What browsers are using to test?

[Alan Silver]

Hello,

Just wondered what range of browsers, versions and OSs people are using
to test pages. Also, since I don't have access to a Mac, will I have
problems not being able to test on any Mac browsers, or is there some
other way of checking?

TIA

--
Alan Silver
(anything added below this line is nothing to do with me)

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, "Beauregard T.
Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

At the dongtaiwang link, Firefox tells me the certificate is issued by
an Unknown Authority, and asks do I want to trust it? Ummmmm...
Yeah, I got that too. Maybe I'm too trusting. :-)
How many of the IE hits are other, modern, browsers identifying
themselves as IE, just so they can read sites "designed for Internet
Explorer" ?

I wondered that. No way of knowing whether the counter is able to detect
that.

--
Mark Parnell

Now implementing http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[chromatic_aberration]

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers
How do you know? You're not testing :o)
But then I suspect most in this NG
test in as many browsers as they can...
Then we would also be testing in Mozaic, NS4, IE3, IE4, etc...
But, hey, let's not abuse the good things!
... just for the pure joy it gives them.

You have no idea! And think... some of us even use Linux! Your life must
be dull!

--
chromatic aberration
_______________________________________
Linux for Human Beings | www.ubuntu.com

[IEDesigner]

"chromatic_aberration" <ch******************@direkte.org> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@direkte.org...

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers

How do you know? You're not testing :o)

But then I suspect most in this NG
test in as many browsers as they can...

Then we would also be testing in Mozaic, NS4, IE3, IE4, etc...
But, hey, let's not abuse the good things!

... just for the pure joy it gives them.

You have no idea! And think... some of us even use Linux! Your life must
be dull!

--
chromatic aberration
_______________________________________
Linux for Human Beings | www.ubuntu.com

You've been smoking some of that Denmark shit no doubt. Thank you for your
concern about how my sites look in those off brand obscure browsers but
there's no need to worry, I'm not, neither are my clients. I think all that
testing is starting to affect your mind, what little there is of it.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Mark Parnell" <we*******@clarkecomputers.com.au> wrote in message
news:1j***************@markparnell.com.au...

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

300,000,000+ users say IE is 90%. Click here to see:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

If you mean http://www.thecounter.com/stats/ why don't you just say so?

The latest stats there (Feb 06) say 87%, and they're on the high end of
the published global stats.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_s...000_to_present

Of course, browser detection is flaky at best anyway. The only thing we
can really believe from the above is the overall trend - and that is
that IE's market share has dropped over the last 18-24 months.

--
Mark Parnell

If wikifuckrumorpedia is your source then you won't get any respect from me.
Is it that you can't add or is it that you can't read? You were at
thecounter site did you not see IE6 has 87% and IE5 has 3% which equals 90%
total. Incidentally February isn't over yet so why didn't you cite the
January stats, don't you have a calendar?
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:qd********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

Mark Parnell wrote:

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

300,000,000+ users say IE is 90%. Click here to see:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

At the dongtaiwang link, Firefox tells me the certificate is issued by
an Unknown Authority, and asks do I want to trust it? Ummmmm...

If you mean http://www.thecounter.com/stats/ why don't you just say so?

How many of the IE hits are other, modern, browsers identifying
themselves as IE, just so they can read sites "designed for Internet
Explorer" ?

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Tell me your name isn't a joke (don't answer that, I don't I want to know
that much about you). You probably not only brake for lawn deer you shag
them too. And don't be afraid of the big sacry security warning, it's safe
to click OK, it won't hurt you I promise.
IEDesigner

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing.

Do you consider the six-year-old latest release of IE to be modern?

How about a few links to your sites?

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[Mark Parnell]

Deciding to do something for the good of humanity, IEDesigner
<IE********@notevenemail.com> declared in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets:

If wiki****pedia is your source
I quoted Wikipedia simply because it lists stats from various sites. If
you would prefer to check the individual sites in question, feel free.
then you won't get any respect from me.
It seems that no one gets any respect from you anyway, so that's not
worth much.
Is it that you can't add or is it that you can't read? You were at
thecounter site did you not see IE6 has 87% and IE5 has 3% which equals 90%
total.
True - I didn't look beyond the first line.
Incidentally February isn't over yet so why didn't you cite the
January stats,
Because February is the most current. The figures are much the same, so
it doesn't really matter.
don't you have a calendar?

Yes I do, why?

--
Mark Parnell

Now implementing http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html

[Stephen Poley]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:29:20 -0600, "IEDesigner"
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:

How many people have you met who are paying for their
connection by the byte or by the minute? I've never met any.

Thank you for providing the conclusive proof that you are completely
clueless. The majority of the world's Internet users still use dial-up
connections, but you are entirely happy to ignore them completely.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/

[Lauri Raittila]

in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
wrote:

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing.

Do you consider the six-year-old latest release of IE to be modern?

Why would anybody?

But simple Fact: You can easily create a website, testing only in IE6,
and get good results on other browsers. All you need to do is to know
standards (and know them well). IE6 may not understand everything in
those standards, but there is preciously little that IE6 does correctly
and all the others don't.

So, testing only in IE6 is not necesessary bad idea at all. *If you know
what you are doing*. The problem is people that make their website using
trial and error, and use IE6 to check if what they did is wrong or not.

I have currently these browsers: Opera 7, Opera 8.5, IE6, FF1 on Win98,
Safari 1.2 (+Shiira), Opera 9tp2, FF1.5 (+Camino), iCab on OSX (+ handful
of versions of NN, Opera + IE 2 on Win95)

What I use is actually Opera 9tp2. Most times, I don't bother testing
(not doing anything commercial here ATM), but when I do (when using
something I have not really tested before), I will use IE6 first.

Also, when I am making something special, I will be testing using IE6,
because it is the browser you need to test most, as it's behaviour is
hardest to know beforehand.

I use Opera to view what my site looks with different code. I use IE6 to
test if the result works in IE6.

--
Lauri Raittila <http://www.iki.fi/lr> <http://www.iki.fi/zwak/fonts>

[chromatic_aberration]

IEPusher wrote:

You've been smoking some of that Denmark shit no doubt.
You should try it! Maybe it would improve your sense of humor (assuming
you have one).
there's no need to worry, I'm not, neither are my clients.

Both of them?

--
Chromatic Aberration
_________________________
Feeding trolls since 1996

[chromatic_aberration]

Lauri Raittila wrote:

But simple Fact: You can easily create a website, testing only in IE6,
and get good results on other browsers. All you need to do is to know
standards (and know them well). (snip)
So, testing only in IE6 is not necesessary bad idea at all. *If you know
what you are doing*.

You've got a good point here. In an ideal world, sticking to standards
should be enough (and it's actually the whole idea with them).
In the real world though, you would need to know exactly every browsers
quirks to be able to predict their behaviour... unless you stick to *very*
basic layout techniques (not that this would be a bad thing, BTW!).

--
chromatic aberration
_______________________________________
Linux for Human Beings | www.ubuntu.com

[Ben Bacarisse]

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:55:52 -0600, IEDesigner wrote:

Here are more numbers to support this from thecounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

Why do you keep posting this suspicious link? Is there a reason you
want lots of people to visit it? It claims:

Certificate issed by
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

on befalf of:
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

You will have to forgive me if I don't find the evidence you keep posting
compelling.

--
Ben.

[IEDesigner]

"Stephen Poley" <sb******************@xs4all.nl> wrote in message
news:bk********************************@4ax.com...

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:29:20 -0600, "IEDesigner"
<IE********@notevenemail.com> wrote:

How many people have you met who are paying for their
connection by the byte or by the minute? I've never met any.

Thank you for providing the conclusive proof that you are completely
clueless. The majority of the world's Internet users still use dial-up
connections, but you are entirely happy to ignore them completely.

--
Stephen Poley

When you edit out all of my previous message which by the way answered the
vague question you raised you are supposed to indicate that with the
following:

<snip>

Here is my reply again. Please turn up the knob marked "intelligence" on the
side of your head before you read it and/or jump to erroneous conclusions:

"With a (free?) download manager you can download large files even on
dial-up so there's no reason why anybody can't download a newer browser. How
many people have you met who are paying for their connection by the byte or
by the minute? I've never met any. And if they are I seriously doubt they're
making many (if any) purchases online. I will concede that a few people in
rural areas might have to pay for a long distance phone call to connect but
that's it. And I can't think of any WIN OS where the browser can't be
upgraded unless it's WIN95 or earlier. You must be referring to people using
486DX's on a 14.4K modem. And if they are using an outdated computer there's
very little chance that they can afford
to by anything online."

If you read properly you can see that I said I hadn't met anyone who pays
for their connection by the byte or by the minute and I invited the poster
to say if he knows any who do. I did not say there aren't any. Anything is
possible I suppose even people who post on Usenet without the ability to
comprehend what they read. Incidentally, I use dialup.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Ben Bacarisse" <be********@bsb.me.uk> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@bsb.me.uk...

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 14:55:52 -0600, IEDesigner wrote:

Here are more numbers to support this from thecounter:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

Why do you keep posting this suspicious link? Is there a reason you
want lots of people to visit it? It claims:

Certificate issed by
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

on befalf of:
E = IM*******@rMFw8.com
CN = YsmJJGEewtgNoz9JxHl
OU = Qdh2HMaNY
O = 3LzTm3mG3kJ
L = fxEoc3dj
ST = bQPHwonfx
C = tp

You will have to forgive me if I don't find the evidence you keep posting
compelling.

--
Ben.

There's nothing wrong with the link. Believe what you will. I forgive you.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:u2*********************@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing.
Do you consider the six-year-old latest release of IE to be modern?

Judging from your name I'd say six years is more mature than you are.
How about a few links to your sites?
How about yours?
--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Still humping them too I'll wager.
IEDesigner

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

IEDesigner wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing.
Do you consider the six-year-old latest release of IE to be modern?

Judging from your name I'd say six years is more mature than you are.

Judging by your inability to respond to the question, I'd guess you have
some catching up to do.

It's funny that you are amused by my name, to the point where it
prevents you from creating a worthy reply.

How about a few links to your sites?

How about yours?

My sites work in all browsers. Besides, I asked first.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Still humping them too I'll wager.

But of course. They're easy and they don't run away.
IEDesigner

Speaking of names ...

BTW, since this thread appears to be your very first foray into Usenet,
welcome aboard.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[IEDesigner]

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:cp*******************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

IEDesigner wrote:

"Beauregard T. Shagnasty" <a.*********@example.invalid> wrote

IEDesigner wrote:

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing.

Do you consider the six-year-old latest release of IE to be modern?

Judging from your name I'd say six years is more mature than you are.

Judging by your inability to respond to the question, I'd guess you have
some catching up to do.

It's funny that you are amused by my name, to the point where it
prevents you from creating a worthy reply.

How about a few links to your sites?

How about yours?

My sites work in all browsers. Besides, I asked first.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

Still humping them too I'll wager.

But of course. They're easy and they don't run away.

IEDesigner

Speaking of names ...

BTW, since this thread appears to be your very first foray into Usenet,
welcome aboard.

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

I wouldn't give you a worthwhile reply if you were the last person on earth.
IEDesigner

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

There's nothing wrong with the link.

Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner us****@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"Shhh! Be vewwy, vewwy quiet! I'm hunting Muswims!"
- President Elmer Bush

[Lars Eighner]

In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

"With a (free?) download manager you can download large files even on
dial-up so there's no reason why anybody can't download a newer browser.

So, then, there is no excuse for people not getting a better browser
than IE.

--
Lars Eighner us****@larseighner.com http://www.larseighner.com/
"We have no opinion on your Arab - Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with
Kuwait." -- Bush's Ambassador April Glaspie, giving Saddam Hussein
the greenlight to invade Kuwait.

[Beauregard T. Shagnasty]

IEDesigner wrote:

I wouldn't give you a worthwhile reply if you were the last person on
earth.

Ah. My loss, for sure...

--
-bts
-Warning: I brake for lawn deer

[IEDesigner]

"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

"With a (free?) download manager you can download large files even on
dial-up so there's no reason why anybody can't download a newer browser.

So, then, there is no excuse for people not getting a better browser
than IE.
--
Lars Eighner

Well there's no excuse for you that much is certain.

It appears you can't snip properly either. Pay attention and I'll show you:
<snip>
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

There's nothing wrong with the link.

Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner

You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor. Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner

[kchayka]

IEDesigner wrote:

You can set a default size text in IE
Sorry, but the choices IE gives the user are too limited.

Again, why settle for "barely adequate" when another browser has exactly
what you want?
(not that YOU would ever want too).

Huh? I most definitely *do* want to control my own default text size,
among other things.

BTW, we are seriously off-topic for this group, so I'm bailing out of
this discussion now. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, anyway. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

[Ed Mullen]

IEDesigner wrote:

"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

There's nothing wrong with the link.

Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner

You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor. Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner

Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

[Ed Mullen]

IEDesigner wrote:

"chromatic_aberration" <ch******************@direkte.org> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@direkte.org...

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 19:54:34 -0600, IEDesigner wrote:

I use IE6 on WIN, the same browser that 90% of the public uses.
<snip>
The internet is full of self appointed pundits who'd dearly love
to convince you that IE is losing ground (they wish).
<snip>
This question has come up here many times before and it's only important to readers of this and a few other NG's. To the world at large it doesn't mean diddly. The world uses IE, they don't even know there are other

browsers.

While this might be the case in /your/ part of the world, things appear to
be a bit different elsewhere...
In Europe, for example, Firefox seems to have reached an average market
share of a little more than 20%, with countries like Germany and Finland
reaching 30% and 38%... And these figures are regularly growing.
So, yes, IE *is* losing ground! And no, you can't ignore other browsers!
Source:
http://www.xitimonitor.com/etudes/equipement13.asp

Testing with:
Win32:
IE 5.5
IE 6.0
IE 7.0b
Firefox 1.5
Opera 8
Linux:
Firefox 1.5
Mozilla 1.7
Konqueror 3.5
Opera 9b
Lynx

--
chromatic aberration
"Hey, I can see my house from here!"

300,000,000+ users say IE is 90%. Click here to see:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing. While you
spend time testing with obscure browsers I spend my time on productive
pursuits. But then I suspect most in this NG test in as many browsers as
they can just for the pure joy it gives them.
IEDesigner

"There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Not contradicting your quotes, just your reliance on them. It's silly.

--
Ed Mullen
http://edmullen.net
http://mozilla.edmullen.net
http://abington.edmullen.net

[Dan]

IEDesigner wrote:

On eliminating 10% see my response to Jim. In your world IE is losing
ground, in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to.

Recent stats for some of my sites:

http://mailformat.dan.info/
39.65% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
40.54% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://webtips.dan.info/
35.42% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
42.50% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://domains.dan.info/
19.58% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
34.16% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.
(for some reason, that site had an unusually large number of recent
hits from spiders such as Googlebot, which fell in the "other" category
of non-IE and non-Gecko)

--
Dan

[sonnystarks]

I am having a similar dilemma. I have a website under construction at:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/test/

This site uses no deprecated tags and is linked to an external
stylesheet. Looks great in IE but Firefox is somewhat distorted and
Opera leaves out background image.

What's the point of following the CSS rules if only one browser
displays the page correctly?

Please "view source" and tell me what I can do to make it compatible
with at least 2 of the three browsers.

[Steve Pugh]

sonnystarks wrote:

I am having a similar dilemma. I have a website under construction at:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/test/

This site uses no deprecated tags and is linked to an external
stylesheet. Looks great in IE but Firefox is somewhat distorted and
Opera leaves out background image.

What's the point of following the CSS rules if only one browser
displays the page correctly?

Please "view source" and tell me what I can do to make it compatible
with at least 2 of the three browsers.

Fix the errors in your HTML:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...arks.com/test/

Then look at your CSS:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.c...t/stylesht.css

Background-image : url("E:/Website HTML
Projects/Quilting/images/bgrng.jpg");

I don't have an E drive and I certainly don't have any directories with
those names on it. So that image can never be displayed in my browsers.
I doubt it can be displayed in any browsers except the ones on your own
computer.

And why do you have an HTML tag in your CSS file:
<img src="file:///C|/Documents and Settings/Sonny/Desktop/Mom's
Pool/21ft.jpg" width="432" height="323" border="0" align="left">

The extra bullet point in FireFox is because you've told the browsers
to treat the whole list <ul class="ulc"> as a list-item (i.e. display
the same as an <li>)
..ulc { Display : list-item;
FireFox is actually applying your styles more accurately than IE.
Steve

[IEDesigner]

"Dan" <da*@tobias.name> wrote in message
news:11*********************@i40g2000cwc.googlegro ups.com...

IEDesigner wrote:

On eliminating 10% see my response to Jim. In your world IE is losing
ground, in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I talk to.

Recent stats for some of my sites:

http://mailformat.dan.info/
39.65% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
40.54% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://webtips.dan.info/
35.42% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
42.50% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

http://domains.dan.info/
19.58% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
34.16% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.
(for some reason, that site had an unusually large number of recent
hits from spiders such as Googlebot, which fell in the "other" category
of non-IE and non-Gecko)

--
Dan

You probably (almost certainly?) attract visitors who's taste in browsers is
similar to yours. The stats I referred to don't suffer from such skewing.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"kchayka" <us****@c-net.us> wrote in message
news:46************@individual.net...

IEDesigner wrote:

You can set a default size text in IE

Sorry, but the choices IE gives the user are too limited.

Again, why settle for "barely adequate" when another browser has exactly
what you want?

(not that YOU would ever want too).

Huh? I most definitely *do* want to control my own default text size,
among other things.

BTW, we are seriously off-topic for this group, so I'm bailing out of
this discussion now. I know I shouldn't feed the trolls, anyway. ;)

--
Reply email address is a bottomless spam bucket.
Please reply to the group so everyone can share.

You are in error. I meant that you would have no interest in using IE but I
think you know that.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Ed Mullen" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:z-********************@comcast.com...

IEDesigner wrote:

"Lars Eighner" <us****@larseighner.com> moaned in message
news:sl********************@goodwill.io.com...

In our last episode,
<11*************@corp.supernews.com>,
the lovely and talented IEDesigner
broadcast on comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html:

There's nothing wrong with the link.
Exactly what page is this supposed to keep stats on. I don't believe
that there are 64 hits for Netscape 1, but none for my current-release
browser.
--
Lars Eighner

You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor. Probably works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner

Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.
--
Ed Mullen

It's not untenable it's Usenet. Perhaps you would be happier somewhere else.
IEDesigner

PS: Luckily for you I have a sense of humor otherwise I would report your
threat to my local police department. As they say "Don't let your elephant
mouth overload your parakeet ass".

[IEDesigner]

"Ed Mullen" <[e-mail]> wrote in message
news:z-********************@comcast.com...

IEDesigner wrote:

<snip>

300,000,000+ users say IE is 90%. Click here to see:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/

My sites look fine in modern browsers with little or no testing. While you spend time testing with obscure browsers I spend my time on productive
pursuits. But then I suspect most in this NG test in as many browsers as
they can just for the pure joy it gives them.
IEDesigner

"There are lies, damned lies, and then there are statistics."

Not contradicting your quotes, just your reliance on them. It's silly.
--
Ed Mullen

Silly how? I don't rely on them entirely. I ask my neighbors, customers,
accquanitainces or at the stores where I shop. People I talk to have no idea
there are any browsers other than IE. Only in the insular world of this NG
is it different.
IEDesigner

[Gérard Talbot]

Ed Mullen wrote :

IEDesigner wrote:

[snipped]

You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor.
Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner

Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.

Personal attacks, bashing and ad hominem arguements have no place in
newsgroups.

But, on the other hand, we should welcome rational discussions on
complying with web standards when making webpages. As long as a wide
majority of webpages do not comply with web standards and/or use
proprietary DOM or proprietary markup code, then such discussion is
welcomed and makes sense.

HTML was thought and designed to be browser-independent,
device-independent, media-independent, just like, say, Rich-Text-Format
language. HTML is a language used to describe the structure of a
document. Browser bugs, browser support for HTML/CSS/DOM and incorrect
browser implementations of properties/attributes/methods are things
which are being addressed by all major browser manufacturers, including
Microsoft.

The arguments brought by IEDesigner are still mostly based on stats,
therefore rather fragile.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

IEDesigner wrote :

And I can't think of any WIN
OS where the browser can't be upgraded unless it's WIN95 or earlier. You
must be referring to people using 486DX's on a 14.4K modem.
This is interesting. Since January 1st 2006, New-Zealand government
passed an accessibility law that requires that a website still be
accessible to 9.6K modem. Personally, I think such law makes a lot of
sense.
There are more and more small web-aware devices or web applications with
limited bandwidth being created these days.
And if they are
using an outdated computer there's very little chance that they can afford
to by anything online. Total rubbish.
IEDesigner

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 users will not be able to upgrade
their browser to IE 7: that's an official commitment from Microsoft.
Now, what do you propose that these users which will be representing
from 10% to 40% of the web in the next 5 years do in terms of privacy,
security, usability features that IE 7 will offer but that they won't be
able to have in IE 6? They'll either have to switch to browsers like
Firefox, Opera or upgrade their os. There won't be much other choice.
If they choose to switch browsers, then in my opinion, they'll make a
much better choice since Firefox 1.5 and Opera 8.52 are currently better
browsers than IE 7 beta 2.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

IEDesigner wrote :

Unless you're name is Nostradamus the future is uncertain. In any case I
doubt tables will break in IE7. You have my blessing to ridicule me for
using tables.

This is not a criticism but this notion that standards will somehow make
sites future proof is laughable. Nothing in the wide world of computers is
completely future proof nor will it ever be. I've got a suggestion for
devotees to standards. Use plain text and your sites will be future proof,
that is of course until such time as ASCII is no longer valid.
IEDesigner

I'd personally go with iso-HTML (iso 15445) instead of ascii.

In the last 8 years (basically the whole web history as we know it),
each and all new browser releases, all new browser versions that have
been released have all been more compliant with W3C web standards than
the ones before. Each and all main browser manufacturers (and minor ones
like, say, Icab, Dillo, etc.) have all renewed their commitment, loud
and clear, to support and implement W3C web standards. Why should we
assume and conclude that new/future browsers and/or new browser releases
will not be *_more_* compliant to W3C web standards than previous
browser releases? (3) Therefore why should we conclude that writing
according to W3C web standards (HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, DOM 2) is not
future-proof, forward-compatible, is not the most sound, reliable way to
write for multiple browsers, diverse web-aware devices, different media?

(1): "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that
fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 (
2.1, once it's been Recommended)." Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

(2): "We have stated that IE will return to a frequent and regular
release cycle with IE7 so you can rest assured that you will not have to
wait another 5 years for the next version. We have also stated a
commitment to W3C standards and IE7 is a clear and significant step
towards delivering firstly on the key demands of web developers. Full
CSS2.1 support will however have to wait for a future release."
Dave Massy, IE manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive...62.aspx#530187

(3): "When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows back in 1996,
we had the first CSS implementation out there in a mass-market web
browser. (I personally wrote the code for that support.) (...)
Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."
Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

Dan wrote :

http://webtips.dan.info/
35.42% of accesses are from Gecko-based (Mozilla) browsers.
42.50% of accesses are from MSIE-based browsers.

Dan, I've been linking your site from my webiste for over a year now.
http://www.gtalbot.org/NvuSection/Nv...#WebpageDesign
I admit some of your articles have helped me :)

<handshake>

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

IEDesigner wrote :

You probably (almost certainly?) attract visitors who's taste in browsers is
similar to yours. The stats I referred to don't suffer from such skewing.
IEDesigner

Most of the "obscure" browsers, as you call them, have user agent string
spoofing capabilities which, in fact, often fool web stats. When user
agent string spoofing happens, it is "obscur" browsers which disguise
themselves as IE6 rather than the opposite. So, for sure, web stats
underestimate the number of browsers like Safari and Icab and other
"obscur" browsers.

It is widely admitted and recognized that browser trends based on
several months (span) is the most important and reliable information.
And I do claim that IE 5+ browser share is diminishing, not increasing.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

sonnystarks wrote :

I am having a similar dilemma. I have a website under construction at:
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.com/test/

This site uses no deprecated tags and is linked to an external
stylesheet. Looks great in IE but Firefox is somewhat distorted and
Opera leaves out background image.

What's the point of following the CSS rules if only one browser
displays the page correctly?

Please "view source" and tell me what I can do to make it compatible
with at least 2 of the three browsers.

I checked your page
http://www.websitesamples.j-starks.c...tist%20Church/
and I must say you should first use a doctype declaration (1) and then
start checking your page with the W3C HTML validator, CSS validator and
then HTML Tidy. You also created this page with either MS-Word or
FrontPage (btw, Mso is a prefix indicating/meaning Microsoft Office),
both products are known to produce invalid (markup and CSS) code and tag
soup, that is even according to Microsoft developers themselves.

Your page uses an enormous amount of absolutely positioned elements and
relatively positioned elements for no good/recommendable reasons
whatsoever. Also there are many other CSS declarations which are
useless, unneeded.
If you're not an experienced web developer, than I suggest you stay away
from absolute positioning, relatively positioning and line-height
declarations.

"Do not specify the font-size in pt, or other absolute length units.
They render inconsistently across platforms and can't be resized by the
User Agent (e.g browser).
Use relative length units such as percent (...)"
W3C Quality Assurance tips for webmasters
Care With Font Size: Recommended Practices
Good usage of CSS's font properties
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/font-size

(1): http://www.w3.org/QA/2002/04/valid-dtd-list.html
I recommend HTML 4.01 strict:
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

IEDesigner wrote :

"Steve Pugh" <st**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

IEDesigner wrote:

[snipped]
In your world IE is losing
ground,
Yes. In May 2002, Onestat measured IE usage to be 96.6% worldwide. Since
then, IE has lost support.

Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html

Consider that, at one point, in mid-2004, *_pretty much everyone_*
(security experts, columnists) was inviting web users to use something
else than MSIE 6. Even the Computer Emergency Readiness Team, a
department of US Homeland Security:

"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml
was written by Daniel Miessle who claims

"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:

http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

"our data, collected over a five year period, clearly shows the long and
medium-term trends."

IE 5.x for Mac is no longer maintained. What do you expect these users
(representing admittedly maybe 0.5% of users worldwide) to do when they
will want to upgrade either their browser or os or both? My bet is that
they will choose either Camino 1.x or Safari 2.x or Icab 3.x. They won't
upgrade to Windows Vista.

Just hypothetically speaking, if Linux users stats increase, then we
should normally see a decrease of IE stats, shouldn't we? Now, do you
know how much Windows Vista will cost, will be priced at? I'm just
asking hypothetical questions here.

When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.
in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me people
who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption but I
see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of content not
because of browser preference.

Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Jimmy]

Gérard Talbot wrote:

IEDesigner wrote :

"Steve Pugh" <st**********@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:11**********************@f14g2000cwb.googlegr oups.com...

IEDesigner wrote:

[snipped]

In your world IE is losing
ground,

Yes. In May 2002, Onestat measured IE usage to be 96.6% worldwide. Since
then, IE has lost support.

Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html

Consider that, at one point, in mid-2004, *_pretty much everyone_*
(security experts, columnists) was inviting web users to use something
else than MSIE 6. Even the Computer Emergency Readiness Team, a
department of US Homeland Security:

"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml

was written by Daniel Miessle who claims

"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:

http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

"our data, collected over a five year period, clearly shows the long and
medium-term trends."

IE 5.x for Mac is no longer maintained. What do you expect these users
(representing admittedly maybe 0.5% of users worldwide) to do when they
will want to upgrade either their browser or os or both? My bet is that
they will choose either Camino 1.x or Safari 2.x or Icab 3.x. They won't
upgrade to Windows Vista.

Just hypothetically speaking, if Linux users stats increase, then we
should normally see a decrease of IE stats, shouldn't we? Now, do you
know how much Windows Vista will cost, will be priced at? I'm just
asking hypothetical questions here.

When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.

in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me
people
who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption
but I
see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of
content not
because of browser preference.

Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

I use mosaic

[Dan]

Gérard Talbot wrote:

Dan, I've been linking your site from my webiste for over a year now.
I admit some of your articles have helped me :)

Thanks... glad you like it!

--
Dan

[VK]

Ge'rard Talbot wrote:

in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me people
who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption but I
see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of content not
because of browser preference.

Absolutely. And as you already noticed it is highly dependent on what
server stats are we looking at.

If say it's some Sally's Flowers Online (bogus business name) in San
Francisco when you lucky to get 1% of something besides IE 6.0

ACME, Inc. in the same city may give you up to 10% - or the same 1% -
depending on the business type.

Further to East variety arises but not dramatically - and again highly
dependant on the content type.

Europe gives you some increase of alternative UA's especially in
Germany (because Netscape promotion was / is nearly state politics
there).

Obscure "new Europe" and Russia are not studied yet well, but seems to
keep the variety increase trend.

China - after they really started with anti-piracy - is moving to Linux
(thus Firefox) so quickly that Microsoft is in worry and making their
"Windows for poors" which seems to be ignored though (and no surprise).

Japan is traditionally high on Macintosh, so a lot of Safary of last
versions should be expected.

Again: everything is highly relative.
Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Right, right and right again. The browser market needs a good cleanup
this year. After the Netscape defeat in The Browser Wars we've got way
too many of what I call "pity parasites". Way too many sloppy or
"alternatively thinking" (besides being sloppy) browsers got in the
warm niche under the slogan "Support us or it will be a Micro$oft
world". OK, we've supported them for how many years? 6? 7? 8? It is the
time to ask for some results. The reason "I'm existing so I have to be
supported" doesn't go anymore IMHO.
There was a whole army of developers right after The Browser Wars who
spent 3-4 years continuosly day-by-day making incompatible (often
intentionally incompatible) things to work together. So they kept doing
it automatically for a while even after that Netscape (do not mix whith
this netscape) was gone - even without financial stimulus. Overall it
was great because I see this as the only (or at least the main) reason
why Opera and Mozilla Project could survive in the in-between time.
But now there is W3C way and Microsoft way (not totally opposite, not
at all). There is Mozilla Foundation and Internet Explorer. i) So
please shoose either side and be at least as good. ii) You want to
start a 3rd way - you are welcome. Glad to support you - after you
accomplish the stage i) - and then start to be better than they are.
Until then do not bother me.

To OP's question:

My test list:

Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher under Windows 98 SE or higher *
Firefox 1.5 or higher for all supported platforms *
Camino 1.0 or higher for Mac OS X 10.0.2 or higher **
Opera 8.5 or higher for all supported platform ***

Any other browsers are out of my support or interest. Their users have
to choose from the list above.
Any older versions are out of my support or interest. Their users have
finally to find 10 minutes to make free upgrade of their current
browser.

* In the reality I test only under Windows 98 SE and Windows XP SP1,
but if something reported for other platform I'm trying to fix it.
** I don't have Mac OS X test machine but always glad to correct
something if reported.
*** Opera is really a "personality addon" here because this browser
stays on the border line of presence, especially in the US. I just like
this browser as being the first one who introduced the very idea of the
"3rd path" - when there was nothing but NN 4 and IE 4. So let's us say
this way: I support it as long as its support doesn't require a
significant solution change.

[VK]

Ge'rard Talbot wrote:

in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me people
who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption but I
see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of content not
because of browser preference.

Absolutely. And as you already noticed it is highly dependent on what
server stats are we looking at.

If say it's some Sally's Flowers Online (bogus business name) in LA
when you are lucky to get 1% of something besides IE 6.0

ACME, Inc. in the same city may give you up to 10% - or the same 1% -
depending on the business type.

Further to East variety arises but not dramatically - and again highly
dependant on the content type.

Europe gives you some further increase of alternative UA's especially
in Germany (because Netscape promotion was / is nearly state politics
there).

Obscure "new Europe" and Russia are not studied yet well, but seems to
keep the variety increase trend.

China - after they really started with anti-piracy - is moving to Linux
(thus Firefox) so quickly that Microsoft is in worry and making their
"Windows for poors" which seems to be ignored though (and no surprise).

Japan is traditionally high on Macintosh, so a lot of Safary of last
versions should be expected.

Again: everything is highly relative.
Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Right, right and right again. The browser market needs a good cleanup.
After the Netscape defeat in The Browser Wars we've got way too many of
what I call "pity parasites". Way too many sloppy or "alternatively
thinking" (besides being sloppy) browsers got in the warm niche under
the slogan "Support us or it will be a Micro$oft world". OK, we've
supported them for how many years? 6? 7? 8? It is the time to ask for
some results. The reason "I'm existing so I have to be supported"
doesn't go anymore IMHO.
There was a whole army of developers right after The Browser Wars who
spent 3-4 years continuosly day-by-day making incompatible (often
intentionally incompatible) things to work together. So they kept doing
it automatically for a while even after that Netscape was gone (do not
mix whith this netscape) - even without financial stimulus. Overall it
was great because I see this as the only (or at least on the main)
reason why Opera and Mozilla Project could survive in the in-between
time.
But now there is W3C way and Microsoft way (not totally opposite - not
at all). There is Mozilla Foundation and Internet Explorer. i) So
please shoose either side and be at least as good. ii) You want to
start a 3rd way - you are welcome. Glad to support you - after you
accomplish the stage i) - and then start to be better than they are.
Until then do not bother me.

To OP's question:

My test list:

Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher under Windows 98 SE or higher *
Firefox 1.5 or higher for all supported platforms *
Camino 1.0 or higher for Mac OS X 10.0.2 or higher **
Opera 8.5 or higher for all supported platform ***

Any other browsers are out of my support or interest. Their users have
to choose from the list above.
Any older versions are out of my support or interest. Their users have
finally to find 10 minutes to make a free upgrade of their current
browser.

* In the reality I test only under Windows 98 SE and Windows XP SP1,
but if something is reported for other platform I'm trying to fix it.
** I don't have Mac OS X test machine but always glad to correct
something if reported.
*** Opera is really a "personality addon" here because this browser
stays on the border line of presence, especially in the US. I just like
this browser as being the first one who introduced the very idea of the
"3rd path" - when there was nothing but NN 4 and IE 4. So let's us say
this way: I support it as long as its support doesn't require a
significant solution change.

[IEDesigner]

"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

IEDesigner wrote :

And I can't think of any WIN
OS where the browser can't be upgraded unless it's WIN95 or earlier. You
must be referring to people using 486DX's on a 14.4K modem.

This is interesting. Since January 1st 2006, New-Zealand government
passed an accessibility law that requires that a website still be
accessible to 9.6K modem. Personally, I think such law makes a lot of
sense.
There are more and more small web-aware devices or web applications with
limited bandwidth being created these days.

And if they are
using an outdated computer there's very little chance that they can afford to by anything online. Total rubbish.
IEDesigner

Windows 98, Windows ME, Windows 2000 users will not be able to upgrade
their browser to IE 7: that's an official commitment from Microsoft.
Now, what do you propose that these users which will be representing
from 10% to 40% of the web in the next 5 years do in terms of privacy,
security, usability features that IE 7 will offer but that they won't be
able to have in IE 6? They'll either have to switch to browsers like
Firefox, Opera or upgrade their os. There won't be much other choice.
If they choose to switch browsers, then in my opinion, they'll make a
much better choice since Firefox 1.5 and Opera 8.52 are currently better
browsers than IE 7 beta 2.

Gérard

New Zealand accessibility laws are confined to New Zealand. But even with a
9.6K modem large downloads are not impossible, just slow. In addition some
browsers are available on disk for free or for a nominal sum. I don't know
how you define "limited bandwith". There may be a market for devices with
limited bandwidth but as I see it current trends indicate that the public
wants devices with greater and greater bandwidth but that might not be the
case where you live. I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7. Only
Nostradamus would make predictions about what might happen in the next five
years. I respect your right to voice an opinion about what you consider to
be a better browser. To be clear, I have only ever said that IE is the most
widely used browser.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

IEDesigner wrote :

Unless you're name is Nostradamus the future is uncertain. In any case I
doubt tables will break in IE7. You have my blessing to ridicule me for
using tables.

This is not a criticism but this notion that standards will somehow make
sites future proof is laughable. Nothing in the wide world of computers is completely future proof nor will it ever be. I've got a suggestion for
devotees to standards. Use plain text and your sites will be future proof, that is of course until such time as ASCII is no longer valid.
IEDesigner
I'd personally go with iso-HTML (iso 15445) instead of ascii.

In the last 8 years (basically the whole web history as we know it),
each and all new browser releases, all new browser versions that have
been released have all been more compliant with W3C web standards than
the ones before. Each and all main browser manufacturers (and minor ones
like, say, Icab, Dillo, etc.) have all renewed their commitment, loud
and clear, to support and implement W3C web standards. Why should we
assume and conclude that new/future browsers and/or new browser releases
will not be *_more_* compliant to W3C web standards than previous
browser releases? (3) Therefore why should we conclude that writing
according to W3C web standards (HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, DOM 2) is not
future-proof, forward-compatible, is not the most sound, reliable way to
write for multiple browsers, diverse web-aware devices, different media?

(1): "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that
fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 (
2.1, once it's been Recommended)." Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team

manager http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

(2): "We have stated that IE will return to a frequent and regular
release cycle with IE7 so you can rest assured that you will not have to
wait another 5 years for the next version. We have also stated a
commitment to W3C standards and IE7 is a clear and significant step
towards delivering firstly on the key demands of web developers. Full
CSS2.1 support will however have to wait for a future release."
Dave Massy, IE manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive...62.aspx#530187

(3): "When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows back in 1996,
we had the first CSS implementation out there in a mass-market web
browser. (I personally wrote the code for that support.) (...)
Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."
Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Gérard

The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

Ed Mullen wrote :

IEDesigner wrote:

[snipped]

You use a browser? I thought you just laid hands on your monitor.
Probably
works better than any browser you would call current.
IEDesigner

Sigh. Ok, someone please tell me why we are still reading and replying
to this person? Some dose of nonsense is sometimes fun but, geez, after
a while, even that gets old. As has this. I hope it lives in a state
with liberal gun laws. I know I do. Someone, please, either shoot him
or shoot me. This is untenable.

Personal attacks, bashing and ad hominem arguements have no place in
newsgroups.

But, on the other hand, we should welcome rational discussions on
complying with web standards when making webpages. As long as a wide
majority of webpages do not comply with web standards and/or use
proprietary DOM or proprietary markup code, then such discussion is
welcomed and makes sense.

HTML was thought and designed to be browser-independent,
device-independent, media-independent, just like, say, Rich-Text-Format
language. HTML is a language used to describe the structure of a
document. Browser bugs, browser support for HTML/CSS/DOM and incorrect
browser implementations of properties/attributes/methods are things
which are being addressed by all major browser manufacturers, including
Microsoft.

The arguments brought by IEDesigner are still mostly based on stats,
therefore rather fragile.

Gérard

No joking around for you hey? Thank you for acknowledging the stats I
referred too.
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

IEDesigner wrote :

You probably (almost certainly?) attract visitors who's taste in browsers is similar to yours. The stats I referred to don't suffer from such skewing. IEDesigner

Most of the "obscure" browsers, as you call them, have user agent string
spoofing capabilities which, in fact, often fool web stats. When user
agent string spoofing happens, it is "obscur" browsers which disguise
themselves as IE6 rather than the opposite. So, for sure, web stats
underestimate the number of browsers like Safari and Icab and other
"obscur" browsers.

It is widely admitted and recognized that browser trends based on
several months (span) is the most important and reliable information.
And I do claim that IE 5+ browser share is diminishing, not increasing.

Gérard

Is it a spoof that all PC's with WIN have IE preinstalled? The stats I see
do not agree with your assumptions about market share:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
IEDesigner

[IEDesigner]

"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

<snip>

Internet Explorer 95.3, Mozilla 0.4 (Published: June 24, 2002)
http://news.com.com/2100-1023-938784.html
<snip>
"Internet Exploder will harm your machine
Wednesday 30 June 2004, 13:54
THE US GOVERNMENT has sent out a warning out to internet users through
its Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), pleading users to stop
using Microsoft's Internet Explorer."
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=16922
and you can read it all and all by yourself here:
http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/713878

Why You Should Dump Internet Explorer
http://channels.lockergnome.com/news...explorer.phtml was written by Daniel Miessle who claims
"I'm actually an MCSE and I happen to like quite a few of Microsoft's
products. Rather than lump me into the Microsoft-basher category,
consider for a moment why you use the browser you use"

Firefox usage, as measured by 5 webstats corporations around the world,
has been steadily increasing since its 1.0 release in november 2004:
http://ff.asbjorn.it/#h6

Browser Statistics at w3schools
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
<snip>
When IE 7 is released, what do you expect current Windows 98, Windows
ME, Windows 2000 users to do? They won't be able to install IE 7. So, if
they want to upgrade their browser to the same level of features
(privacy, security, speed, W3C web standards compliance/correctness,
browser extensions, etc.) of IE 7, then they'll have a choice with Opera
9.x, Firefox 1.x, Seamonkey 1.x, etc.

in the world at large it's 90% IMO and in the opinion of everyone I
talk to. I don't know what you call astute users but I assume you me people who don't use IE. I have no data to support or refute that assumption but I see no correlation between spending and browser preference and I don't
require my visitors to be astute. People visit sites because of content not because of browser preference.

Absolutely. We agree on this. If you visit my website, you'll see that I
honor MSIE 6 as well as I honor any HTML 4.01/CSS2.1/DOM2
compliant/CSS1-box-model compliant browsers. But then, I'm not
responsible for browsers which lack proper PNG support, good DOM 2
support, HTML 4.01 support, complete CSS 2.1 support, correct CSS1 box
model, etc..

Gérard

My name is not Nostradamus so I have no idea how much such and such OS will
cost. Pose real questions and I might answer them. If my name were
Nostradamus I would predict that if any other browser even comes close
equaling IE market share it will have just as many attacks launched on it.
The stats you reference reflect the preference of visitors who are
interested in browsers other than IE. My stats come from here:
https://dongtaiwang.com/dm/uggc/jjj....gre.pbz/fgngf/
IEDesigner

[Gérard Talbot]

IEDesigner wrote :

"Gérard Talbot" <ne***********@gtalbot.org> wrote in message
news:46************@uni-berlin.de...

IEDesigner wrote :

Unless you're name is Nostradamus the future is uncertain. In any case I
doubt tables will break in IE7. You have my blessing to ridicule me for
using tables.

This is not a criticism but this notion that standards will somehow make
sites future proof is laughable. Nothing in the wide world of computers is completely future proof nor will it ever be. I've got a suggestion for
devotees to standards. Use plain text and your sites will be future proof, that is of course until such time as ASCII is no longer valid.
IEDesigner

I'd personally go with iso-HTML (iso 15445) instead of ascii.

In the last 8 years (basically the whole web history as we know it),
each and all new browser releases, all new browser versions that have
been released have all been more compliant with W3C web standards than
the ones before. Each and all main browser manufacturers (and minor ones
like, say, Icab, Dillo, etc.) have all renewed their commitment, loud
and clear, to support and implement W3C web standards. Why should we
assume and conclude that new/future browsers and/or new browser releases
will not be *_more_* compliant to W3C web standards than previous
browser releases? (3) Therefore why should we conclude that writing
according to W3C web standards (HTML 4.01, CSS 2.1, DOM 2) is not
future-proof, forward-compatible, is not the most sound, reliable way to
write for multiple browsers, diverse web-aware devices, different media?

(1): "I want to be clear that our intent is to build a platform that
fully complies with the appropriate web standards, in particular CSS 2 (
2.1, once it's been Recommended)." Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team

manager

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/07/29/445242.aspx

(2): "We have stated that IE will return to a frequent and regular
release cycle with IE7 so you can rest assured that you will not have to
wait another 5 years for the next version. We have also stated a
commitment to W3C standards and IE7 is a clear and significant step
towards delivering firstly on the key demands of web developers. Full
CSS2.1 support will however have to wait for a future release."
Dave Massy, IE manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive...62.aspx#530187

(3): "When we released Internet Explorer 3.0 for Windows back in 1996,
we had the first CSS implementation out there in a mass-market web
browser. (I personally wrote the code for that support.) (...)
Additionally, with every subsequent major release of IE, we have
expanded and improved our implementation of web standards, particularly
CSS and HTML."
Chris Wilson, IE7 lead dev. team manager
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/03/09/391362.aspx

Gérard

The future can be described in one word "maybe". You have your
interpretation of the future and I have mine.
IEDesigner

I did not interpret the quotes from D. Massy and C. Wilson.

The past behavior of all subsequent browser releases from major and
minor browser manufacturers in the last 8 years regarding web standards
support and web standards compliance/conformance/correctness is not an
interpretation: it's something anyone/everyone can verify and measure
reliably.
Your opinion and conclusion go against such undeniable trend.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me

[Gérard Talbot]

IEDesigner wrote :

I didn't find anything on the MS site about using IE7
on WIN OS's prior to XP. In any event I did not specify IE7.

I am saying that IE7 will NOT be available for Windows 98, Windows ME
and Windows 2000 users. Those users will have to upgrade their browsers
with something else than IE7.

Gérard
--
remove blah to email me