470,580 Members | 2,327 Online
Bytes | Developer Community
New Post

Home Posts Topics Members FAQ

Post your question to a community of 470,580 developers. It's quick & easy.

Add site to trusted sites

RR
The next step after Grant Wagner's simple solution to my "Get computer name"
thread,
is to automatically add the web application's site to the list of trusted
sites in IE.

Obviously, the user should get a popup first that says "Do you want to add
this site?"

I've looked through the Wscript doco in MSDN, but can't find a way of
manipulating this browser setting.

I'd expect it to be something like "setHomePage" - namely "addTrustedSite".

Is it possible?

thanks,
RR
Jul 20 '05 #1
12 15374
RR wrote on 24 Nov 2003:
The next step after Grant Wagner's simple solution to my "Get
computer name" thread,
is to automatically add the web application's site to the list
of trusted sites in IE.

Obviously, the user should get a popup first that says "Do you
want to add this site?"

I've looked through the Wscript doco in MSDN, but can't find a
way of manipulating this browser setting.

I'd expect it to be something like "setHomePage" - namely
"addTrustedSite".

Is it possible?


I really hope *NOT*. That sort of thing would really compromise
security in a browser, even if a confirmation dialog is spawned.

Besides, why are you concentrating so much on Microsoft's browser?
I'm glad I finally changed to Opera.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
M.******@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (remove ".invalid" to reply)
Jul 20 '05 #2
RR
>
I really hope *NOT*. That sort of thing would really compromise
security in a browser, even if a confirmation dialog is spawned.
Yes, I understand the problem. But, asking a user to click here, then
there, then type something strange, isn't very helpful.

Ease of use and security are generally opposites. <sigh>

Besides, why are you concentrating so much on Microsoft's browser?
I'm glad I finally changed to Opera.


I guarantee I hate MS and everything they do at least one order of magnitude
more than anyone else in the world!

However, IE is used by over 90% (perhaps 98%!) of my potential market.
Getting a web app to work well in one browser was a *HUGE* amount of work.
Trying to cater for 1% of other users by spending 300 hours+ on getting it
to work in another browser doesn't make economic sense.

One may as well wish the sky was green.....

Of course, if Opera would emulate (in the true sense of the word) IE, then
they and I wouldn't have a problem.

regards,
RR
Jul 20 '05 #3
On Mon, 24 Nov 2003 21:43:12 GMT
"RR" <ne****************@spamgourmet.com> wrote:
<snip>
Of course, if Opera would emulate (in the true sense of the word) IE,
then they and I wouldn't have a problem.


But then, wouldn't it then have all the problems of IE?

--
Then there was the man who drowned crossing a stream with an average
depth of six inches.
-- W. I. E. Gates
Jul 20 '05 #4
RR hu kiteb:
The next step after Grant Wagner's simple solution to my "Get
computer name" thread,
is to automatically add the web application's site to the list of
trusted sites in IE.


As others have said, I hope not.

Wouldn't it be more efficient to write code on the assumption that you
are not trusted? How many unknown websites would you trust? Your
customers have no particular reason to trsut you on first contact, and
manipulating browser security like this is likely to scare off many
people.
--
--
Fabian
Visit my website often and for long periods!
http://www.lajzar.co.uk

Jul 20 '05 #5
"RR" <ne****************@spamgourmet.com> writes:
I guarantee I hate MS and everything they do at least one order of magnitude
more than anyone else in the world!
That's a lot. If I find another person to say the same, I could put the
two of you together and run. The exponential growth in hate would probably
wipe out the solar system before stopping you :)
However, IE is used by over 90% (perhaps 98%!) of my potential market.
Getting a web app to work well in one browser was a *HUGE* amount of work.
Trying to cater for 1% of other users by spending 300 hours+ on getting it
to work in another browser doesn't make economic sense.
Ofcourse.

But it doesn't take 300 hours to get something working in more than
one browser, unless the code was built to only work in one browser to
begin with. Unless it took significantly more than 300 hours to create
the code to begin with ... I just realized I don't know the size of
the problem :)

I always write code so that it works in as many browsers as possible. It
doesn't cost extra, it's just a habit to get into.

That reduces the parts that are browser specific to a minimum, and
usually to small, easily recognizable, parts.
One may as well wish the sky was green.....
Yick! No please :)
Of course, if Opera would emulate (in the true sense of the word) IE, then
they and I wouldn't have a problem.


I would. There are things I don't want emulated. Otherwise I would just use
IE.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Jul 20 '05 #6
RR
>
Wouldn't it be more efficient to write code on the assumption that you
are not trusted? How many unknown websites would you trust? Your
customers have no particular reason to trsut you on first contact, and
manipulating browser security like this is likely to scare off many
people.


It's not a site, it's a web application that is inherently trusted because
the application is installed on the person's own web server.

If they trust their web server they will trust the applications on it.

Here's the analogy:
1. you install Fred's Word Processor on your desktop computer.
2. it asks you for your name
3. you trust it with your name and tell it.

Same situation - just that the web app is "over there" on a server you own
instead of your desktop.

Hope that clarifies the issue.

regards,
RR
Jul 20 '05 #7
RR
>
But then, wouldn't it then have all the problems of IE?


And Windows has the problems of Windows and Unix has the problems of Unix
and
<insert application name> has the problems of <insert application name>.

As a developer I want something very simple:
* the platform I'm developing on (in this case a "browser") will work pretty
well as documented and continue to do so ad infinitum.

The fact that there are N browsers and they all work differently is no help
to anyone. Sure, MS might be to blame for some of this, but they now have
the market share.

If you want to write a browser that is *helpful* to your users, it should
work - rightly or wrongly - the same as the leader.

Its point of differentiation should be in other areas: speed, extra
features, cost (joke!), whatever.

But, *absolutely not* in the way it renders pages and processes logic
statements (e.g. Javascript).

Why is a good thing that a web developer has to write certain parts of their
web site (or web application) several times and test it 3 or 4 extra
different ways? It's a waste of time, resources, effort, and is simple bad.

Real life analogy - ever developed a Windows application. Now to test it:
Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, Win ME, Win XP. Potentially they all work
differently. In practice, you only need to test on two or three of these,
but that's two or three too many.

MS is brain dead (actually they just don't give a s%$t). Simple.

Therefore, the same situation in browser is equally brain dead.

Ultimately, differences in rendering is what will starve all other browsers
of market share (except of course on specific non-IE platforms, such as
Linux).

Why would *any* Internet user use a browser other than IE (except if it
render screens and logic the same way)?

Would you recommend XYZ browser to your 80 year old father, or just say "hey
use IE, you'll have fewer problems surfing"?

regards,
RR
Jul 20 '05 #8
RR
> That's a lot. If I find another person to say the same, I could put the
two of you together and run. The exponential growth in hate would probably
wipe out the solar system before stopping you :)
Its more than a lot, and they deserve every bit of it.

Ofcourse.

But it doesn't take 300 hours to get something working in more than
one browser, unless the code was built to only work in one browser to
begin with. Unless it took significantly more than 300 hours to create
the code to begin with ... I just realized I don't know the size of
the problem :)
Mmmmm.....I have a JS function called ResizeWindow.

It resizes the current frame (iframe) to fit the content without scroll
bars. It then propagates that, conditionally, to the parent window/frame,
and so on.

I would say that it has taken at least 7 full days (I'm talking 12 hour
days) in the last year to get it close to working right.

It has code specific to IE6 and IE5.5 - because they work differently (one
uses offsetWidth the other uses scrollWidth).

A recent (possibly a security) update to IE5.5 now generates (sometimes)
"Access denied" errors in the script debugger.

How many more days am I going to have to spend to fix ResizeWindow yet
again?

If I now wanted it to work with other browsers, I reckon 300 hours is
probably going to be close - just for this function alone.

If you could point me to a JavaScript ResizeWindow that works perfectly in
IE (and possibly other browsers), I'd be happy to give you a free license to
my web app.

I always write code so that it works in as many browsers as possible. It
doesn't cost extra, it's just a habit to get into.


With all due respect, I don't believe "it doesn't cost extra". :-) It
might be a habit, but, like smoking, it's not one you really want to have is
it?
Of course, if Opera would emulate (in the true sense of the word) IE, then they and I wouldn't have a problem.


Sure, but wouldn't you prefer *not* to have to write lots of different code
for different browsers?

PS I've appreciated your humor. :-)

regards,
RR

Jul 20 '05 #9
[This is off-topic]

RR wrote on 25 Nov 2003:

But then, wouldn't it then have all the problems of IE?


And Windows has the problems of Windows and Unix has the
problems of Unix and
<insert application name> has the problems of <insert
application name>.

As a developer I want something very simple:
* the platform I'm developing on (in this case a "browser") will
work pretty well as documented and continue to do so ad
infinitum.

The fact that there are N browsers and they all work differently
is no help to anyone. Sure, MS might be to blame for some of
this, but they now have the market share.

If you want to write a browser that is *helpful* to your users,
it should work - rightly or wrongly - the same as the leader.

Its point of differentiation should be in other areas: speed,
extra features, cost (joke!), whatever.

But, *absolutely not* in the way it renders pages and processes
logic statements (e.g. Javascript).

Why is a good thing that a web developer has to write certain
parts of their web site (or web application) several times and
test it 3 or 4 extra different ways? It's a waste of time,
resources, effort, and is simple bad.

Real life analogy - ever developed a Windows application. Now
to test it: Win 95, Win 98, Win 2000, Win ME, Win XP.
Potentially they all work differently. In practice, you only
need to test on two or three of these, but that's two or three
too many.

MS is brain dead (actually they just don't give a s%$t).
Simple.

Therefore, the same situation in browser is equally brain dead.

Ultimately, differences in rendering is what will starve all
other browsers of market share (except of course on specific
non-IE platforms, such as Linux).

Why would *any* Internet user use a browser other than IE
(except if it render screens and logic the same way)?

Would you recommend XYZ browser to your 80 year old father, or
just say "hey use IE, you'll have fewer problems surfing"?


It *is* Microsoft's fault, and the only reason why they have the
market share is the success of the Windows operating system, not
their superior products.

If everyone just wrote to specification, and browser developers stuck
to those same specifications, the world would be a simpler place. But
as you said, Microsoft didn't (and don't) give a s*** and did what
they wanted to, not what everyone agreed to do.

Well, OK, that's conjecture, but I'd be interested in the official
story.

What it boils down to is if browsers, at the very minimum (and this
*is* the problem with IE), supported the various standards (HTML,
CSS, DOM, etc) fully, it wouldn't matter what extra stuff they bolted
on. If web developers wanted to use the extra bits, they could. If
the browser that supported those bits wasn't in use, it could fall
back to the 'standard-only' code and still accomplish what the author
wanted - just maybe missing some fancy effects, or whatever.

Mike

--
Michael Winter
M.******@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid (remove ".invalid" to reply)
Jul 20 '05 #10
RR
> If everyone just wrote to specification, and browser developers stuck
to those same specifications, the world would be a simpler place. But
as you said, Microsoft didn't (and don't) give a s*** and did what
they wanted to, not what everyone agreed to do.
Yes. Plus a few bugs (which everyone has). And we all know that sometimes
fixing a bug breaks something else (ripple effect), so, we end up having to
keep the bug even though it's clearly wrong.

But that would cover 0.01% of cases. The rest is that MS (and probably
others too) don't give a s***.

I guess that's what I'm really saying - Mr Opera, Mr Konqueror, Mr Whoever -
is just perpetuaing our problems by not emulating the (sometimes/mostly
incorrect) market leader.

Standards are great - *if* they are written first. After the fact they help
little unless they are a duplicate of the first or market leading product's
behavior.
What it boils down to is if browsers, at the very minimum (and this
*is* the problem with IE), supported the various standards (HTML,
CSS, DOM, etc) fully, it wouldn't matter what extra stuff they bolted
on. If web developers wanted to use the extra bits, they could. If
the browser that supported those bits wasn't in use, it could fall
back to the 'standard-only' code and still accomplish what the author
wanted - just maybe missing some fancy effects, or whatever.


I could not agree with you more. You speak the truth.

regards,
RR

PS Historically speaking, correct me if I'm wrong, Mosaic was the first GUI
browser, closely followed by Netscape. Therefore, MS should have copied one
of those (in rendering and logic). The "standards" agreements should have
kept (pretty much) to one of those browsers renderings. We'd be all much
better off.

PPS I guess there *is* no point crying over spilt milk.
Jul 20 '05 #11
"RR" <ne****************@spamgourmet.com> writes:
PS Historically speaking, correct me if I'm wrong, Mosaic was the first GUI
browser,
Correct.
closely followed by Netscape.
Not sure how closely, but it was the second.
Therefore, MS should have copied one of those (in rendering and
logic).
Microsoft bought Mosaic :)

The problem with your idea is that only copying the current (and that
would then always be the first) market leader, will prevent all
progress. Be it evolution or revolution, but things change, and
often for the better. Standards is progress from "what my browser
does".

If Microsoft had only 51% of the market share, would you still want
the rest to forget progress and copy the bugs?

Every browser producer would love to be the next market leader.
If they only copy IE, they would become a market leader with
the same problems as IE. By going for standards, they might become
a *better* leader (if they had a snowball's chance in hell).

And other browsers are implementing IE's bugs. Not all of them,
but some. Luckily they keep them in quirks mode, so the rest of
us can write standard supporting pages. IE is doing the same,
with their standards mode.
The "standards" agreements should have kept (pretty much)
to one of those browsers renderings. We'd be all much better off.


We would all be stuck. I prefer progress, even if it causes more
work.

/L
--
Lasse Reichstein Nielsen - lr*@hotpop.com
DHTML Death Colors: <URL:http://www.infimum.dk/HTML/rasterTriangleDOM.html>
'Faith without judgement merely degrades the spirit divine.'
Jul 20 '05 #12
RR
> And other browsers are implementing IE's bugs. Not all of them,
but some. Luckily they keep them in quirks mode, so the rest of
us can write standard supporting pages. IE is doing the same,
with their standards mode.


Yes, I think this is the right way to go.

But, I still can't support Browser X without writing special code for it.
So, in practice, this philosophy isn't working very well.

regards,
RR

Jul 20 '05 #13

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.

Similar topics

1 post views Thread by petergjansen | last post: by
1 post views Thread by livre | last post: by
By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.