2009, 09:46 PM
100% agree but browsers are required to accept and do the best they can with what they get.

They aren't: from an HTML 4.01 POV, there are no defined rules for parsing whatsoever (it is noted that HTML is SGML, but this isn't actually a conformance requirement). From an HTML 5 POV, there are two options: either follow the parsing rules defined there, or abort parsing on the first parse error.

Realistically browsers will (and do) violate standards when needed for compatibility with the real web. There's a heckuva lot of non-standard behaviour that a heckuva lot of websites rely upon (quirks mode in general for a start) which is interoperably implemented. There is a point at which standards need to be changed to match the real world. For example, claiming HTML is SGML is disregarding a lifetime of implementation experience: it has never, outside of the validator, been implemented in anything using an SGML parser. But, more than anything else, the biggest problem with a large number of standards out there is the large amount that they leave undefined, and as history has shown with HTML, the market will end up relying on some very specific (and bizarre) behaviour. The real world will always overrule any standard: if a site works in version n of a browser, but doesn't work in version n + 1, then version n + 1 won't be used, even if it's brokenness is technically correct according to the standard, and if a browser vendor wants to get (or keep) marketshare, they simply aren't going to regress sites.

As for XHTML (and XML in general), it has been shown time and time again that producing XML becomes very hard the instant you start allowing user input (try getting a U+FFFF character in any XML site you see: most will break). On top of that, users don't want to see an error message: they want to read the damned page.


There are newer versions of the standard but existing versions certainly aren't changing like you imply. If you use a specific doctype on a page, the standards behind it don't change. For example valid XHTML 1.1 written 5 years ago, is still completely valid today.

That would only be true if user agents actually implemented versioning. In reality, they treat all HTML more-or-less like HTML 5, and all XHTML more-or-less like XHTML 5.

drhowarddrfine
03-26-2009, 12:01 AM
They aren't: from an HTML 4.01 POV, there are no defined rules for parsing whatsoeverThere are. And I guess I have to go and find the section in the docs to show you.
From an HTML 5 POV, there are two options: either follow the parsing rules defined there, or abort parsing on the first parse error.Not true unless you serve HTML5 as XHTML (aka XHTML5).


Realistically browsers will (and do) violate standards when needed for compatibility with the real web.Only quirks is accomodated but no developer would use that for new work.


As for XHTML (and XML in general), it has been shown time and time again that producing XML becomes very hard the instant you start allowing user input... On top of that, users don't want to see an error message: they want to read the damned page.That's something a user should never see so one should not avoid XHTML for that reason.


That would only be true if user agents actually implemented versioning. In reality, they treat all HTML more-or-less like HTML 5, and all XHTML more-or-less like XHTML 5.I haven't a
clue what you mean by that. How can a browser treat all HTML as HTML5 when that was only created
as a draft a short time ago?

gsnedders
03-26-2009, 12:47 AM
There are. And I guess I have to go and find the section in the docs to show you.

Please do. I'm not aware of any normative statements in the spec about SGML.


Not true unless you serve HTML5 as XHTML (aka XHTML5).
To quote the spec:

This specification defines the parsing rules for HTML documents, whether they are syntactically correct or not. Certain points in the parsing algorithm are said to be parse errors. The error handling for parse errors is well-defined: user agents must either act as described below when encountering such problems, or must abort processing at the first error that they encounter for which they do not wish to apply the rules described below.


Only quirks is accomodated but no developer would use that for new work.

Take a look at how non-ASCII characters are handled in URLs (esp. in the query) in HTML when the documented isn't UTF-8 or UTF-16. That's a mile away from the IRI spec.


That's something a user should never see so one should not avoid XHTML for that reason.

Well, sure. But there's the word "should there". Almost every site that is XML that accepts user input can fairly easily be made to output something that creates a fatal error. Producing XML is hard. HTML's normal leniency is useful, as it makes it a lot easier to produce. Try shipping software used by tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of people every day that deals with XML. You'll get the idea quite quickly.


I haven't a
clue what you mean by that. How can a browser treat all HTML as HTML5 when that was only created
as a draft a short time ago?

The HTML 5 draft has been ongoing work since 2003, so it's hardly a "short time ago". More to the point, HTML 5 attempts to define current behaviour in a way that is compatible to the web, as opposed to HTML 4.01 being prescriptive and being ignored (esp. with regards to things like SGML).

drhowarddrfine
03-26-2009, 02:08 AM
To quote the spec:

It outlines how some parse errors are handled but does not say you will be thrown an error page as XHTML does now. Currently, browsers that recognize portions of HTML5 do not fail on errors though I don't think that means anything right now.

They will continue to "be liberal in what they accept" as talked about in the docs.

levicki
03-27-2009, 12:57 AM
Yep. There are problems, but write and test and you can figure it out.

That's the problem -- I can't, and not because I am stupid or lazy mind you.

When I write assembler code I can quickly loiok up the proper syntax and use for each CPU instruction. I can even look up proper instruction encoding so as to check whether my assembler is outputting correct codes.

When I write HTML and CSS I have to resort to trial and error and second-guessing because documentation doesn't spell any of that out.

I gave you a simple example of two different standard interpretations. You dismissed it because of a supposedly incorrect markup without saying which interpretation is correct.

You claim that you are experienced with web standards and even friends with some of the authors so please -- point me to the document name, chapter, and paragraph where it says how <hr /> element should be rendered by the client.

When we are at it, I feel that we shouldn't ever need to look that up.

But in order to see who's side to take we have to. We have to see what the standard says and what is the rationale for doing so. Perhaps it is wrong? Perhaps someone was short-sighted? Should we blindly trust the authorities? I don't think so, because everyone makes mistakes.

Furthermore, what may be logical from the standard writer's standpoint, it might not be from the standpoint of a browser or a web developer.


Yep. I admit it. Like I said, I'm tired of these things. You aren't the first to visit a forum and say the same things.

Yes, and since you are so tired of typing and arguing you pointed me to your previous discussions on the subject where you weren't so arrogant, and where you actually tried to explain something instead of arguing on four pages without merit?

Right.


To the contrary, people who don't follow a standard are those who are intolerant, wishing to go it alone without regard for others.

Sometimes that is good. Sometimes standards make people narrow-minded and sometimes they stiff innovation.

But, aren't the developers with Unix background those who always go alone without regard for others in the end?

True, they seem to work together until they hit an obstacle upon which they can't agree how to solve, once that happens users get a fork. Just start working down from *nix distributions, X, window managers, applications, libraries... endless number of forks brings the phrase "divide and conquer" to mind. That is why even Mac OS X has outgrown Linux when it comes to desktop market-share.


Actually, I agree. If you wish to write markup that must be valid or fail, use XHTML and serve it as XHTML.

I would do that if opening a new window in XHTML did not require client side scripting. That thing alone, and the fact that they are bringing target attribute back screams EPIC FAIL to those who are still capable of independent thinking. And it isn't the first or the last one.


The only reason most people don't serve XHTML is because it only works in modern browsers and not any version of IE.

And the only reason why web is so inefficient and flakey as a whole is because it is based around an inefficient textual markup.

I really have to give credit to those who invented it -- what better way to waste storage, network and computational resources than for example to write all this in each served page:



<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>'
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"'
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">


Just to say "hello, I am an XHTML 1.1 compliant page"?

There really must be no shorter way of expressing that.

String parsing is the slowest thing right next to array sorting. XML parsing is even slower than the simple string parsing.

Still the document that parses as "well-formed" XML can contain garbage no browser can understand.

What I would like to know is this -- if the code we write is meant to be interpreted by the browser, then why it has to be human readable?

Why don't we serve the compiled binary code of a page?

Having a compiler would eliminate most errors at compile time, you would get warnings that you are doing something fishy with the code, you wouldn't have to worry about line endings or the formatting, you could debug it in a browser (literally by executing it step by step and watching the page render), and each browser would then have to do the same with those bytes because they would all start from the same renderer/interpreter source code.

But I guess those who write standards prefer it complicated, I just don't get what you are getting out of it.

levicki
03-27-2009, 01:43 AM
Welcome Levicki, and sorry such a welcome has to come within a topic such as this.

Thanks for the welcome.


The problem we see today with IE is that in their battle against Netscape, they developed many technologies and implemented it their own way before a standard could be recommended in order to win market share. Accessibility took a backseat to features.

But what if they simply needed those features? What would be the proper way to push them through?


However, as a standards team, you cannot always make recommendations based on what browser has the most market share at the time.

I see it this way -- if majority of people on Earth are more than 5 feet tall you won't recommend doors to be 4.5 feet tall just to please the minority. It seems as if the web standards team was (and still is) doing just that.

In my opinion it would have been much easier to make IE the standards and force the minority to comply so that users get unified experience and accessibility instead of this wreckage, and later push changes and fixes to get everything right.


...whether it be HTML and CSS standards, computer hardware standards, cell phone charger standards, etc. (I note those two as obviously, computer hardware has standardized in many aspects and as for cell phone chargers, there is now a universal cell phone charger standard (http://reviews.cnet.com/8301-13970_7-10165603-78.html)).

Those other standards you mention are enforced by regulations. If I buy an NVIDIA based PCI-E video card from Asus it should better work in Gigabyte ATI chipset based mainboard or I can sue all four of them.


Standards are recommended to allow for better user experience while also allowing for easier development for the developer.

Well, web standards keep failing at that.


Without standards, user experience fails and a developer is subjected to an unruly development world.

User experience fails even with those standards. That is why those who care about user experience write browser specific fixes.


Levicki, you denounce standards, yet subject your website to IE-specific fixes, follow the recommendation of CSS presentation rather than bloated table code, and code to the XHTML1.1 DocType written by the W3C.

I do that yes, but with a few exceptions:

- I try to avoid design elements which need fixing in any browser
- I still use tables because I find them easier to work with than CSS
- My pages aren't 100% XHTML 1.1 compliant because of target="_blank"

So no, I am not hypocritical -- I just don't agree that web standards are always 100% right while some others are blindly defending them, and waging war against those browsers who dare to break them.


I'd almost wager that your arguments against standards are said to bring about debate and to further infuriate drhowarddrfine; which by all means, please enjoy, as I've come to close to professing my love for IE in order to rile up drhowarddrfine myself. His fervor for the resentment of IE and his constant name-throwing of developers is enough to make even the most accepting of us want to hit the ignore button, haha. (Sorry drhowarddrfine, but you're often just as bad as the radical evangelists downtown yelling at me that I'm going to hell for getting a drink at the bar :p)

LOL

oracleguy
03-27-2009, 03:55 AM
Those other standards you mention are enforced by regulations. If I buy an NVIDIA based PCI-E video card from Asus it should better work in Gigabyte ATI chipset based mainboard or I can sue all four of them.

They are not enforced by regulations as in laws, some parts of standards are enforced as conditions for licensing certain technologies. Like to put the bluetooth logo on your product, there are certain standards it has to conform to that are dictated by the Bluetooth Special Interest Group that can license you the use of the name and logo on your product.

But a significant amount of standards compliance is done voluntarily. There is nothing (as in laws) to stop Gigabyte from changing the PCIe socket on their motherboard to something proprietary so only Gigabyte made video cards would work. Things like that were common in the early to mid 90s, especially with RAM.

levicki
03-27-2009, 06:30 AM
But a significant amount of standards compliance is done voluntarily. There is nothing (as in laws) to stop Gigabyte from changing the PCIe socket on their motherboard to something proprietary so only Gigabyte made video cards would work.

Sorry, but I believe you are wrong on this one.

First, Gigabyte doesn't produce the PCIe controller which drives the socket -- it is produced by Intel, ATI or NVIDIA.

They are all memebers of special interest group, and if their chipsets and video chips aren't compliant they can't get the PCIe sticker even though they are all involved in making of the PCIe standard. Feel free to compare that to the browser makers and their participation in web standards creation, and draw your own conclusions.

Second, even though I don't live in the USA, I know that there are consumer protection laws which require that if you buy Gigabyte board you can stick Asus video card in it as long as they use the same interface (that is both use PCIe).

Saying that there are no regulations in hardware industry is as silly as if you claimed that Shell could change their fuel formula so it only works with Ford vehicles and not with Japanese ones without consequences.

As I already said before, when you sell goods or services you have to make them standard compliant. If you don't you have three options:

1. You don't get the right to sell (stringent checks such as FCC compliance, lead-free products, etc)
2. You use false advertising and sell but people sue (Creative 24-bit audio claim (http://www.neoseeker.com/news/4448-creative-settles-class-action-lawsuit/), etc)
3. You risk and sell non-conforming product but you get busted by the press (like NVIDIA with bad chips (http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/052/1050052/nvidia-chips-show-underfill-problems), etc) and nobody wants to buy your goods anymore until you come clean

Since web standards do not involve (direct) profit they cannot be enforced.

So unfortunately, as much as drhowarddrfine would like to sue Microsoft because their free product IE doesn't render the page as anally-retentive as he and his Unix brethren who wrote the standards want it, he can't do it because he didn't pay for it. :D

Here, I really enjoyed reading these:
http://www.art.net/~hopkins/Don/unix-haters/handbook.html
http://blog.esync.org/2009/02/reinventing-square-wheel.html

Some good points in there for everyone.

webinnosales
04-23-2009, 09:15 PM
use whatever browser you want as long as your comfortable...that's it!!

Cheers!!

AlexV
04-23-2009, 10:59 PM
2) web browser rendering "assumptions"

i have to agree that browsers should reject non-conforming (x)html like all other programming languages. There's a reason why compilers don't make assumptions; a browser should not either. Making assumptions leads to invalid renderings. Forcing developers to code properly is nothing new in the development world, and thus web development should not be an exception.


Amen!

vkidv
04-27-2009, 06:08 PM
Guys this guy is pretty smart.

http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/getting-to-know-igor-levicki-intel-black-belt-software-developer/

Look!

Fumigator
04-27-2009, 07:39 PM
After reading that, I am now joining the campaign against Firefox.

drhowarddrfine
04-27-2009, 09:54 PM
Heh. It's not the same levicki.

TheShaner
04-27-2009, 10:27 PM
Heh. It's not the same levicki.
So you're saying he faked the biography on his website? :confused: According to the biography (CV) on his website levicki[dot]net, he's one in the same.

Even in the 1st page of this thread, someone acknowledged it:
Lol, what a guy. 'Software engineer', Intel Black Belt, and gets confused by browser zoom, shutdown dialog and about:config.
But I'm sure you know something we don't know :rolleyes:

-Shane

drhowarddrfine
04-28-2009, 01:47 PM
Yep. You're right. It is the same guy. So, he ranks well on forum contributions. And Intel has a title for that? Well, good.

levicki
05-28-2009, 04:33 PM
Long time without seeing you guys, where were we? Ah, yes...


Yep. You're right. It is the same guy. So, he ranks well on forum contributions. And Intel has a title for that? Well, good.

Trying to downplay someone's knowledge and accomplishments so thay you look better in comparison may work as an argument with a 7 year old.

Or it may not, today's kids are very clever you know.

drhowarddrfine
05-28-2009, 05:31 PM
@levicki,
If you are looking for a fight, go elsewhere. If you have something to contribute, do so.

Fumigator
05-28-2009, 06:53 PM
@levicki,
If you are looking for a fight, go elsewhere. If you have something to contribute, do so.

That is just so ironic.



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum