No Netscape or IE 4.x support??

[rez]

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html

Same seems true with IE.

How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser, when they
don't bother giving me basic
documentation?

Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t about older
browsers any more?

(Excuse my tongue!)

I really appreciate any help, because I may want to support some
people, who might be a little behind techno-wise.

[Richard Cornford]

"rez" <go*********@mail.requestfinder.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@mail.requestfinder.com...

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html
<URL:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...t/1.3/referenc
e/ >
Same seems true with IE.

How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser,
when they don't bother giving me basic documentation?
If you think that it is hard to find documentation on Netscape 4 just
wait until you start looking for documentation on IceBrowser, Eclipse,
Safari, etc, etc. (even Opera documentation).
Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t
about older browsers any more?

<snip>

How are you defining "we"? JavaScript for the Internet has to be planned
to provide all the necessary content and a usable UI in the (not
uncommon) event that the user has a JavaScript disabled/incapable
browser. If the absence of JavaScript has been properly planned for and
JavaScript is written around cautiously detecting required features
prior to their use then JavaScript browsers can be exploited up to their
capabilities. Some older, non-standard, undocumented and cranky browsers
may get the same as users without JavaScript but that should still be
usable.

Richard.

[Louis-Philippe Huberdeau]

Sometimes you need to drop the old stuff if you want to envolve. If you
work to get full compatibility with those old browsers, you stay away
from everything the new versions have to offer.

rez wrote:

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html

Same seems true with IE.

How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser, when they
don't bother giving me basic
documentation?

Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t about older
browsers any more?

(Excuse my tongue!)

I really appreciate any help, because I may want to support some
people, who might be a little behind techno-wise.

[rez]

Richard Cornfordrd wrote:

"rez" <go*********@mail.requestfinder.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@mail.requestfinder.com...

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html
<URL:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...t/1.3/referenc
e/ >

Richard, thank you very much for this helpful link. I know Javascript
is a standard, but as for the DOM, for IE/NN 4.x, do you have a
similar link?

The above link _is_ useful, but here is a simple question: does the
"span" tag support offset* type interface?

The above link leads me down this path:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...t.html#1226315
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...-are-here.html
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...998/htmlguide/.
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...de/tags20.html
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...5.html#1174145
http://devedge.netscape.com/docs/man...tml/index.html
http://developer.netscape.com/index-archive.html
http://developer.netscape.com/tech/d...l?cp=dev01mtec

Which is a vicious cycle, not answering my simple question.

Same seems true with IE.

How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser,
when they don't bother giving me basic documentation?
If you think that it is hard to find documentation on Netscape 4 just
wait until you start looking for documentation on IceBrowser, Eclipse,
Safari, etc, etc. (even Opera documentation).

I'm a _little_ less concerned, because most people on these browsers
are not in the techno-challenged category of users. Netscape will
likely be installed (at least) on their desktop. They might better
understand exactly _why_ I must use JS, and if I _must_, then they
will be less offended by it. The alternative would perhaps be a Java
executable download, which I am also planning to provide for people
w/o other alternatives. But I don't wish to leave their entire OS
unsupported (JS-wise.)

Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t
about older browsers any more?

<snip>

How are you defining "we"? JavaScript for the Internet has to be planned
to provide all the necessary content and a usable UI in the (not
uncommon) event that the user has a JavaScript disabled/incapable
browser. If the absence of JavaScript has been properly planned for and
JavaScript is written around cautiously detecting required features
prior to their use then JavaScript browsers can be exploited up to their
capabilities. Some older, non-standard, undocumented and cranky browsers
may get the same as users without JavaScript but that should still be
usable.

Richard.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
A. Einstein.

I am very conscious of threads like this from Brett Tabke of
Webmasterworld:
http://www.google.com/search?q=successful+site+google

I don't intend to use Javascript "just 'caus it's cool," but in cases
where as alternatives people are actually happy downloading
executables (or buying them.)

[rez]

Louis-Philippe Huberdeau wrote:

Sometimes you need to drop the old stuff if you want to envolve. If you
work to get full compatibility with those old browsers, you stay away
from everything the new versions have to offer.

I agree 100% Richard. I'm not religious about it. My only concern is
requiring new versions, when the old will do the job. Now that's
silly, and it makes me look bad. But I need docs to know for sure.

[Fox]

http://developer.netscape.com/central/javascript

download the v1.3 client-side guide and especially the client-side
reference (zip format). unzip and "install" in a convenient directory
and bookmark the index pages...

rez wrote:

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html

Same seems true with IE.

How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser, when they
don't bother giving me basic
documentation?

Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t about older
browsers any more?

(Excuse my tongue!)

I really appreciate any help, because I may want to support some
people, who might be a little behind techno-wise.

[kaeli]

In article <3F***************@mail.requestfinder.com>,
go*********@mail.requestfinder.com enlightened us with...

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html

<opinion>
It's an old piece of doggy do-do.
A few people are stuck still using it, but my most recent site stats
showed 95% of users using IE5 and above or something that says it's IE 5
and above (like Opera). I showed not a single hit for NN4.
Same seems true with IE.

I don't know anyone using anything under IE5. My sites stats show no one
using anything under IE5.

Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t about older
browsers any more?
Well, aside from making sure my stuff doesn't crash older browsers, I
sure don't any more. I even got to ditch NN4 at my intranet site (work)
now. (yay!!)
I really appreciate any help, because I may want to support some
people, who might be a little behind techno-wise.

Get a good web site stat program and see who's using your stuff before
you give yourself the headache of supporting it. It's pretty easy to
code so that your scripts don't break old browsers - it's another to try
and make your pages look and function the same in all browsers
(basically, you can't - too many browsers, including text only, prohibit
that).

Windows automatic update practically ensures that the less techno-savy
people don't use old browsers, especially NN4, anyway. You still have a
few people on Win95 that have to use IE5.

The ones you have to consider are people at libraries and other public
places (work, school, etc) that don't have permission to update their
browsers. The old browsers being buggy and all, pretty much anyone who
has permission to update, has.

Anyone who uses NN4 on their own computer more than likely put it there
anyway, so they would have updated already, too.

</opinion>

-------------------------------------------------
~kaeli~
Hey, if you got it flaunt it! If you don't, stare
at someone who does. Just don't lick the TV screen,
it leaves streaks.
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/wildAtHeart
http://www.ipwebdesign.net/kaelisSpace
-------------------------------------------------

[rez]

kaeli wrote:

In article <3F***************@mail.requestfinder.com>,
go*********@mail.requestfinder.com enlightened us with...

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html

<opinion>
It's an old piece of doggy do-do.

I agree 100%.

A few people are stuck still using it, but my most recent site stats
showed 95% of users using IE5 and above or something that says it's IE 5
and above (like Opera). I showed not a single hit for NN4.

Stats may be hard to read, unless your site is purely information
based, and you restrict your stats to referrals from Google (or
something): a lean an mean site, easily accessible _itself_ by all
browser types.

If you are a bank for instance, no one with older browsers will even
bother surfing you. They know you'll break with their browser!

Same seems true with IE.

[...]The ones you have to consider are people at libraries and other public
places (work, school, etc) that don't have permission to update their

That is no small concern. Specially when you consider the effects of
viral marketing.

browsers. The old browsers being buggy and all, pretty much anyone who
has permission to update, has.

Sure. You're probably right, about most people anyhow.


Anyone who uses NN4 on their own computer more than likely put it there
anyway, so they would have updated already, too.

Like you said, it sucks anyway.


</opinion>

[Grant Wagner]

rez wrote:

Richard Cornfordrd wrote:

"rez" <go*********@mail.requestfinder.com> wrote in message
news:3F***************@mail.requestfinder.com...

I find it rather frustrating that Netscape 4.x is "no longer
supported:"
http://help.netscape.com/products/cl...or/reflib.html
<URL:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...t/1.3/referenc
e/ >

Richard, thank you very much for this helpful link. I know Javascript
is a standard, but as for the DOM, for IE/NN 4.x, do you have a
similar link?

<url: http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...ce/frames.html /> is a
complete DOM and JavaScript reference manual for Netscape 4.x (JavaScript 1.3 with anotations
regarding when features were added/deprecated/removed).

<url: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref/ /> is a DOM reference for Gecko based browsers.
<url: http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...1.5/reference/ /> is a JavaScript
reference for JavaScript 1.5

<url: http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...ence_entry.asp /> is a
DOM reference for all versions of IE > 4.
The above link _is_ useful, but here is a simple question: does the
"span" tag support offset* type interface?
The only way to access a <span> in Netscape 4.x would be to use <span style="position:relative;"
id="aLayer"> at which point it would be accessible via the document.layers collection. According to
the API reference for a Layer object, there are no offset* properties: <url:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...nce/layer.html />. The
closest you can come in Netscape 4.x is clip.height, clip.width.

For Gecko based browsers: <url: http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domr...f.html#1023967 />
does indicate that offset* properties are available for all HTML and XML elements.

For IE: <url: http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...fsetheight.asp
/> documents.offsetHeight, with similar pages available from the DHTML documentation URL provided
above. You may also be interested in <url:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a.../measuring.asp />, which describes how various
measurements are determined.

The above link leads me down this path:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...t.html#1226315
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...-are-here.html
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...998/htmlguide/.
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...de/tags20.html
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...5.html#1174145
http://devedge.netscape.com/docs/man...tml/index.html
http://developer.netscape.com/index-archive.html
http://developer.netscape.com/tech/d...l?cp=dev01mtec

Which is a vicious cycle, not answering my simple question.

What is your simple question? It seemed that you were interested in documentation. You were
provided with some links, I've provided more. Now it's your job to be able to read and understand
it.

I'm not sure how you got from the "2000/javascript/1.3/reference/document.html" link to
"1998/htmlguide". Scrolling down the initial page spells out how images[], layers[] etc are all
members of the document object. Digging deeper into the documentation and document.layers[] reveals
that they only way to control the visibility of or move any HTML element in Netscape 4.x is to wrap
it in a <layer> (or make an element a layer by specifying STYLE="position:relative;").

Usually the complexity of most modern client-side JavaScript completely negates the possibility of
supporting the same functionality in Netscape 4.x, which should behave as if JavaScript were not
enabled most of the time (unless you are discussing simple form validation or image swapping).

Same seems true with IE.

How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser,
when they don't bother giving me basic documentation?

If you think that it is hard to find documentation on Netscape 4 just
wait until you start looking for documentation on IceBrowser, Eclipse,
Safari, etc, etc. (even Opera documentation).

I'm a _little_ less concerned, because most people on these browsers
are not in the techno-challenged category of users. Netscape will
likely be installed (at least) on their desktop. They might better
understand exactly _why_ I must use JS, and if I _must_, then they
will be less offended by it. The alternative would perhaps be a Java
executable download, which I am also planning to provide for people
w/o other alternatives. But I don't wish to leave their entire OS
unsupported (JS-wise.)

I find the largest percentage of JavaScript disablers and cripplers are among the
non-techno-challenged group. They tend to be the ones who understand the cause and effect of
scripting and popup windows, bouncing ads and other annoyances and configure their browser (or add
3rd party tools) to remove such annoyances.

Very few techo-challenged users are even aware the "ads the pop up all over the place" are caused
by a client-side scripting technology they can disable if they choose.

Am I correct in assuming that we don't give a s**t
about older browsers any more?

<snip>

How are you defining "we"? JavaScript for the Internet has to be planned
to provide all the necessary content and a usable UI in the (not
uncommon) event that the user has a JavaScript disabled/incapable
browser. If the absence of JavaScript has been properly planned for and
JavaScript is written around cautiously detecting required features
prior to their use then JavaScript browsers can be exploited up to their
capabilities. Some older, non-standard, undocumented and cranky browsers
may get the same as users without JavaScript but that should still be
usable.

Richard.

"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler."
A. Einstein.

I am very conscious of threads like this from Brett Tabke of
Webmasterworld:
http://www.google.com/search?q=successful+site+google

I don't intend to use Javascript "just 'caus it's cool," but in cases
where as alternatives people are actually happy downloading
executables (or buying them.)

But when you begin to devote 95% of your time modifying scripts to work with a browser that
occupies less then 5% of the browser market (depending on who you ask), then it's time to not
abandon support for that browser, but to simply write your scripts to degrade gracefully in that
browser so your users get a less dynamic (but still usable) experience.

--
| Grant Wagner <gw*****@agricoreunited.com>

* Client-side Javascript and Netscape 4 DOM Reference available at:
* http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...ce/frames.html
* Internet Explorer DOM Reference available at:
* http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/a...ence_entry.asp
* Netscape 6/7 DOM Reference available at:
* http://www.mozilla.org/docs/dom/domref/
* Tips for upgrading JavaScript for Netscape 7 / Mozilla
* http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-deve...upgrade_2.html

[rez]

>Grant Wagner wrote:

[...]
The only way to access a <span> in Netscape 4.x would be to use <span style="position:relative;"
id="aLayer"> at which point it would be accessible via the document.layers collection. According to
the API reference for a Layer object, there are no offset* properties: <url:
http://devedge.netscape.com/library/...nce/layer.html />. The
closest you can come in Netscape 4.x is clip.height, clip.width.
[...]

Grant, thank you very much for taking so much time, and providing me
with so many links, and still more information and advice.

Which is a vicious cycle, not answering my simple question.

What is your simple question? It seemed that you were interested in documentation. You were
provided with some links, I've provided more. Now it's your job to be able to read and understand
it.

I'm not sure how you got from the "2000/javascript/1.3/reference/document.html" link to
"1998/htmlguide". Scrolling down the initial page spells out how images[], layers[] etc are all
members of the document object. Digging deeper into the documentation and document.layers[] reveals
that they only way to control the visibility of or move any HTML element in Netscape 4.x is to wrap
it in a <layer> (or make an element a layer by specifying STYLE="position:relative;").

Usually the complexity of most modern client-side JavaScript completely negates the possibility of
supporting the same functionality in Netscape 4.x, which should behave as if JavaScript were not
enabled most of the time (unless you are discussing simple form validation or image swapping).

I think I'm beginning to see what the problem is. The new
DOM/Javascript power has led me into the trap of asking a question,
which may never have been conceived by someone in the old days of the
4.x versions. Hmmm...yes, that might be the issue here.

> >Same seems true with IE.
> >
> >How am I ever supposed to make my scripts multi-browser,
> >when they don't bother giving me basic documentation?
>
> If you think that it is hard to find documentation on Netscape 4 just
> wait until you start looking for documentation on IceBrowser, Eclipse,
> Safari, etc, etc. (even Opera documentation).

I'm a _little_ less concerned, because most people on these browsers
are not in the techno-challenged category of users. Netscape will
likely be installed (at least) on their desktop. They might better
understand exactly _why_ I must use JS, and if I _must_, then they
will be less offended by it. The alternative would perhaps be a Java
executable download, which I am also planning to provide for people
w/o other alternatives. But I don't wish to leave their entire OS
unsupported (JS-wise.)

I find the largest percentage of JavaScript disablers and cripplers are among the
non-techno-challenged group. They tend to be the ones who understand the cause and effect of
scripting and popup windows, bouncing ads and other annoyances and configure their browser (or add
3rd party tools) to remove such annoyances.

Yes, that's something to keep in mind, isn't it?

Fortunately, Mozilla does a pretty good job of letting users customize
dynamic features. Also, they use signed scripts, which is the correct
way to give extended permissions to scripts. I'm not certain about
IE6. It seems to be inflexible. You either turn Javascript "on" or
"off." You either declare a web site "trusted" or you don't. And the
techno-aware audience are not going to like that. Simply "trusting" a
non-https site is a security whole, without the signing mechanism
provided by Mozilla.

I wonder what the options are with IE? But it seems that "trusted
site" is it. And even then, it takes too much mici-mousing around to
change your preferences in IE.