how hide scrollbars: conclusion

[adrien]

Thanks for all the answers about how to hide scrollbars in netscape.
The conclusion is that it's not possible. My initial purpose is to compare
some Netscape and IE possibilities and it's the second time that i have to
conclude that Netscape can't do something while IE does:
1) IE is able to hide scrollbars (even only vertical or only horizontal)
while Netscape is not.
2) IE is able to start a sound (wav) when the mouse e.g. goes over an image,
while Netscape is not.
Look at this:
<embed id="noise" type="audio/wav" src="" loop=0 width="0" height="0"
hidden>
<img border="0" id="cam" src="image.gif" OnClick="startn oise()" >
<script language=javasc ript>
function startnoise() {
document.getEle mentById("noise ").src="my. wav" }
</script>

This doen't work with Netscape while the same script but with 'bgsound'
works with IE.

It becomes very hard to make a webpage that can be read by both browsers ...

adrien

[splish]

Id have to agree with you there Adrien.
Whilst we'd all like to see the big guys cop a hiding once in a while,
the fact remains that IE accounts for 90+% of the browsers out there.
How can one justify the time (cost) required to code for the other browsers
?

Splishman
"adrien" <df**@dsqgqd.bg > wrote in message
news:bf******** **@reader11.wxs .nl...

Thanks for all the answers about how to hide scrollbars in netscape.
The conclusion is that it's not possible. My initial purpose is to compare
some Netscape and IE possibilities and it's the second time that i have to
conclude that Netscape can't do something while IE does:
1) IE is able to hide scrollbars (even only vertical or only horizontal)
while Netscape is not.
2) IE is able to start a sound (wav) when the mouse e.g. goes over an image, while Netscape is not.
Look at this:
<embed id="noise" type="audio/wav" src="" loop=0 width="0" height="0"
hidden>
<img border="0" id="cam" src="image.gif" OnClick="startn oise()" >
<script language=javasc ript>
function startnoise() {
document.getEle mentById("noise ").src="my. wav" }
</script>

This doen't work with Netscape while the same script but with 'bgsound'
works with IE.

It becomes very hard to make a webpage that can be read by both browsers ....
adrien

[Richard Cornford]

"splish" <cm*@congosyste ms.com> wrote in message
news:bf******** **@otis.netspac e.net.au...
<snip>

It becomes very hard to make a webpage that canbe read by both browsers ...

Do not ever think in terms of "both browsers", there are getting on for
20 Gecko based browsers (on at least 3 operating systems), at leas two
KHTML based browsers (on at lest two operating systems), Windows IE is
very different to Mac IE (and pocket IE), there are many embedded and
PDA browsers and any number of other desktop browsers. Even disregarding
text and speech browsers that mostly do not implement JavaScript you
will just not be aware of many existing JavaScript capable browsers
because they do such a good job of spoofing IE in their server
interaction that they will never appear in any web statistics.

<snip>Id have to agree with you there Adrien.
Whilst we'd all like to see the big guys cop a hiding
once in a while, the fact remains that IE accounts for
90+% of the browsers out there.
The people who study web statistics universally conclude that it is
impossible to determine how many browsers are out there and what type
they are. The people who publish web statistics seem to disregard the
issues involved and end up publishing figures that do nothing else but
demonstrate that a percentage (usually large) of some unspecified client
interaction with some unspecified information gathering mechanism is
indistinguishab le from interaction with the IE web browsers. The one
thing that we can be certain of is that there are no *facts* available
(just lots of meaningless labelled numbers).
How can one justify the time (cost) required to code
for the other browsers

<snip>

Cross-browser scripting is a skill like any other, once acquired there
is no extra cost, effort or time in employing techniques appropriate for
internet scripting. There are so many JavaScript capable browsers that
very little will work on all of them; once you know how to write a
script that will exploit browser features up to the level of support the
browser actually provides and degrade cleanly in the absence of
appropriate support, then you are in a position to get the best out of
any browsers without having to care which browser it is.

So the question becomes; why would an employer employ someone who cannot
write cross-browser code (and comes up with spurious reasons for never
learning to) when for the same money they cold employ someone who can
get the best out of whatever browser (including IE) a web page
encounters?

Richard.

[splish]

So I take it that we should invest vast amounts of time and cost researching
the fine idiosyncracies of each browser (as they come along) in order to
cater
to each of their own interpretations of appropriate browser conformity ?
No thanks - customers will never appreciate (nor wish to pay for) the
technical
aspects of the end product. They just want it now and at the best price.
Let the browser companies fight this one out. It's the old beta/vhs war.
Of course beta was a superior product - you knew it, i knew it, but the
customer
decided with their wallets.
Besides, the technical aspects of web development comprise only one small
part
of a project's requirements. Sure you could hire some cat who knows the dom
and javascript inside out, but his creativity will probably stink !
We are dealing with a visual medium. Tech heads step aside. It might be
exceptionally
well coded for cross-browser compatibility, yada, yada... but if it doesn't
look good
and have intuitive functionality the customer/user will go elsewhere.

I know it's painful, we make a living out of this stuff, so it's dear and
important
to us, but i'm also a business person trying to make a wage. I can't justify
the
effort and cost required to chase these mutations down, only to be shot from
behind by some new revolutionary change (or worse still - my customer)

Splishman
"Richard Cornford" <Ri*****@litote s.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bf******** ***********@new s.demon.co.uk.. .

"splish" <cm*@congosyste ms.com> wrote in message
news:bf******** **@otis.netspac e.net.au...
<snip>

It becomes very hard to make a webpage that can

be read by both browsers ...

Do not ever think in terms of "both browsers", there are getting on for
20 Gecko based browsers (on at least 3 operating systems), at leas two
KHTML based browsers (on at lest two operating systems), Windows IE is
very different to Mac IE (and pocket IE), there are many embedded and
PDA browsers and any number of other desktop browsers. Even disregarding
text and speech browsers that mostly do not implement JavaScript you
will just not be aware of many existing JavaScript capable browsers
because they do such a good job of spoofing IE in their server
interaction that they will never appear in any web statistics.

<snip>

Id have to agree with you there Adrien.
Whilst we'd all like to see the big guys cop a hiding
once in a while, the fact remains that IE accounts for
90+% of the browsers out there.

The people who study web statistics universally conclude that it is
impossible to determine how many browsers are out there and what type
they are. The people who publish web statistics seem to disregard the
issues involved and end up publishing figures that do nothing else but
demonstrate that a percentage (usually large) of some unspecified client
interaction with some unspecified information gathering mechanism is
indistinguishab le from interaction with the IE web browsers. The one
thing that we can be certain of is that there are no *facts* available
(just lots of meaningless labelled numbers).

How can one justify the time (cost) required to code
for the other browsers

<snip>

Cross-browser scripting is a skill like any other, once acquired there
is no extra cost, effort or time in employing techniques appropriate for
internet scripting. There are so many JavaScript capable browsers that
very little will work on all of them; once you know how to write a
script that will exploit browser features up to the level of support the
browser actually provides and degrade cleanly in the absence of
appropriate support, then you are in a position to get the best out of
any browsers without having to care which browser it is.

So the question becomes; why would an employer employ someone who cannot
write cross-browser code (and comes up with spurious reasons for never
learning to) when for the same money they cold employ someone who can
get the best out of whatever browser (including IE) a web page
encounters?

Richard.

[DU]

adrien wrote:

Thanks for all the answers about how to hide scrollbars in netscape.
The conclusion is that it's not possible. My initial purpose is to compare
some Netscape and IE possibilities and it's the second time that i have to
conclude that Netscape can't do something while IE does:
1) IE is able to hide scrollbars (even only vertical or only horizontal)
while Netscape is not.
It depends on how you do that: it's not possible in MSIE with stylesheet.
2) IE is able to start a sound (wav) when the mouse e.g. goes over an image,
while Netscape is not.
Look at this:
<embed id="noise" type="audio/wav" src="" loop=0 width="0" height="0"
hidden>
<img border="0" id="cam" src="image.gif" OnClick="startn oise()" >
<script language=javasc ript>
function startnoise() {
document.getEle mentById("noise ").src="my. wav" }
</script>

<embed> is not a valid HTML 4.01 element. <object> is. I have created
sound pages with the same code for NS 6.2+, MSIE 6 for windows, Opera 7.
This doen't work with Netscape while the same script but with 'bgsound'
works with IE.

It becomes very hard to make a webpage that can be read by both browsers ...

adrien

<bgsound> is not a valid HTML 4.01 element either.
Again, first validate your page markup code, use validated CSS and use a
full doctype declaration and 90% of the time for not too complex pages,
you won't need any cross-browser code. I have not done a page with sound
on an click event but I believe this could be achieved (just a hunch).

Opera 7, Konqueror (and Safari), Mozilla-based browsers (17 browsers)
and MSIE 6 for Windows (when triggered in standards compliant rendering
mode) do support very well a large amount of CSS1 properties and DOM
level 1 properties and methods and this opinion can be substantiated by
many independent sources.

Your post subject line is partly duplicating/fragmenting a thread you
started elsewhere.

DU
--
Javascript and Browser bugs:
http://www10.brinkster.com/doctorunclear/

[Dr John Stockton]

JRS: In article <bf************ *******@news.de mon.co.uk>, seen in
news:comp.lang. javascript, Richard Cornford
<Ri*****@litote s.demon.co.uk> posted at Fri, 25 Jul 2003 01:09:03 :-

So the question becomes; why would an employer employ someone who cannot
write cross-browser code (and comes up with spurious reasons for never
learning to) when for the same money they cold employ someone who can
get the best out of whatever browser (including IE) a web page
encounters?

Because most employers know even less about the subject than the average
newbie posting here; not even enough to know how little they know.

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon. co.uk Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/> - w. FAQish topics, links, acronyms
PAS EXE etc : <URL:http://www.merlyn.demo n.co.uk/programs/> - see 00index.htm
Dates - miscdate.htm moredate.htm js-dates.htm pas-time.htm critdate.htm etc.

[news.cableregina.com]

Id have to agree with you there Adrien.
Whilst we'd all like to see the big guys cop a hiding
once in a while, the fact remains that IE accounts for
90+% of the browsers out there.
The people who study web statistics universally conclude that it is
impossible to determine how many browsers are out there and what type
they are. The people who publish web statistics seem to disregard the
issues involved and end up publishing figures that do nothing else but
demonstrate that a percentage (usually large) of some unspecified client
interaction with some unspecified information gathering mechanism is
indistinguishab le from interaction with the IE web browsers. The one
thing that we can be certain of is that there are no *facts* available
(just lots of meaningless labelled numbers).

Internet Explorer 4: 17
Internet Explorer 5: 698
Internet Explorer 6: 4396
Netscape 4: 3
Netscape 5/6: 109
Opera: 14
Other: 66

These are the statistics to my website launched a week ago...
as you can quite see IE has the dominant market...

I don't like microsoft just as much as the next person, but I
personally program for ie 5 and 6 and don't really care much for the
others... just a big waste of time and totally hampers my imagination...

I create, and if it works on the best one then I can free up my time
to create other things and don't have to care for browser politics... oh..
btw... AOL sold out to microsoft to the tune of 70 somethin million... AOL
owner of the netscape browser... just thought I'd let those of you who don't
know

How can one justify the time (cost) required to code
for the other browsers

if you don't it will encourage the browser vendors to get caught up to speed
on following standards regulation, so one day we won't even have to think
about cross browser scripting...

itz evil...
Cross-browser scripting is a skill like any other, once acquired there
is no extra cost, effort or time in employing techniques appropriate for
internet scripting. There are so many JavaScript capable browsers that
very little will work on all of them; once you know how to write a
script that will exploit browser features up to the level of support the
browser actually provides and degrade cleanly in the absence of
appropriate support, then you are in a position to get the best out of
any browsers without having to care which browser it is.
there is always extra cost and effort when cross browser scripting... your
best bet is to code for the best one (the one 90%+ of the people use)
degrade for the others when u have extra time...
So the question becomes; why would an employer employ someone who cannot
write cross-browser code (and comes up with spurious reasons for never
learning to) when for the same money they cold employ someone who can
get the best out of whatever browser (including IE) a web page
encounters?
same money?

how could it be same money if you have to waste extra time cross browsering
it... time does equal money and also I find it hard to keep a solution in my
head, so the quicker its in code.. the better...
Richard.

Sorry if this sounds kinda in your face type dealy, just stating my point on
the issue... I may be wrong, but to me I'm not... 8 )

[splish]

Richard,
Thanks for weighing in on my side of the discussion.
It's refreshing to see another user in the group that recognizes that
in the real world, compromises need to be made, and that web development
and the use of it's tools and languages needn't be studied and scrutinized
to the enth degree in order to produce pleasing results.
Even creative people are allowed to utilise javascript !

Splish

"news.cableregi na.com" <jo*@nospamme.c om> wrote in message
news:3f******** @news3.accessco mm.ca...

Id have to agree with you there Adrien.
Whilst we'd all like to see the big guys cop a hiding
once in a while, the fact remains that IE accounts for
90+% of the browsers out there.
The people who study web statistics universally conclude that it is
impossible to determine how many browsers are out there and what type
they are. The people who publish web statistics seem to disregard the
issues involved and end up publishing figures that do nothing else but
demonstrate that a percentage (usually large) of some unspecified client
interaction with some unspecified information gathering mechanism is
indistinguishab le from interaction with the IE web browsers. The one
thing that we can be certain of is that there are no *facts* available
(just lots of meaningless labelled numbers).

Internet Explorer 4: 17
Internet Explorer 5: 698
Internet Explorer 6: 4396
Netscape 4: 3
Netscape 5/6: 109
Opera: 14
Other: 66

These are the statistics to my website launched a week ago...
as you can quite see IE has the dominant market...

I don't like microsoft just as much as the next person, but I
personally program for ie 5 and 6 and don't really care much for the
others... just a big waste of time and totally hampers my imagination...

I create, and if it works on the best one then I can free up my time
to create other things and don't have to care for browser politics... oh..
btw... AOL sold out to microsoft to the tune of 70 somethin million... AOL
owner of the netscape browser... just thought I'd let those of you who

don't know

How can one justify the time (cost) required to code
for the other browsers

if you don't it will encourage the browser vendors to get caught up to

speed on following standards regulation, so one day we won't even have to think
about cross browser scripting...

itz evil...

Cross-browser scripting is a skill like any other, once acquired there
is no extra cost, effort or time in employing techniques appropriate for
internet scripting. There are so many JavaScript capable browsers that
very little will work on all of them; once you know how to write a
script that will exploit browser features up to the level of support the
browser actually provides and degrade cleanly in the absence of
appropriate support, then you are in a position to get the best out of
any browsers without having to care which browser it is.
there is always extra cost and effort when cross browser scripting... your
best bet is to code for the best one (the one 90%+ of the people use)
degrade for the others when u have extra time...

So the question becomes; why would an employer employ someone who cannot
write cross-browser code (and comes up with spurious reasons for never
learning to) when for the same money they cold employ someone who can
get the best out of whatever browser (including IE) a web page
encounters?

same money?

how could it be same money if you have to waste extra time cross

browsering it... time does equal money and also I find it hard to keep a solution in my head, so the quicker its in code.. the better...

Richard.
Sorry if this sounds kinda in your face type dealy, just stating my point

on the issue... I may be wrong, but to me I'm not... 8 )

[splish]

Sorry Jon.
I saw Richard's name at the end and thought that was the authors name.
If I recall he was the "we have to do it this way" chap.
Thanks Jon.

Splish.
"splish" <cm*@congosyste ms.com> wrote in message
news:bh******** ***@otis.netspa ce.net.au...

Richard,
Thanks for weighing in on my side of the discussion.
It's refreshing to see another user in the group that recognizes that
in the real world, compromises need to be made, and that web development
and the use of it's tools and languages needn't be studied and scrutinized
to the enth degree in order to produce pleasing results.
Even creative people are allowed to utilise javascript !

Splish

"news.cableregi na.com" <jo*@nospamme.c om> wrote in message
news:3f******** @news3.accessco mm.ca...

>Id have to agree with you there Adrien.
>Whilst we'd all like to see the big guys cop a hiding
>once in a while, the fact remains that IE accounts for
>90+% of the browsers out there.

The people who study web statistics universally conclude that it is
impossible to determine how many browsers are out there and what type
they are. The people who publish web statistics seem to disregard the
issues involved and end up publishing figures that do nothing else but
demonstrate that a percentage (usually large) of some unspecified client interaction with some unspecified information gathering mechanism is
indistinguishab le from interaction with the IE web browsers. The one
thing that we can be certain of is that there are no *facts* available
(just lots of meaningless labelled numbers).

Internet Explorer 4: 17
Internet Explorer 5: 698
Internet Explorer 6: 4396
Netscape 4: 3
Netscape 5/6: 109
Opera: 14
Other: 66

These are the statistics to my website launched a week ago...
as you can quite see IE has the dominant market...

I don't like microsoft just as much as the next person, but I
personally program for ie 5 and 6 and don't really care much for the
others... just a big waste of time and totally hampers my imagination...

I create, and if it works on the best one then I can free up my time to create other things and don't have to care for browser politics... oh.. btw... AOL sold out to microsoft to the tune of 70 somethin million... AOL owner of the netscape browser... just thought I'd let those of you who

don't

know

>How can one justify the time (cost) required to code
>for the other browsers

if you don't it will encourage the browser vendors to get caught up to

speed

on following standards regulation, so one day we won't even have to think about cross browser scripting...

itz evil...

Cross-browser scripting is a skill like any other, once acquired there
is no extra cost, effort or time in employing techniques appropriate for internet scripting. There are so many JavaScript capable browsers that
very little will work on all of them; once you know how to write a
script that will exploit browser features up to the level of support the browser actually provides and degrade cleanly in the absence of
appropriate support, then you are in a position to get the best out of
any browsers without having to care which browser it is.

there is always extra cost and effort when cross browser scripting... your best bet is to code for the best one (the one 90%+ of the people use)
degrade for the others when u have extra time...

So the question becomes; why would an employer employ someone who cannot write cross-browser code (and comes up with spurious reasons for never
learning to) when for the same money they cold employ someone who can
get the best out of whatever browser (including IE) a web page
encounters?

same money?

how could it be same money if you have to waste extra time cross

browsering

it... time does equal money and also I find it hard to keep a solution

in my

head, so the quicker its in code.. the better...

Richard.
Sorry if this sounds kinda in your face type dealy, just stating my

point on

the issue... I may be wrong, but to me I'm not... 8 )