By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
438,624 Members | 2,229 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 438,624 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

I Really Like Mozilla

P: n/a
I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nice
work you Mozilla developers, you!
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really
well especially compared with IE?
And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
It's like a world of difference.
....I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)

--
OPENSOURCE/FREE CAD/3D/GIS/ETC. SOLUTIONS/INFO:
..Why Software Should Not Have Owners: www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
..Brl CAD http://ftp.arl.mil/brlcad
..Q CAD www.qcad.org/index.php3
..FreeCAD www.askoh.com/freecad
..Varkon CAD www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/help/varkon/man.htm
..Art Of Illusion http://aoi.sourceforge.net
..Blender www.blender.org
..Wings www.wings3d.com
..Persistence of Vision www.povray.org
..Grass GIS http://grass.itc.it
..Info www.opensource.org
..Repository www.sourceforge.net
..3d File Converter http://home.europa.com/~keithr

Jul 20 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
35 Replies


P: n/a
(Richard in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nice
work you Mozilla developers, you!
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really
well especially compared with IE?
And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
It's like a world of difference.
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)


Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)

Tilman
--
Der statistische Tote ist dir eal. Der stochastische Tote bist du selber.
Jul 20 '05 #2

P: n/a
"Richard" <so**@where.com> wrote in message news:<U3********************@news04.bloor.is.net.c able.rogers.com>...
I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nice
work you Mozilla developers, you!
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really
well especially compared with IE?
Mozilla does everything better than IE.
And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
It's like a world of difference.
You do realise it's now your duty as a Mozilla user to persuade all
your friends to switch to it? And get them to persuade their friends
and so on...
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)


No-one codes for Mozilla - they code 'for' the standards and Mozilla
just happens to implement the standards properly. If all browsers
supported the standards properly (I hear Opera's making good progress)
then we wouldn't have any more of these 'code for' debates.

--- Stephen Morley ---
http://www.safalra.com
Jul 20 '05 #3

P: n/a
In article
<U3********************@news04.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Richard <so**@where.com>
wrote:
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really
well especially compared with IE?
Well, yes, of course. Errors in Mozilla coding are just that,
errors. "Errors" in MS coding are frequently part of Microsoft's
strategy to subvert any open standard.
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)


Glad to see the smiley. You should know that coding "for" _any_
browser is a mistake. Code to the standard, then decide which
browser bugs are so bad (on such popular browsers) that you have to
make compromises to code around them.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #4

P: n/a
"Tilman Hesse"
"Richard"
I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nicework you Mozilla developers, you!
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code reallywell especially compared with IE?
And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
It's like a world of difference.
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)


Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)


You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed. If so,
again, a world of difference.
To see why I'm inclined to think so:
..Why Software Should Not Have Owners: www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
Jul 20 '05 #5

P: n/a
"Safalra"
"Richard"
You do realise it's now your duty as a Mozilla user to persuade all
your friends to switch to it? And get them to persuade their friends
and so on...


I can influence their decision, but they'll have to persuade themselves. ;-)
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)


No-one codes for Mozilla - they code 'for' the standards and Mozilla
just happens to implement the standards properly. If all browsers
supported the standards properly (I hear Opera's making good progress)
then we wouldn't have any more of these 'code for' debates.


You know it.
Jul 20 '05 #6

P: n/a
"Stan Brown"
"Richard"
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code reallywell especially compared with IE?


Well, yes, of course. Errors in Mozilla coding are just that,
errors. "Errors" in MS coding are frequently part of Microsoft's
strategy to subvert any open standard.
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)


Glad to see the smiley. You should know that coding "for" _any_
browser is a mistake. Code to the standard, then decide which
browser bugs are so bad (on such popular browsers) that you have to
make compromises to code around them.


Ya, I know; I just reluctantly and with irritation crammed a table into a
div.
Jul 20 '05 #7

P: n/a
"Richard" <so**@where.com> wrote in
news:eL****************@news01.bloor.is.net.cable. rogers.com:
"Tilman Hesse"
"Richard"
>I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and
>wow...
>Nice work you Mozilla developers, you!
>And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS
>code really
>well especially compared with IE?
>And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
>It's like a world of difference.
>...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)
Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)

You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed.
If so, again, a world of difference.
To see why I'm inclined to think so:
.Why Software Should Not Have Owners:
www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html


Why are you posting with Outlook Express if you do not like Closed
Source Software? Mozilla has a newsreader you know...

In any case, the point is to code for the www and not for specific
browsers - closed source or not.

--
Kayode Okeyode
http://www.kayodeok.co.uk/weblog/
Jul 20 '05 #8

P: n/a
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:45:46 GMT, Richard <so**@where.com> wrote:
"Tilman Hesse" ...
Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)

You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed. If so,
again, a world of difference.
Sure, with Opera you can get support if you pay $39, otherwise you have to
rely on the user community to help you in newsgroups or web forums. Oh
wait, it's the same for Mozilla...

Yeah, I sure know the differences, but for most end users, it doesn't
matter much. Both Opera and Mozilla are continuously being developed,
while MSIE is just an add-on to an OS and is treated as such.
To see why I'm inclined to think so:
.Why Software Should Not Have Owners:
www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html


Lovely piece. But not convincing.

--
Rijk van Geijtenbeek

The Web is a procrastination apparatus:
It can absorb as much time as is required to ensure that you
won't get any real work done. - J.Nielsen
Jul 20 '05 #9

P: n/a
Stan Brown wrote:
Code to the standard, then decide which
browser bugs are so bad (on such popular browsers) that you have to
make compromises to code around them.


Or better yet, report a bug. Working around bugs only leads to too much
code.

Jul 20 '05 #10

P: n/a
"kayodeok"
"Richard"
"Tilman Hesse"
"Richard"
>I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and
>wow...
>Nice work you Mozilla developers, you!
>And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS
>code really
>well especially compared with IE?
>And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
>It's like a world of difference.
>...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)

Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)
You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed.
If so, again, a world of difference.
To see why I'm inclined to think so:
.Why Software Should Not Have Owners:
www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html


Why are you posting with Outlook Express if you do not like Closed
Source Software? Mozilla has a newsreader you know...


Ah, so Opera is closed source then?
....Well I just downloaded and installed Moz last week and there are so many
seconds in the day.
And I still use WXP, but that, too, is likely to change... probably somewhat
painfully.
In any case, the point is to code for the www and not for specific
browsers - closed source or not.


That's debateable, and there's an irony or two in there somewhere, but point
taken.
Jul 20 '05 #11

P: n/a
"Rijk van Geijtenbeek"
"Tilman Hesse" ..
Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)
You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed. If so,
again, a world of difference.


Sure, with Opera you can get support if you pay $39, otherwise you have to
rely on the user community to help you in newsgroups or web forums. Oh
wait, it's the same for Mozilla...


Are you saying that Moz support is $39 too? Fair enough.. I imagine that
it's also free depending on where you go. Likewise for Opera.
I've gotten far better service- and software- that was free, oddly enough.
Depending on the license, you may also be able to charge for Moz.
Yeah, I sure know the differences, but for most end users, it doesn't
matter much.
I guess, like me, they just need to have a software company "reverse pirate"
their license back.
Both Opera and Mozilla are continuously being developed,
while MSIE is just an add-on to an OS and is treated as such.


I tried to uninstall it. ;-)
To see why I'm inclined to think so:
.Why Software Should Not Have Owners:
www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html


Lovely piece. But not convincing.


Well, it helps of course to use the software to make a more informed
opinion/decision.
Jul 20 '05 #12

P: n/a
In article <op**************@news.individual.net> in
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets, Rijk van Geijtenbeek
<ri**@opera.com> wrote:
Sure, with Opera you can get support if you pay $39


That was not my experience. I paid, and I did not get support.
Questions went unanswered and bug reports were not acknowledged.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Jul 20 '05 #13

P: n/a
(Richard in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
Ah, so Opera is closed source then?
Yes. Btw, I didn't mean to start a "my browser is better than yours
debate". Just pointing out that Opera supports CSS just as good as
Mozilla.
...Well I just downloaded and installed Moz last week and there are so many
seconds in the day.
When I said goodbye to Internet Explorer, I tried every browser I
could get for Windows. So should everybody. A browser is a tool - and
of course you want it to fit you tasks. Some hours of trying and
configuring really pay off in the long run.
Opera, K-Meleon & Lynx are still on my HD. (Plus some remains of IE)
(Mozilla didn't make it; I can't stand slow _menus_.)
And I still use WXP, but that, too, is likely to change... probably somewhat
painfully.


Mozilla and Opera are availably under Linux, too. And alternatives.
In any case, the point is to code for the www and not for specific
browsers - closed source or not.


That's debateable, and there's an irony or two in there somewhere, but point
taken.


The only problem is pixel perfect layouts. But as long as it's usable
I don't mind minor differences.

Tilman
--
Der statistische Tote ist dir eal. Der stochastische Tote bist du selber.
Jul 20 '05 #14

P: n/a
Tim
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 11:30:23 +0100,
Tilman Hesse <ti***@1.invalid> wrote:
Opera, K-Meleon & Lynx are still on my HD. (Plus some remains of IE)
(Mozilla didn't make it; I can't stand slow _menus_.)


How long ago did you try Mozilla? The first time I tried it, it was
incredibly slow. Later versions improved a lot. The version I'm using
at the moment would see to draw menus the same as anything else.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #15

P: n/a
On Thu, 27 Nov 2003 17:45:46 GMT, "Richard" <so**@where.com> wrote:
"Tilman Hesse"
"Richard"
>I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow...Nice >work you Mozilla developers, you!
>And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS codereally >well especially compared with IE?
>And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
>It's like a world of difference.
>...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)
Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)

You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed. If so,
again, a world of difference.


Is the code in your phone open source? Your television? Your CD player?
Somehow I doubt it. Do they work satisfactorily? Probably. The issue is
not open source versus closed source, but standards-compliance versus
the sloppiness[1] that an organisation can only get away with if it
possesses a monopoly.

Mozilla and Opera are both fine; Opera probably has slightly more bugs,
but I prefer its user interface.

[1] Or even, possibly, malice.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #16

P: n/a
(Tim in comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets)
Opera, K-Meleon & Lynx are still on my HD. (Plus some remains of IE)
(Mozilla didn't make it; I can't stand slow _menus_.)


How long ago did you try Mozilla? The first time I tried it, it was
incredibly slow. Later versions improved a lot. The version I'm using
at the moment would see to draw menus the same as anything else.


The Firebird I downloaded yesterday was still that slow. Lasted half
an hour on my HD, just to test the life-http headers. Well, K-Meleon
shows server response without any extra plugins. (And has fast menus)

Tilman
--
Der statistische Tote ist dir eal. Der stochastische Tote bist du selber.
Jul 20 '05 #17

P: n/a
"Stephen Poley"
"Richard"
"Tilman Hesse"
"Richard"
>I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nice work you Mozilla developers, you! >And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really well especially compared with IE? >And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"... It's like a world of difference. >...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)

Yeah, me and my Opera7 will happily follow :-)
You and your closed source Opera7?
From what I understand, Mozilla is open source, Opera's closed. If so,
again, a world of difference.


Is the code in your phone open source? Your television? Your CD player?


So are you saying that you're okay with having your phone, tv and
CD-player's screws replaced with permanent rivets, welds and locks that only
the manufactures can open?
Somehow I doubt it.
That seems like a different sort of code or app or an apple-orange kind of
comparison, but even so, if I recall correctly, Linux is finding its way
into these kinds of things.
Your cell's now a camera and PDA.
I also listen to open source music from the internet, and, as I mentioned on
alt.architecture, the magazine "Archis is Open Source". :-)
Do they work satisfactorily? Probably. The issue is
not open source versus closed source, but standards-compliance versus
the sloppiness[1] that an organisation can only get away with if it
possesses a monopoly.


That seems to support some of the reasons for why I like open source.
Jul 20 '05 #18

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nice
work you Mozilla developers, you!
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really
well especially compared with IE?
And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
It's like a world of difference.
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)
--
OPENSOURCE/FREE CAD/3D/GIS/ETC. SOLUTIONS/INFO:
.Why Software Should Not Have Owners: www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
.Brl CAD http://ftp.arl.mil/brlcad
.Q CAD www.qcad.org/index.php3
.FreeCAD www.askoh.com/freecad
.Varkon CAD www.mathematik.uni-ulm.de/help/varkon/man.htm
.Art Of Illusion http://aoi.sourceforge.net
.Blender www.blender.org
.Wings www.wings3d.com
.Persistence of Vision www.povray.org
.Grass GIS http://grass.itc.it
.Info www.opensource.org
.Repository www.sourceforge.net
.3d File Converter http://home.europa.com/~keithr


Where is your question?
If anybody would start posting threads "I like pets" or smth similar
here with no constructive questions-answers then what would newsgroups
turn into...
More horribble ius the behaviour of people who answered to this thread
by encouraging others to post such styled postings
This is funny what signature you posted - 14 lines and 545, more than
half kilobyte useless text.
If you were so into open-source and Linux thing the you would also know
howto delimit and write a signature thing. With such signatures you dont
make good to the idea of free software, on the contrary, such
annoyance makes people turn away from people spreading that spam,
resulting in prejudice about open-free software. Think about it first.

Jul 20 '05 #19

P: n/a
"Marek Mänd"
"Richard"
I finally got Mozilla installed and running just last week and wow... Nice work you Mozilla developers, you!
And is it just me or does Mozilla really interpret/execute CSS code really well especially compared with IE?
And those browsing tabs, and "realtime fluid resizing"...
It's like a world of difference.
...I am tempted to code just for Mozilla and IE be damned. ;-)
Where is your question?
There is a question.
If anybody would start posting threads "I like pets"
I have allergies to some pets, but so far I'm okay with Mozilla.

Coding for IE gives me a rash, though.
More horribble ius the behaviour of people who answered to this thread
by encouraging others to post such styled postings
Like yours? ;-)
This is funny what signature you posted - 14 lines and 545, more than
half kilobyte useless text.
I hardly use it, but point taken.
If you were so into open-source and Linux thing the you would also know
howto delimit and write a signature thing.
I am getting into it gradually, but one day I hope to be, like, "so into
open source"- something that is in large part about freedom and community.
With such signatures you dont make good to the idea of free software, on the contrary, such annoyance makes people turn away from people spreading that spam,
resulting in prejudice about open-free software.
Does the open source community really need those who are that
impressionable?
Think about it first.


I have, will continue to do so, and appreciate your input, even if someone
else might consider it somewhat off-topic. ;-)
Jul 20 '05 #20

P: n/a
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:43:25 +0200, Marek Mänd <ca********@mail.ee>
wrote:
Where is your question?
If anybody would start posting threads "I like pets" or smth similar
here with no constructive questions-answers then what would newsgroups
turn into...


OTOH the same applies to people who only post to complain about other
people's postings. This appears to be your first post in the group. I
suggest you leave any correction - should it be needed - to the regular
participants.

I don't want to appear unduly negative though - it's nice to see someone
here from Estonia.

--
Stephen Poley

http://www.xs4all.nl/~sbpoley/webmatters/
Jul 20 '05 #21

P: n/a
This is funny what signature you posted - 14 lines and 545, more than
half kilobyte useless text.


.... which you quoted in full. That used more bandwidth than his message.
Kettle, you are black, says the pot.
Jul 20 '05 #22

P: n/a
Richard wrote:

Does the open source community really need those who are that
impressionable?


The Open Source community needs to make a choice between evangalizing
and exclusivity.

--
Joel.

Jul 20 '05 #23

P: n/a
"Joel Shepherd"
"Richard"

Does the open source community really need those who are that
impressionable?


The Open Source community needs to make a choice between evangalizing
and exclusivity.


How do you mean?
I see it more along a continuum of choices for everyone- which, for me at
least, might include proprietary in 'some' cases.
Speaking of open source- or at least open- from what I understand, CSS is an
open standard, and the internet, itself, is based on them.

"Ignored for a long time by many developers, standards such as HTTP, HTML or
XML are at the very core of the success of the Web.
The current trend of stressing standards compliance on the Web is not due to
chance: they are a win-win for all participants."
-- W3C
Jul 20 '05 #24

P: n/a
On Mon, 1 Dec 2003, Richard wrote:
Speaking of open source- or at least open- from what I understand, CSS is an
open standard, and the internet, itself, is based on them.
It's an open _interworking_ specification. It doesn't matter, as far
as the protocols are concerned, whether the servers at the one end,
and the clients at the other, are open-source or proprietary, as long
as they adhere to the interworking rules.

Hint: not all vendors of proprietary software hold an effective
monopoly. That more or less determines whether they can afford to
thumb their noses at the specifications (basically, only one can get
away with that) or not.
"Ignored for a long time by many developers, standards such as HTTP,
HTML or XML are at the very core of the success of the Web. The
current trend of stressing standards compliance on the Web is not
due to chance: they are a win-win for all participants."


One player clearly doesn't think so. "hence or otherwise deduce..."
Jul 20 '05 #25

P: n/a
"Alan J. Flavell"
"Richard"
Speaking of open source- or at least open- from what I understand, CSS is an open standard, and the internet, itself, is based on them.
It's an open _interworking_ specification. It doesn't matter, as far
as the protocols are concerned, whether the servers at the one end,
and the clients at the other, are open-source or proprietary, as long
as they adhere to the interworking rules.

Hint: not all vendors of proprietary software hold an effective
monopoly. That more or less determines whether they can afford to
thumb their noses at the specifications (basically, only one can get
away with that) or not.
"Ignored for a long time by many developers, standards such as HTTP,
HTML or XML are at the very core of the success of the Web. The
current trend of stressing standards compliance on the Web is not
due to chance: they are a win-win for all participants."


One player clearly doesn't think so. "hence or otherwise deduce..."


Thanks for the elaboration.
Jul 20 '05 #26

P: n/a
Richard wrote:
"Joel Shepherd"
"Richard"
Does the open source community really need those who are that
impressionable?
The Open Source community needs to make a choice between
evangalizing and exclusivity.


How do you mean?


Well, in the immediate context, I mean there is a disconnect between
posting an long sig full of links to (as stated) open source software
and then asserting the open source community has no need for anyone
who might object to an overly long sig of any sort. As a
representative of the open source community, are you trying to be
inclusive or exclusive?
I see it more along a continuum of choices for everyone- which, for
me at least, might include proprietary in 'some' cases. Speaking
of open source- or at least open- from what I understand, CSS is an
open standard, and the internet, itself, is based on them.
Sure. But open standards and open source are not synonomous. Open
standards are about ensuring interoperability, which personally I
think is a fine objective. Open source is basically a system of
production (of software). As it happens, open source software
generally adheres to open standards, and arguably has more to gain
from doing so than does closed-source software.

There's no reason, however, that closed source software can't adhere
to open standards. Should the Internet community turn its nose up at
Opera, because Opera is closed source ... even though it does a fine
job of sticking to open standards (ignoring bugs, which are not the
same as willfully flouting them)?
The current trend of stressing standards compliance on the Web is
not due to chance: they are a win-win for all participants." -- W3C


Sure. Even the closed-source ones. Open standards != open source.

--
Joel.

Jul 20 '05 #27

P: n/a
> "Richard"
"Joel Shepherd"
"Richard"

Does the open source community really need those who are that
impressionable?

The Open Source community needs to make a choice between
evangalizing and exclusivity.
How do you mean?


Well, in the immediate context, I mean there is a disconnect between
posting an long sig full of links to (as stated) open source software
and then asserting the open source community has no need for anyone
who might object to an overly long sig of any sort. As a
representative of the open source community, are you trying to be
inclusive or exclusive?


To avoid open source altogether just because of some guy's "leaked" sig.?
LOL...
Sounds like self-exclusion with a weak foundation to me.
Ostensibly, the OS community is just that- a community- and different from,
say, a country club with an exclusive membership insofar, in part, as anyone
can join or quit for any reason- even one that some may find patently
ridiculous.
Mind you, if you're doing coding and are mucking about with, say the GPL in
contrary ways, that might have some repercussions that could be considered
exclusionary.
....Makes me think of SCO.
I see it more along a continuum of choices for everyone- which, for
me at least, might include proprietary in 'some' cases. Speaking
of open source- or at least open- from what I understand, CSS is an
open standard, and the internet, itself, is based on them. Sure. But open standards and open source are not synonomous.
Open standards are about ensuring interoperability, which personally I
think is a fine objective. Open source is basically a system of
production (of software). As it happens, open source software
generally adheres to open standards, and arguably has more to gain
from doing so than does closed-source software. There's no reason, however, that closed source software can't adhere
to open standards. Should the Internet community turn its nose up at
Opera, because Opera is closed source ... even though it does a fine
job of sticking to open standards (ignoring bugs, which are not the
same as willfully flouting them)?


I previously mentioned it being a 'continuum of choices for everyone'.
My browser of choice for now is Mozilla. I code HTML/CSS for it and then I
open up IE and fix the mess.
The current trend of stressing standards compliance on the Web is
not due to chance: they are a win-win for all participants." -- W3C


Sure. Even the closed-source ones. Open standards != open source.


That's fine.
Open source (and maybe open standards, too) just makes far more sense to me
so far, and for many reasons, and so I wish to continue to grant it
preference, with an open mind of course ;-) when and where possible.
Jul 20 '05 #28

P: n/a
*Richard* <so**@where.com>:

My browser of choice for now is Mozilla. I code HTML/CSS for it


Seems as if you haven't understood the principle of standards (open or not)
yet, if you're coding for a specific target that is not the standard itself,
but an application built to support it.

--
Useless Fact #7:
It cost 7 million dollars to build the Titantic and 200 million to make a movie
about it!
Jul 20 '05 #29

P: n/a

"Christoph Paeper" <cr***********@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bq**********@ariadne.rz.tu-clausthal.de...
*Richard* <so**@where.com>:

My browser of choice for now is Mozilla. I code HTML/CSS for it
Seems as if you haven't understood the principle of standards (open or

not) yet, if you're coding for a specific target that is not the standard itself, but an application built to support it.


Are you splitting hairs?
Jul 20 '05 #30

P: n/a
*Richard* <so**@where.com>:
"Christoph Paeper" <cr***********@gmx.net> wrote in message
*Richard* <so**@where.com>:

Seems as if you haven't understood the principle of standards (open or not)
yet, if you're coding for a specific target that is not the standard itself,
but an application built to support it.


Are you splitting hairs?


Not this time.

--
The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy:
"He was a dreamer, a thinker, a speculative philosopher,
or, as his wife would have it, an idiot."
Jul 20 '05 #31

P: n/a
"Christoph Paeper"
*Richard*
"Christoph Paeper"
*Richard*

Seems as if you haven't understood the principle of standards (open or not) yet, if you're coding for a specific target that is not the standard itself, but an application built to support it.


Are you splitting hairs?


Not this time.


If you say so. ;->
Jul 20 '05 #32

P: n/a
Neal wrote:
"Christoph Paeper" <cr***********@gmx.net> wrote in message
news:bq**********@ariadne.rz.tu-clausthal.de...
*Richard* <so**@where.com>:

My browser of choice for now is Mozilla. I code HTML/CSS for it


Seems as if you haven't understood the principle of standards


But if no two browsers observe the standards the same way, are they
really standards?


Are you perhaps confusing standards with browser implementation? UAs
have quite a bit of leeway in how to implement some standards. There is
often no one right way, so differences will result.

For example, list items. The specs only mention indenting, not how it
gets there. Thus, some browsers indent using margin, others with
padding. Neither method is really wrong, they are just different.

That's not to say it isn't a PITA for authors sometimes, though. ;)

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #33

P: n/a
kchayka wrote:
Are you perhaps confusing standards with browser implementation? UAs
have quite a bit of leeway in how to implement some standards. There is
often no one right way, so differences will result.

For example, list items. The specs only mention indenting, not how it
gets there. Thus, some browsers indent using margin, others with
padding. Neither method is really wrong, they are just different.


This has nothing to do with "standards", the differences arise because
UA's use different default *values*. Specify all properties and all UA's
display them the same way.

--
Spartanicus
Jul 20 '05 #34

P: n/a
Neal wrote:

TVs don't choose how to interpret the signal. Radios don't drastically
differ in how the sound ends up. What do we have to do to ensure that
browsers will show us the internet in compatable ways?


Depends on your idea of "compatible". The only thing you can be sure of
is you can't ensure anything on the web. :)

Aiming for pixel-precision across browsers is futile for web media.
Shooting for acceptable results across browsers is the best one can hope
for. That only means that the content is accessible and usable, not
that it necessarily looks the same.

Your best bet for achieving this is to code to standards (preferably
with a fluid layout), but be aware of browser shortcomings. Some
tweaking may be required, especially if you have a lot of visitors using
a broken browser. Hopefully, the next release of that browser will fix
at least some of its failings and users will upgrade quickly. We can
hope so, anyway. Just don't bet money on it. ;)

Either way, if you accept the medium for what it is you may save
yourself much frustration.

--
To email a reply, remove (dash)un(dash). Mail sent to the un
address is considered spam and automatically deleted.
Jul 20 '05 #35

P: n/a
Tim
"kchayka" <kc*********@sihope.com> wrote
Are you perhaps confusing standards with browser implementation? UAs
have quite a bit of leeway in how to implement some standards. There is
often no one right way, so differences will result.
"Neal" <ne**@spamrcn.com> wrote:
What I'm saying is that if browsers don't interpret in the same way, then
authoring to standards is still largely a crap shoot.
You're really leaving things to chance, if you don't write to a common,
and predictable, specification.

For example, list items. The specs only mention indenting, not how it
gets there. Thus, some browsers indent using margin, others with
padding. Neither method is really wrong, they are just different.

That's not to say it isn't a PITA for authors sometimes, though. ;)

TVs don't choose how to interpret the signal. Radios don't drastically
differ in how the sound ends up. What do we have to do to ensure that
browsers will show us the internet in compatible ways?


But they do. TV sets have different amounts of overscan, so directors
frame shots with some allowance for that (not expecting to be able to
see right to the very edge of the frame). Colour response is different
in different sets, so designers have to learn to not be quite so
demanding (some never do, so I know of directors who'll only use
monochrome preview monitors to stop them complaining about something not
being red enough). Sound is different in different sets (less base,
more distortion, stereo versus mono versus multi-channel, etc.). That
affects how you produce things (there's no point putting dialogue only
in the rear channel, if many people will never hear it, for instance).

Author HTML properly, and it is compatible with most of the browsers.
You won't get it identical, but that's a completely different target,
one that's totally unachievable, for a plethora of reasons. Author your
pages nicely, and you'll get good looking pages in most browsers.

Specialised authoring for particular browsers (including conditional
testing), is the way to make pages that are incompatible for a lot of
browsers. You can't possibly know how all the different browsers work,
so you're chasing an endless task attempting to fix pages that way. You
can learn the HTML and CSS specifications, though, and use the right
elements for the right purposes, and that's the best approach. Misuse
things, because they appear to do what you're doing (whether or not you
understand what they're for; with not understanding what you're doing
being the biggest problem in page authoring), and that's when you're far
more likely to get bad pages.

--
My "from" address is totally fake. The reply-to address is real, but
may be only temporary. Reply to usenet postings in the same place as
you read the message you're replying to.
Jul 20 '05 #36

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.