netscape mozilla iexplorer standard

[Piotr Wolski]

how to make my page that it was correct with every browser standard?

for example when i change HTML's table size it has no effect when i see
it under mozilla and has effect under Internet explorer-does anyone know
how to solve that problem??

[Tony Marston]

Simple. Complain to the authors of the various browsers that their software
does not conform to the W3C standards.

Seriously though, this is a problem which has been around since the dawn of
the internet. Different browsers deal differently with the various HTML and
CSS standards. The only other alternative would be to force every user to
use the same version of the same browser. Fat chance!

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net
"Piotr Wolski" <wo****@cs.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:cd**********@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...

how to make my page that it was correct with every browser standard?

for example when i change HTML's table size it has no effect when i see
it under mozilla and has effect under Internet explorer-does anyone know
how to solve that problem??

[Leythos]

In article <cd**********@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>, wo****@cs.purdue.edu
says...

how to make my page that it was correct with every browser standard?

for example when i change HTML's table size it has no effect when i see
it under mozilla and has effect under Internet explorer-does anyone know
how to solve that problem??

You need your code to detect the browser type and to use different code
based on the browser type - one set for IE, another set (in the same
page) for Mozilla. We've had to do this for years on all platforms.

--
--
sp*********@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

[Michael Austin]

Tony Marston wrote:

Simple. Complain to the authors of the various browsers that their software
does not conform to the W3C standards.

Seriously though, this is a problem which has been around since the dawn of
the internet.

you mean www, internet pre-dates www by about 25 years. Before there were
browsers and HTML, there was archie, gopher, veronica, irc, and a host of other
"text-only" applications.

--
Michael Austin.
Consultant - Available.
Donations welcomed. Http://www.firstdbasource.com/donations.html
:)

[Geoff Berrow]

I noticed that Message-ID: <cd**********@mozo.cc.purdue.edu> from Piotr
Wolski contained the following:

for example when i change HTML's table size it has no effect when i see
it under mozilla and has effect under Internet explorer-does anyone know
how to solve that problem??

You may get better results if you make table sizing proportional, using
percentages.
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Jeffrey Silverman]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:08:10 +0000, Michael Austin wrote:

you mean www, internet pre-dates www by about 25 years. Before there were
browsers and HTML, there was archie, gopher, veronica, irc, and a host of other
"text-only" applications.

To the average shmoe, "WWW" == "The Internet".

But, of course, this being a PHP Newsgroup, we should expect, or at least
*anticipate*, slightly-more-computer-and-internet-familiar-than-average
shmoes. But of course, that may be expecting too much.

later...
--
Jeffrey D. Silverman | je*****@pantsjhu.edu **
Website | http://www.newtnotes.com

(** Drop "pants" to reply by email)

[Brian]

Piotr Wolski wrote:

how to make my page that it was correct with every browser standard?
Browsers don't have standards. The ISO has standards, and the w3c has
recommendations that are thought of as standards. Browser makers, many
of whom are part of the w3c, are supposed to make their browsers work
according to the published recommendations.
for example when i change HTML's table size it has no effect when i see
it under mozilla and has effect under Internet explorer-does anyone know
how to solve that problem??

Not without a url. But this is off-topic for a php group anyways. I'd
suggest you take it to comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html or
alt.html. Since I don't which you'd prefer, I'll refrain from
cross-posting to those groups.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Chung Leong]

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cd*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Simple. Complain to the authors of the various browsers that their software does not conform to the W3C standards.

Better yet, complain to the W3C that they should stop making paper standards
that conflict with de facto standards. The fact is that IE has 95% of the
market. To define a standard that renders it "non-compliant" overnight was
utterly irresponsible and a disservice to both the web-development community
and end-users in general.

That CSS width and height. When I specify the width and height of a div, I
want it to the final width and height of that div. But no! The W3C had to
decide that it should be the width and height excluding the border and
padding. For what reason I don't know. Sheer stupidity? Sense of vendetta
against Microsoft? And since border and padding are usually set as number of
pixels, that makes it impossible to work with percentage dimensions. Try
this in Netscape, for example: Create two divs that fill the entire browser
client area, each occupying half, with 5px padding on each. You cannot do
it, at least not without using Javascript. In IE the following code renders
as intended :

<html>
<body leftmargin="0" topmargin="0">
<style>

#box1 {
position: absolute;
width: 50%;
height: 100%;
padding: 5px;
background-color: blue;
}

#box2 {
position: absolute;
width: 50%;
height: 100%;
padding: 5px;
background-color: yellow;
left: 50%;
}

</style>
<div id="box1">Hello world</div>
<div id="box2">Hello world</div>
</body>
</html>

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

Better yet, complain to the W3C that they should stop making paper
standards that conflict with de facto standards. The fact is that
IE has 95% of the market.
94% and dropping, according to recent news reports. Site
administrators numbers vary widely, from 95% to less than 70%. But
then, I place very little faith in such statistics, since it's trivial
to fake ua strings, and caching throws the whole thing off. I might
add that I place very little credence in polemics against the w3c,
too, especially when I see phrases like "de facto standards".
That CSS width and height. When I specify the width and height of a
div, I want it to the final width and height of that div. But no!
The W3C had to decide that it should be the width and height
excluding the border and padding. For what reason I don't know.
Sheer stupidity? Sense of vendetta against Microsoft?
That'd be sort of hard, since Microsoft is a member of the W3C and
help write those "standards".
And since border and padding are usually set as number of pixels,
that makes it impossible to work with percentage dimensions. Try
this in Netscape, for example: Create two divs that fill the entire
browser client area, each occupying half, with 5px padding on
each. You cannot do it, at least not without using Javascript. In
IE the following code renders as intended :

http://www.tsmchughs.com/test/iestandards

Tested IE 6.0/Win XP. I get the same horizontal scroll bar that I get
in Mozilla, on which Netscape 7 is built. But IE 6 seems to ignore
your height declarations, too. Is that what you intended?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Tony Marston]

"Chung Leong" <ch***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:oa********************@comcast.com...

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cd*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Simple. Complain to the authors of the various browsers that their software

does not conform to the W3C standards.

Better yet, complain to the W3C that they should stop making paper

standards that conflict with de facto standards. The fact is that IE has 95% of the
market. To define a standard that renders it "non-compliant" overnight was
utterly irresponsible and a disservice to both the web-development community and end-users in general.
Rubbish. Something is not a "de facto" standard unless it is the only one in
the market. When web browsers began to proliferate they each started with
the common set of HTML tags then tries to outdo each other with their custom
extensions. The W3C was set up in order to "develop common protocols that
promote the evolution of the World Wide Web and ensure its
interoperability". It is not just a bunch of propellor heads coming up with
wild dreams, there are a lot of big names (see
http://www.w3c.org/Consortium/Member/List) involved in trying to come up
with a solid set of standards.

When you develop a web page you do not use a diferent set of tags for each
browser, do you? Why not? Because it would be innefficient and very
expensive.

If someone develops a new web browser that does not conform to the current
W3C standards and renders all existing pages as unviewable how long do you
think it will last? Not long at all.

Microsoft is notorious when it comes to standards. They agree to certain
standards, then promptly go off and do their own thing. Their justification
for not making IE fully standards-compliant is that "we asked our users and
they are not bothered". The point is that they asked people who VIEW the
pages, not those who design and CREATE the pages, and it is the page
builders who are inconvenienced by this lack of standards compliance.
That CSS width and height. When I specify the width and height of a div, I
want it to the final width and height of that div. But no! The W3C had to
decide that it should be the width and height excluding the border and
padding. For what reason I don't know. Sheer stupidity?
Ask the people who agreed on that standard. A draft form was available for
many months before it became a fully-fledged standard, so why didn't other
people get it changed then? Or perhaps what YOU want is non-standard.
Sense of vendetta
against Microsoft? And since border and padding are usually set as number of pixels, that makes it impossible to work with percentage dimensions. Try
this in Netscape, for example: Create two divs that fill the entire browser client area, each occupying half, with 5px padding on each. You cannot do
it, at least not without using Javascript. In IE the following code renders as intended :

Complain to Microsoft and Netscape. A single standard has been published, so
they should stick to it.

When it comes to javascript you have to remember that it is not subject to a
W3C standard, which accounts for the wide differences in its implementation.
If you want to do something sexy with javascript you need to detect which
browser the client is using so that you can execute the code that works for
that particular browser. How inefficient is that?

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[Brian]

Tony Marston wrote:

Microsoft is notorious when it comes to standards.
Indeed. But their greatest failings are in the HTTP realm. This CSS
stuff is secondary to the real problems.
When it comes to javascript you have to remember that it is not
subject to a W3C standard,

Well, they did create a DOM spec.

http://www.w3.org/DOM/

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Ian.H]

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:52:01 -0400, Chung Leong wrote:

Try
this in Netscape, for example: Create two divs that fill the entire browser
client area, each occupying half, with 5px padding on each. You cannot do
it, at least not without using Javascript. In IE the following code renders
as intended :

<html>
<body leftmargin="0" topmargin="0">
<style>

#box1 {
position: absolute;
width: 50%;
height: 100%;
padding: 5px;
background-color: blue;
}

#box2 {
position: absolute;
width: 50%;
height: 100%;
padding: 5px;
background-color: yellow;
left: 50%;
}

</style>
<div id="box1">Hello world</div>
<div id="box2">Hello world</div>
</body>
</html>

I guess I must just be "used to it" as I'd be using 3 <div>s here.. one
for the padding.. but in Firefox:
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {padding:0; margin:0;}
div.box1 {width:50%; background-color:#00F; float:left;}
div.box2 {width:50%; background-color:#FF0; float:right;}
div.pad5 {padding:5px;}
//-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="box1"><div class="pad5">Hello world</div></div>
<div class="box2"><div class="pad5">Hello world</div></div>
</body>
</html>

This works just fine. Obviously, I didn't add the 'height' attrib as
'100%' is 100% of what it contains (single line of text) not 100% of the
browser height (for some strange reason(? heh), IE interprets this wrongly).

Not found reasons for using height:100% personally.. but IE making use of
the min-/max-height attribs would be handy (would save me writing 2 lines
of code just so I can cover IE too [sigh])

Regards,

Ian

--
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

[Andy Hassall]

On Thu, 15 Jul 2004 10:33:03 -0400, Brian <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid>
wrote:

Tony Marston wrote:

Microsoft is notorious when it comes to standards.

Indeed. But their greatest failings are in the HTTP realm. This CSS
stuff is secondary to the real problems.

When it comes to javascript you have to remember that it is not
subject to a W3C standard,

Well, they did create a DOM spec.

http://www.w3.org/DOM/

The interface between an HTML document and a scripting language is
standardised, and then one implementation of a scripting language, originally
called Javascript, is standardised as an ISO specification (ISO-16262), as
"ECMAscript". Whether your browser's implementation of
the-thing-it-calls-Javascript is compliant with ECMAscript is another matter. I
don't know if anyone is even claiming ECMAscript compliance.

--
Andy Hassall <an**@andyh.co.uk> / Space: disk usage analysis tool
http://www.andyh.co.uk / http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space

[neur0maniak]

Brian wrote:

Chung Leong wrote:

Better yet, complain to the W3C that they should stop making paper
standards that conflict with de facto standards. The fact is that IE
has 95% of the market.

94% and dropping, according to recent news reports. Site
administrators numbers vary widely, from 95% to less than 70%. But
then, I place very little faith in such statistics, since it's trivial
to fake ua strings, and caching throws the whole thing off. I might
add that I place very little credence in polemics against the w3c,
too, especially when I see phrases like "de facto standards".

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox. Simply
because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier than using
DirectX filters... Tho, most people seem to do it because of the "pop-up
blocking by default".

IE has a lot to catch up on, though I hear they're recent started up
development on it again, so it should make things more "interesting"...

[Chung Leong]

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cd*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Rubbish. Something is not a "de facto" standard unless it is the only one in the market. When web browsers began to proliferate they each started with
the common set of HTML tags then tries to outdo each other with their custom extensions. The W3C was set up in order to "develop common protocols that
promote the evolution of the World Wide Web and ensure its
interoperability". It is not just a bunch of propellor heads coming up with wild dreams, there are a lot of big names (see
http://www.w3c.org/Consortium/Member/List) involved in trying to come up
with a solid set of standards.
Now, W3C has not succeed entirely now has it? Personally, I'm not interested
in the politics and the injustices of the software world. If the W3C cannot
enforce its standards, then it has no business making them. It should be
disbanded and its specs shredded, to be replaced by detailed description of
how IE works. Everyone's life will be easier.
Microsoft is notorious when it comes to standards. They agree to certain
standards, then promptly go off and do their own thing. Their justification for not making IE fully standards-compliant is that "we asked our users and they are not bothered". The point is that they asked people who VIEW the
pages, not those who design and CREATE the pages, and it is the page
builders who are inconvenienced by this lack of standards compliance.

Most page designers at the time would probably tell you that they care more
about IE4 compatibility than adherence to some still abstract standard. In
the real world no one gives a crap about standard compliant. What matters is
market share. The bottom line is that I need to get the page to appear
correctly in front of as many eyeballs as I can. How the W3C just not
consider the practical impact of their design choices just pisses me off.

[Chung Leong]

"Ian.H" <ia*@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@bubbleboy.digi serv.net...

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 19:52:01 -0400, Chung Leong wrote:
I guess I must just be "used to it" as I'd be using 3 <div>s here.. one
for the padding.. but in Firefox:
<html>
<head>
<style type="text/css">
<!--
body {padding:0; margin:0;}
div.box1 {width:50%; background-color:#00F; float:left;}
div.box2 {width:50%; background-color:#FF0; float:right;}
div.pad5 {padding:5px;}
//-->
</style>
</head>
<body>
<div class="box1"><div class="pad5">Hello world</div></div>
<div class="box2"><div class="pad5">Hello world</div></div>
</body>
</html>

Clever. Can't say though why this should work. Say instead of a div we want
a textarea. You'd need to specify width: 100% to get the element to expand
across the parent. This works in Netscape but it shouldn't since the
percentage is relative to the parent, and then you have to add in the
padding.

Just notice how my original code renders more or less correctly in Netscape
7.1 (as opposed to 7.0). Now I will never write W3C complaint code, ha ha!

[Chung Leong]

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Chung Leong wrote:

Better yet, complain to the W3C that they should stop making paper
standards that conflict with de facto standards. The fact is that
IE has 95% of the market.

94% and dropping, according to recent news reports. Site
administrators numbers vary widely, from 95% to less than 70%. But
then, I place very little faith in such statistics, since it's trivial
to fake ua strings, and caching throws the whole thing off. I might
add that I place very little credence in polemics against the w3c,
too, especially when I see phrases like "de facto standards".

The study was based on page hits, remember, and those who know enough to
install an alternative browser are those who surf more often. By number of
actual users the figure is probably higher. And IE's market reach is the
same as Windows, at 97%+. If that's not a de facto standard i don't know
what is.

[Tony Marston]

"Chung Leong" <ch***********@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:mv********************@comcast.com...

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cd*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Rubbish. Something is not a "de facto" standard unless it is the only one

in

the market. When web browsers began to proliferate they each started

with the common set of HTML tags then tries to outdo each other with their

custom

extensions. The W3C was set up in order to "develop common protocols that promote the evolution of the World Wide Web and ensure its
interoperability". It is not just a bunch of propellor heads coming up

with

wild dreams, there are a lot of big names (see
http://www.w3c.org/Consortium/Member/List) involved in trying to come up
with a solid set of standards.

Now, W3C has not succeed entirely now has it? Personally, I'm not

interested in the politics and the injustices of the software world. If the W3C cannot enforce its standards, then it has no business making them.
All the major corporations, including Microsoft, are members of the W3C.
They collectively decide on a set of standards so that everyone can sing
from the same song sheet. So these corporations AGREE on a set of standards
yet consistently IGNORE them. This is what I call incompetence.
It should be
disbanded and its specs shredded, to be replaced by detailed description of how IE works. Everyone's life will be easier.
I think you are Micro-soft in the head.

Microsoft is notorious when it comes to standards. They agree to certain
standards, then promptly go off and do their own thing. Their

justification

for not making IE fully standards-compliant is that "we asked our users

and

they are not bothered". The point is that they asked people who VIEW the
pages, not those who design and CREATE the pages, and it is the page
builders who are inconvenienced by this lack of standards compliance.

Most page designers at the time would probably tell you that they care

more about IE4 compatibility than adherence to some still abstract standard. In
the real world no one gives a crap about standard compliant.
Then we must live in different worlds. The HTML standards are not owned by
Microsoft or any other corporation. They are non-proprietary and are
available to eveyrone for free. Microsoft would like to change this so that
they could charge you for using "their" standard.
What matters is
market share. The bottom line is that I need to get the page to appear
correctly in front of as many eyeballs as I can.
Anybody would develops internet pages which are written for Internet
Explorer only being very short sighted and deserves to go out of business.
How the W3C just not
consider the practical impact of their design choices just pisses me off.

Then I hope you are pissed off for many years to come. I believe in open
standards and don't like being forced to do things the Microsoft way. I am
not the only one.

--
Tony Marston

http://www.tonymarston.net

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

Brian wrote...

Chung Leong wrote:

The fact is that IE has 95% of the market.
I place very little faith in such statistics, since it's trivial
to fake ua strings, and caching throws the whole thing off.

The study was based on page hits,

I suppose that's meant to lend credibility to the study's claims, but
it doesn't add anything to the discussion.

How did the study's author(s) account for forged ua strings? How did
they account for browser and proxy caching? Until those questions are
answered in a meaningful way, the study is worse than useless.
By number of actual users the figure is probably higher.
The figures are completely meaningless. Anyone who thinks they can
tell me how many users have NS, or IE, or Lynx, are deluding
themselves. The implications for www authoring are rather obvious.
And IE's market reach is the same as Windows, at 97%+. If that's
not a de facto standard i don't know what is.

What percentage of them use IE? And _how do you know_?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Leythos]

In article <7M********************@comcast.com>,
ch***********@hotmail.com says...

and those who know enough to
install an alternative browser are those who surf more often.

I disagree - I know people that surf more than 10 hours a day and have
no clue about alternate browsers or even how to find/install them.

Those numbers are good, and most of our customers web sites reflect the
same range of stats.

--
--
sp*********@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

Just notice how my original code renders more or less correctly in
Netscape 7.1 (as opposed to 7.0).

Your orginal code has the same effect -- horizontal scroll bar caused
by adding padding to the 100% width -- in MSIE 6.0 WinXP and Firefox
0.8 WinXP, as my test case showed.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

If the W3C cannot enforce its standards, then it has no business
making them. It should be disbanded and its specs shredded, to be
replaced by detailed description of how IE works.
But MS are a member of the W3C? How does that fit your model for how
things should work? Should MS withdraw from the W3C?
Everyone's life will be easier.
Everyone using Windows, you mean. How does your plan impact
Linux/Unix/Mac users?
In the real world no one gives a crap about standard compliant.
In the real world, standards are what make things like HTTP
communication possible. If you don't believe me, stop following them.
Ignore the interworking specifications for ip address, ports, and
headers and see how long you survive as a web author.
How the W3C just not consider the practical impact of their design
choices just pisses me off.

And you're pissed off at MS, who are part of the W3C?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Chung Leong]

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

But MS are a member of the W3C? How does that fit your model for how
things should work? Should MS withdraw from the W3C?
They should. It's a damn charade anyway. As it is, shardard compliant means
nothing 'cause half the pages on the web don't render correctly. If the W3C
folds then Microsoft will become essentially the controller of HTML by their
market dominant. What IE does, others have to follow. Then we'll have a
standard.
Everyone using Windows, you mean. How does your plan impact
Linux/Unix/Mac users?
Who's harmed by the Mozilla project's unwillingness to implement IE
extensions? Microsoft? Certainly not. Linux users benefit when their
browsers render more sites correctly, just as they benefit from OpenOffice's
ability to open MS-Office documents.
In the real world, standards are what make things like HTTP
communication possible. If you don't believe me, stop following them.
Ignore the interworking specifications for ip address, ports, and
headers and see how long you survive as a web author.
The difference is, all Microsoft browsers are compliant with the HTTP
specification whereas that's not the case with W3C recommendations. The
simple fact is this: the standards that Microsoft likes are true standards;
whereas the standards that Microsoft doesn't care for are not.
And you're pissed off at MS, who are part of the W3C?

It's well known a number of Microsoft's proposals were rejected at the W3C.
Should anyone be surprised that these features show up (or in some
cases--remained) in IE anyway?

[Chung Leong]

"Tony Marston" <to**@NOSPAM.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:cd*******************@news.demon.co.uk...

Then I hope you are pissed off for many years to come. I believe in open
standards and don't like being forced to do things the Microsoft way. I am
not the only one.

And I believe in Papal infallibility. Those who disagree with the Pope are
very short sighted and deserve to burn in Hell for all eternity.

[Chung Leong]

"Brian" <us*****@julietremblay.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:10*************@corp.supernews.com...

Chung Leong wrote:

Just notice how my original code renders more or less correctly in
Netscape 7.1 (as opposed to 7.0).

Your orginal code has the same effect -- horizontal scroll bar caused
by adding padding to the 100% width -- in MSIE 6.0 WinXP and Firefox
0.8 WinXP, as my test case showed.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

You turned off compatilibity mode, that's why.

[Geoff Berrow]

I noticed that Message-ID: <Sq********************@comcast.com> from
Chung Leong contained the following:

If the W3C
folds then Microsoft will become essentially the controller of HTML by their
market dominant. What IE does, others have to follow. Then we'll have a
standard.
I can't believe that someone as seemingly intelligent as you would wish
for such a thing. M$ is a commercial organisation driven by the need to
make ever increasing profits. Their stranglehold on the way we do
things has already shaped business communication ("Thou shalt append the
incoming message at the bottom of the emailed reply"). Their
'standards' are not written for the users' benefit but for theirs. for
instance, Front page extensions are designed to tie in users to servers
where such extensions are installed. Without open standards you
effectively give M$ the right to do what the hell they like, and charge
accordingly.

Everyone using Windows, you mean. How does your plan impact
Linux/Unix/Mac users?
Who's harmed by the Mozilla project's unwillingness to implement IE
extensions? Microsoft? Certainly not. Linux users benefit when their
browsers render more sites correctly, just as they benefit from OpenOffice's
ability to open MS-Office documents.

The harm comes from the fact that the tail is wagging the dog. With a
common set of standards and a standards compliant browser all sites
should render correctly. With total dominance, where is the incentive
for M$ to develop a product further? (a fact we have already witnessed
with IE)

In the real world, standards are what make things like HTTP
communication possible. If you don't believe me, stop following them.
Ignore the interworking specifications for ip address, ports, and
headers and see how long you survive as a web author.
The difference is, all Microsoft browsers are compliant with the HTTP
specification whereas that's not the case with W3C recommendations.

Huh?
The
simple fact is this: the standards that Microsoft likes are true standards;
whereas the standards that Microsoft doesn't care for are not.

Well you might be prepared to roll over and do their bidding. Thank
goodness for the people who aren't. Not least of all Sir TBL.

And you're pissed off at MS, who are part of the W3C?

It's well known a number of Microsoft's proposals were rejected at the W3C.
Should anyone be surprised that these features show up (or in some
cases--remained) in IE anyway?

Oh goody, more <marqee></marquee> tags.

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Andy Hassall]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 12:18:38 +0100, Geoff Berrow <bl******@ckdog.co.uk> wrote:

Oh goody, more <marqee></marquee> tags.

That would be <blink>very bad.</blink>

;-)

--
Andy Hassall <an**@andyh.co.uk> / Space: disk usage analysis tool
http://www.andyh.co.uk / http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

Brian wrote...

Everyone using Windows, you mean. How does your plan impact
Linux/Unix/Mac users?
Who's harmed by the Mozilla project's unwillingness to implement IE
extensions? Microsoft? Certainly not. Linux users benefit when
their browsers render more sites correctly, just as they benefit
from OpenOffice's ability to open MS-Office documents.

You might want to take the blinders off and think about what I'm
saying. There is no IE for Linux. And there will be no further
development of IE for Mac -- 5.2 is the end of the line. If everyone
else closes up shop, there will be no browser for Linux, and Mac users
will be stuck with a product that's already several years old.
The difference is, all Microsoft browsers are compliant with the
HTTP specification
If you actually understood the HTTP protocol, I'd try to explain how
silly that statement is. Well, ok, I'll just mention this: MIME type.
IE breaks the interworking specification. This is far more serious
than any CSS bugs in IE, which are after all fairly trivial.
whereas that's not the case with W3C recommendations.
The longer this thread goes on, the less you appear to know. Which W3C
recommendation violates an RFC? (Obviously, before answering that, you
need a clear understanding of the difference between the two.)
The simple fact is this: the standards that Microsoft likes are
true standards; whereas the standards that Microsoft doesn't care
for are not.

Your entry into this thread started with a complaint about the css box
model: MSIE includes padding and border in a box's width, other
browsers to not.

This is plainly wrong. MSIE/Mac follows the CSS box model, treating
the width of a box as the *content* width, to which borders and
padding are added. So does MSIE 6.0/Win, when in "standards mode".
Only MSIE 5.x/Win consistently treats a box's width as the total width
of the box. So which Microsoft de facto standard is the right one?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

Brian wrote...

Chung Leong wrote:

Just notice how my original code renders more or less correctly
in Netscape 7.1 (as opposed to 7.0).

Your orginal code has the same effect -- horizontal scroll bar
caused by adding padding to the 100% width -- in MSIE 6.0 WinXP
and Firefox 0.8 WinXP, as my test case showed.

You turned off compatilibity mode, that's why.

Right. So which MSIE mode is the correct one, and why?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Joel Farris]

Brian wrote:

Chung Leong wrote:
Who's harmed by the Mozilla project's unwillingness to implement IE
extensions? Microsoft? Certainly not. Linux users benefit when their
browsers render more sites correctly, just as they benefit from
OpenOffice's ability to open MS-Office documents.

You might want to take the blinders off and think about what I'm
saying. There is no IE for Linux. And there will be no further
development of IE for Mac -- 5.2 is the end of the line. If everyone
else closes up shop, there will be no browser for Linux, and Mac users
will be stuck with a product that's already several years old.

[snipperoo]
I want to throw out another observation here. Remember Visicalc? They used to be
on top of the world. Anyone ever use Lotus? Top in its class, but now forgotten
on the side of the road. Microsoft will eventually be in this position too. As
will iTunes and the HTML email. :)

My point is that if the only standard is a Microsoft standard, then when they go
belly up, are we gonna have to re-invent the web? Microsoft are dominant, sure,
but they are not the industry standard. I had this discussion just last week in
another newsgroup. We need standards that are independent of the dominant market
leader, or anarchy will result.

As Brian has pointed out, once M$ kills their support for any platform but
theirs, it opens the door for standards to run rampant. I'd say that within 18
months, the US-CERT advisory regarding IE
http://www.internetnews.com/security...le.php/3374931
and the fact that Microsoft rolled up the red carpet for all other operating
systems will lead to a less than 50% market dominance for IE. What do we use for
standards then, huh?
--
Joel Farris | Q: It reverses the logical flow of conversation.
twinkledust Designs | A: Why is top posting frowned upon?
http://twinkledust.com|
AIM chat: FarrisJoel | "John Kerry: A walking, talking contradiction"

[Chung Leong]

"Geoff Berrow" <bl******@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:mk********************************@4ax.com...

I can't believe that someone as seemingly intelligent as you would wish
for such a thing. M$ is a commercial organisation driven by the need to
make ever increasing profits. Their stranglehold on the way we do
things has already shaped business communication ("Thou shalt append the
incoming message at the bottom of the emailed reply"). Their
'standards' are not written for the users' benefit but for theirs. for
instance, Front page extensions are designed to tie in users to servers
where such extensions are installed. Without open standards you
effectively give M$ the right to do what the hell they like, and charge
accordingly.
Well, I just like to voice unpopular ideas and get a rise out of people. But
to get back to the issue at hand, what's wrong with a company trying to make
money? Zend is a commercial entity too, you know. I suspect few here would
be in favor of creating an international body dictating how PHP should
evolve.

I'm not against open standards. What I'm against is design by communitee.
Just let the dominant player come up with a specs and have the smaller
players follow it. That's a model that works. Imagine how many more people
would be using Mozilla if it's 100% compatible clone of IE.
The harm comes from the fact that the tail is wagging the dog. With a
common set of standards and a standards compliant browser all sites
should render correctly. With total dominance, where is the incentive
for M$ to develop a product further? (a fact we have already witnessed
with IE)
No, millions of page wouldn't have rendered correctly 'cause the W3C decided
that backward compatibility wasn't relevant to their mission of "developing
interoperable technologies."

The W3C process is where you have the tail wagging the dog. Normally, a
technology gains dominance first, then become a standard, usually with but
minor adjustments. Think C/C++, Java, Javascript, or HTTP.
Oh goody, more <marqee></marquee> tags.

Thank goodness for innerHTML.

[Chung Leong]

"Joel Farris" <th*********@valid.address> wrote in message
news:mi*********************@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

My point is that if the only standard is a Microsoft standard, then when they go belly up, are we gonna have to re-invent the web? Microsoft are dominant, sure, but they are not the industry standard. I had this discussion just last week in another newsgroup. We need standards that are independent of the dominant market leader, or anarchy will result.
Well, I don't know what the other guy was smoking, but I never said IE
should be the only browser. My argument is basically that the market wants
IE-compatibility (including the ability to render pages written for IE4 and
5) more than it does W3C standard compliant.

If Microsoft goes belly up, then someone else will build on what they have
created, that's all. You can just take a look at the x86 situation. You have
your market leader, Intel, and you have your lesser players in AMD,
Transmeta, and Via. You can decide to not go with Intel since you know an
Athlon, a Crusoe, or a C3 is 100% compatible. And when Intel wanted to kill
of x86, AMD picked up the ball and ran with it. Now we have Intel cloning
AMD's x86-64.

Market forces work. Voluntary standards do not.
As Brian has pointed out, once M$ kills their support for any platform but
theirs, it opens the door for standards to run rampant. I'd say that within 18 months, the US-CERT advisory regarding IE
http://www.internetnews.com/security...le.php/3374931
and the fact that Microsoft rolled up the red carpet for all other operating systems will lead to a less than 50% market dominance for IE. What do we use for standards then, huh?
As long as pages designed for IE don't work in Netscape/Mozilla, that will
never happen.
--
Joel Farris | Q: It reverses the logical flow of conversation.
twinkledust Designs | A: Why is top posting frowned upon?
http://twinkledust.com|
AIM chat: FarrisJoel | "John Kerry: A walking, talking contradiction"

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

Well, I just like to voice unpopular ideas and get a rise out of
people.
Oh. You were merely trolling, then?
But to get back to the issue at hand, what's wrong with a company
trying to make money?

I don't recall that issue being raised until now, so it looks like a
mere diversion. Oh, but you're just trolling, so that makes sense.

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Brian]

Chung Leong wrote:

the market wants IE-compatibility (including the ability to render
pages written for IE4 and 5) more than it does W3C standard
compliant. As long as pages designed for IE don't work in Netscape/Mozilla

Pages designed for IE (5.x Win) don't work on IE (5.x Mac), nor on IE
(6.0 Win "standards mode"). So which MSIE standard is the right one?
Which one should everyone sheepishly follow? Why can't MS follow its
own "de facto standard"?

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

[Ian.H]

On Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:53:56 -0400, Chung Leong wrote:
[ snip ]

Imagine how many more people
would be using Mozilla if it's 100% compatible clone of IE.

[ snip ]
Yikes Chung! That's just a _scary_ thought =P

Coding for IE is a bitch.. 99% of the time, my pages render "perfectly" in
a Web browser.. come to view it in IE and the story is a completely
different one... yet it renders fine in more than 1 Web browser. This
tells me that IE is wrong (not that I didn't know this already).

Nothing you say will _ever_ convince me that IE is worth more than just
checking for compatability at viewing stage.. that's the only reason it
still sits on my windoze box... and thankfully sitting behind a FreeBSD
box.

The best thing that could happen on the net is that people just stopped
using IE completely. I know this is a personal idealism.. but it's nice to
get away from reality sometimes =)

Long and short.. IMO, IE is nothing more than a PoS that will render your
code as _it_ wants to, not as you wrote it to.

Regards,

Ian

--
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

[Chung Leong]

"Ian.H" <ia*@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
news:pa****************************@bubbleboy.digi serv.net...

Coding for IE is a bitch.. 99% of the time, my pages render "perfectly" in
a Web browser.. come to view it in IE and the story is a completely
different one... yet it renders fine in more than 1 Web browser. This
tells me that IE is wrong (not that I didn't know this already).
As someone in linguistics would say, "IE isn't wrong...just different" :-)
The best thing that could happen on the net is that people just stopped
using IE completely. I know this is a personal idealism.. but it's nice to
get away from reality sometimes =)
To be even more idealistic, I propose that in the interest of fairness,
names of HTML tags and CSS style should be translated into all languages, so
that those who do not know English has as easy a time creating content for
the web as those who do.

<dzial styl="pozycja: wzgledna; barwa-tla: biala">...</dzial>

Anyone? Or maybe we should move everything to Esperanto?
Long and short.. IMO, IE is nothing more than a PoS that will render your
code as _it_ wants to, not as you wrote it to.

The last time I tried to get some Hindi text to show up on Mozilla/Linux,
all I got was a bunch of malformed characters.

[Geoff Berrow]

I noticed that Message-ID: <XP********************@comcast.com> from
Chung Leong contained the following:

<dzial styl="pozycja: wzgledna; barwa-tla: biala">...</dzial>

Anyone? Or maybe we should move everything to Esperanto?

I'd settle for moving it to <style="colour: #0000FF">English</style>

--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http://www.ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/

[Anders K. Madsen]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 11:47:57 -0400
"Chung Leong" <ch***********@hotmail.com> wrote:

[snip]

As someone in linguistics would say, "IE isn't wrong...just different" :-)
I'm in linguistics and I definitely wouldn't say that...
I'd rather say that IE is a non-standards compliant piece of crap in all
ways!
(I don't intent do get into this discussion, I just wanted to give my
opinion.)
<dzial styl="pozycja: wzgledna; barwa-tla: biala">...</dzial>
Well, that could easily be done with xml/xslt.

Long and short.. IMO, IE is nothing more than a PoS that will render
your code as _it_ wants to, not as you wrote it to.

Hear hear!
The last time I tried to get some Hindi text to show up on
Mozilla/Linux, all I got was a bunch of malformed characters.

Well, to see Hindi text you'll need Hindi fonts...
I don't expect IPA (International Phonetics Alphabet) to be installed on
systems, so when I need to transcribe something with it, I usually use
images. (I can see why one wouldn't want to do that
with Hindi.)
But it's not mozilla's fault that your Hindi-text didn't show
correctly... Not if you've formatted it correctly.

--
Anders K. Madsen --- http://lillesvin.linux.dk

"There are 10 types of people in the world.
Those who understand binary - and those who don't."

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFA+v+ClNHJe/JASHcRAv7HAJ4wl/zcPn5OgL+U8XcgeTGq8g7QGwCfYSvL
Lnu+9GNyAx9WtIQlqWwKsfs=
=i+kf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
<snip>

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox. Simply
because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier than using
DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[Berislav Lopac]

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>... <snip>

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox.
Simply because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier
than using DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

Alternative solution:
http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavior.html

Berislav

--
If the Internet is a Marx Brothers movie, and Web, e-mail, and IRC are
Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, then Usenet is Zeppo.

[Dariusz]

In article <ab**************************@posting.google.com >, ng**********@rediffmail.com (R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah) wrote:

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

I have never got 24bit alpha transparency PNG's to work properly with IE
6.x which work in Firefox (or Firebird). It seems that over a certain
dimension, IE refuses to display the transparency - but Firefox has not had
this problem.

Dariusz

[R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah]

"Berislav Lopac" <be************@dimedia.hr> wrote in message news:<cd**********@ls219.htnet.hr>...

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>... <snip>

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox.
Simply because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier
than using DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

Alternative solution:
http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavior.html

I'm not talking about any "fixes". I'm telling that it is working
fine as it is, when created using GIMP.

--
| Just another PHP saint |
Email: rrjanbiah-at-Y!com

[Ian.H]

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:43:55 -0700, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
<snip>

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox. Simply
because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier than using
DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

IE doesn't open them.. I tried with some 16x16 images the other day, saved
with the gimp, paintshop pro, photoshop and illustrator.. all produced the
same ugly background in IE whereas a Web browser renders them
correctly.... another reason why IE is such a PoS (and no, asking visitors
to run activatex bullshit is _not_ the answer nor should it ever be part
of an equasion).

There is one solution, but requires GD.


Regards,

Ian

--
Ian.H
digiServ Network
London, UK
http://digiserv.net/

[2metre]

Ian.H wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:43:55 -0700, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
<snip>

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox. Simply
because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier than using
DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

IE doesn't open them.. I tried with some 16x16 images the other day, saved
with the gimp, paintshop pro, photoshop and illustrator.. all produced the
same ugly background in IE whereas a Web browser renders them
correctly.... another reason why IE is such a PoS (and no, asking visitors
to run activatex bullshit is _not_ the answer nor should it ever be part
of an equasion).

There is one solution, but requires GD.


Regards,

Ian

Strange. Having read this I ran a quick test. I created a graphic in
Photoshop, "saved for web" as a png, inserted it on a page and the
transparency works perfectly when viewed in IE.

[Berislav Lopac]

2metre wrote:

Strange. Having read this I ran a quick test. I created a graphic in
Photoshop, "saved for web" as a png, inserted it on a page and the
transparency works perfectly when viewed in IE.

The point is that PNG-24 is an excellent tool because it supports multiple
levels (16 IIRC) of transparency. While it presumably works fine when you
have only one transparent level, like in GIF, when it comes to variable
transparent PNG the browsers work differently: in Mozilla it works out of
the box, while in IE you need to explicitly set the alpha transparency,
which is possible through MS extensions to CSS (specifically filters).

The cross-browser solution is to make the IE filters as behaviors (which is
basically a CSS command that calls a Jscript), as they did in WebFX. Mozilla
will simply ignore the behavior and use uts default behavior, while IE will
recognize and use the behavior.

Berislav

--
If the Internet is a Marx Brothers movie, and Web, e-mail, and IRC are
Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, then Usenet is Zeppo.

[Berislav Lopac]

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

"Berislav Lopac" <be************@dimedia.hr> wrote in message
news:<cd**********@ls219.htnet.hr>...

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
<snip>
Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox.
Simply because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier
than using DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that
was not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file
works fine in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG
files work very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories
behind.

Alternative solution:
http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavior.html

I'm not talking about any "fixes". I'm telling that it is working
fine as it is, when created using GIMP.

And I am talking about an alternative solution to the GIMP one (which I
haven't checked yet, though; I am still curious how does IE recognizes the
alpha transparency after GIMP).

Berislav
--
If the Internet is a Marx Brothers movie, and Web, e-mail, and IRC are
Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, then Usenet is Zeppo.

[Justin Koivisto]

Berislav Lopac wrote:

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

"Berislav Lopac" <be************@dimedia.hr> wrote in message
news:<cd**********@ls219.htnet.hr>...

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
<snip>

>Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox.
>Simply because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier
>than using DirectX filters...

Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that
was not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file
works fine in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG
files work very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories
behind.

Alternative solution:
http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavior.html

I'm not talking about any "fixes". I'm telling that it is working
fine as it is, when created using GIMP.

And I am talking about an alternative solution to the GIMP one (which I
haven't checked yet, though; I am still curious how does IE recognizes the
alpha transparency after GIMP).

To check the alternative:

http://www.koivi.com/ie-png-transparency/

--
Justin Koivisto - sp**@koivi.com
PHP POSTERS: Please use comp.lang.php for PHP related questions,
alt.php* groups are not recommended.

[Justin Koivisto]

2metre wrote:

Ian.H wrote:

On Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:43:55 -0700, R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
<snip>

Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox.
Simply because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier
than using DirectX filters...
Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.

I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that was
not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file works fine
in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG files work
very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories behind.

IE doesn't open them.. I tried with some 16x16 images the other day,
saved
with the gimp, paintshop pro, photoshop and illustrator.. all produced
the
same ugly background in IE whereas a Web browser renders them
correctly.... another reason why IE is such a PoS (and no, asking
visitors
to run activatex bullshit is _not_ the answer nor should it ever be part
of an equasion).

There is one solution, but requires GD.


Regards,

Ian

Strange. Having read this I ran a quick test. I created a graphic in
Photoshop, "saved for web" as a png, inserted it on a page and the
transparency works perfectly when viewed in IE.

Careful, PNG-8 *IS* supported by MSIE, but that is only _binary_
transparency (same as GIF)

--
Justin Koivisto - sp**@koivi.com
PHP POSTERS: Please use comp.lang.php for PHP related questions,
alt.php* groups are not recommended.

[neur0maniak]

Justin Koivisto wrote:

Berislav Lopac wrote:

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

"Berislav Lopac" <be************@dimedia.hr> wrote in message
news:<cd**********@ls219.htnet.hr>...

R. Rajesh Jeba Anbiah wrote:

> neur0maniak <us****@neur0maniak.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<40*********************@ptn-nntp-reader03.plus.net>...
> <snip>
>
>> Well, I've manage to convert everyone I know from IE to Firefox.
>> Simply because I wanna put transparent PNGs a hell of a lot easier
>> than using DirectX filters...
>
>
> Well, I think, it is no more true that IE doesn't support PNG
> transparency 'coz for me it is working fine.
>
> I have accidentally opened a transparent PNG file in GIMP (that
> was not worked in IE before) and resaved in GIMP. Now, the file
> works fine in IE. I have also seen all GIMP created transparent PNG
> files work very well in IE. Not sure about the logic or theories
> behind.
Alternative solution:
http://webfx.eae.net/dhtml/pngbehavior/pngbehavior.html
I'm not talking about any "fixes". I'm telling that it is working
fine as it is, when created using GIMP.

And I am talking about an alternative solution to the GIMP one (which I
haven't checked yet, though; I am still curious how does IE recognizes
the
alpha transparency after GIMP).

To check the alternative:

http://www.koivi.com/ie-png-transparency/

Really, there is no fix if you have to check what browser a person is
using and dish out different code. I should only need to maintain one
code, and all browsers should support it.

I don't cater for IE PNG transparency in any of my code. Instead I give
my users a range of browsers that can handle the job better. I give my
friends the same response when they come to me complaining "the internet
is full of annoying pop up adverts"...

I read somewhere (probably slashdot.org) that IE was back in production.
Hopefully we should see some improvements in standards implementation. I
don't mind IE, as long as it behaves. I'm not going to treat it any
different from any other browser. Thats how things are ment to be.
You're not supposed to give a rats ass about browsers. The fact that
people are forced to provide work arounds (I.E in the corporate world),
means that Browser improvements are slow, as it hides the real troubles
that exist!

[neur0maniak]

Berislav Lopac wrote:

2metre wrote:

Strange. Having read this I ran a quick test. I created a graphic in
Photoshop, "saved for web" as a png, inserted it on a page and the
transparency works perfectly when viewed in IE.

The point is that PNG-24 is an excellent tool because it supports multiple
levels (16 IIRC) of transparency. While it presumably works fine when you
have only one transparent level, like in GIF, when it comes to variable
transparent PNG the browsers work differently: in Mozilla it works out of
the box, while in IE you need to explicitly set the alpha transparency,
which is possible through MS extensions to CSS (specifically filters).

The cross-browser solution is to make the IE filters as behaviors (which is
basically a CSS command that calls a Jscript), as they did in WebFX. Mozilla
will simply ignore the behavior and use uts default behavior, while IE will
recognize and use the behavior.

Berislav

--
If the Internet is a Marx Brothers movie, and Web, e-mail, and IRC are
Groucho, Chico, and Harpo, then Usenet is Zeppo.

I thought it was 256 Levels, 24 bits colour, 8 bits alpha.