 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneralPHPASPPerlColdFusionFlashHTML, CSS, ScriptsBrowsers |
Webmaster Forum / HTML, CSS, Scripts / CSS / August 2008Rant: Microsoft madness
Hello This is a rant. If you don't want to read it then don't, simple really. I usually spend my working life buried away in the back ends (fnar) of business systems. Serverside stuff over presentation stuff. I've managed to steer clear of Microsoft stuff for most of my working life, not really by design, it's just the way it turned out. Recently I was given the task of setting up a website from scratch including the front end. I chose Opera(V9.27), Firefox(V2.0.0.n) and Internet Explorer(V7.0) as my dev browsers as these were the ones used by the eventual users of the site. What a nightmare. I wanted to use Cascading Stylesheets as widely as possible. Firefox and Opera (almost invariably) render my style code in the same way. Internet Explorer is ALWAYS the exception. Dissapearing <div>s non appearing padding/margins, divs that don't expand when they are supposed to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but there seems little point. Now I've always stood back when people dis' Microsoft and thought, "well OK but it can't be that bad". Well actually it is. For gods sake, when are these people going to GET A GRIP. IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience. I have spent(wasted) more time trying to get the layout to work in IE when it works perfectly in the other browsers (even in older versions of those browsers) than I care to remember. The really sad thing is I have no option but to support this pile of poo, it's by far the most widely used browser out there. If I had my way I delete the bloody thing and be done with it. Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 Surely a triumph of marketing over usefullness. Rant Over Idaho > Hello > Now I've always stood back when people dis' Microsoft and thought, "well > OK but it can't be that bad". Well actually it is. For gods sake, when [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > when it works perfectly in the other browsers (even in older versions of > those browsers) than I care to remember. I used to spend such hours some time ago. When I learned (really learned) CSS and html I stopped having such problems. I found out that with writing html/css according to web standards and validating the code my sites render well both on IE>=7, FF, opera, safari. At least at the 95% of the them. Harris > What a nightmare. Perhaps you are attempting the non-attainable goal of "pixel precision" pages. That never works. <g> Post a URL to your page(s) and someone will have advice on what needs to be fixed. http://tekrider.net/pages/faq.php?q=flex  Signature-bts -Friends don't let friends drive Windows > IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience. It's merely "poor" on CSS, only "rubbish" if you ask it to work with non-conformant HTML & CSS. Mostly it gets it wrong in the areas around error correction. Code perfectly (which isn't _that_ hard) and you'll avoid the majority of the problems. If you feed it only a broad subset of CSS, omitting those few aspects that just don't work at all, then you might even get its performance up to "good", or at least "acceptable". A few years ago it was necessary to do bad and evil coding hacks to get things to work at all. Things have improved since then - now we can work just by being careful and avoiding a few problematic areas, we don't have to actively abuse the code to get it to work. Also forget about obsessions with, "Must look identical everywhere, on every browser". That's a bad idea for starters. > > IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience. > > It's merely "poor" on CSS, only "rubbish" if you ask it to work with > non-conformant HTML & CSS. Mostly it gets it wrong in the areas around > error correction. Code perfectly (which isn't _that_ hard) and you'll > avoid the majority of the problems. Andy, While I really want to agree with you, it must be said that nevertheless IE 7 is really still very buggy (and I mean bugs here, incorrect implementations of CSS 2.1, incorrect implementations of DOM 1 Core, DOM 1 HTML, DOM 2 Core interfaces, even HTML 4.01) when comparing with Firefox 2, Opera 9.50, Safari 3.1.1. I've said about 12 months ago that IE 7 had about 750 bugs in HTML 4, CSS 1 and CSS 2.1 and in DOM 1. Yes, writing valid markup code and valid CSS code will avoid a majority of problems and issues but in a minority of cases, you will still have headaches, nightmares, etc... with IE 7. Worst bugs so far in IE 7: - float implementation - z-index implementation - adjoining margin collapsing - inherit keyword - still many positioning issues - inline box model implementation - negative margins 130 bugs in Internet Explorer 7 (but most likely 750 bugs) http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/ Gérard >>> IE7 is RUBBISH when it comes to css, at least in my experience. >> It's merely "poor" on CSS, only "rubbish" if you ask it to work with [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Gérard Can we add 'putting white space under a <form> element'. I mean, what he hell is that about. Idaho > Can we add 'putting white space under a <form> element'. I mean, what he > hell is that about. I'm with you on that one. I discovered, quite by chance, that if you put the FORM inside a TABLE, but outside of the TR and TD elements then you suppress the space. An evil bypass. If you don't close the TD and TR elements in the table, then the extra space gets dumped into the last cell on the first row, as horizontal space, for some strange reason. The HTML is so invalid, it's pointless wondering why. I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, and I had plenty of users on slow modem connections whose only concern was "minimalistic" HTML at all costs. SignatureSteve Swift http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html http://www.ringers.org.uk > I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd > space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, ... Never used Netscape 4? Signature-bts -Friends don't let friends drive Windows >> I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd >> space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, ... > > Never used Netscape 4? Ah the memories...miss on </tr> and poof no table! Let's you know in an instant that you've made a mistake! SignatureTake care, Jonathan ------------------- LITTLE WORKS STUDIO http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com > >> I'd never bothered closing TR and TD elements until I got this odd > >> space; I'd never encountered a browser that cared, ... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Ah the memories...miss on </tr> and poof no table! Let's you know in an > instant that you've made a mistake! So it's not a bug, it's a feature? [...] > Can we add 'putting white space under a <form> element'. I mean, what he > hell is that about. I think that's just a margin in the quirks mode default stylesheet. At least that's what it is in Firefox. form { margin: 0 } gets rid of it. It may be something more horrific in IE I am unaware of. > [...] >> Can we add 'putting white space under a <form> element'. I mean, what he [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > It may be something more horrific in IE I am unaware of. Never bothered me in Firefox or Opera display:inline; gets rid of it in IE although why the heck a non UI component should interact with the UI in the first place is beyond me as well. Idaho DuncanIdaho <Duncan.Idaho2008@googlemail.com> wrote in news:V6- dnYCgE6lrz73VRVnyggA@bt.com: > Hello > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > to or do expand when they are not supposed to ... I could go on but > there seems little point. Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't you? In quirks mode IE(any version) reproduces all the bugs that were in version 5.5 and before. Opera and FF don't reproduce as many IE bugs. Don't want those bugs? Use standards mode. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > DuncanIdaho <Duncan.Idaho2008@googlemail.com> wrote in news:V6- > dnYCgE6lrz73VRVnyggA@bt.com: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Let me guess: you are running the browsers in quirks mode, aren't you? Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' I have this <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> Is that what you mean ? Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff. Case in point I am applying a style to leaves in my navigation tree that is generated on the fly by javascript via an AJAX call to a back end servlet. I have two possible classes of hyperlink in my tree 'node' and 'leaf' I have a default style that is applied to anything that isn't a leaf, if it's a leaf I want to apply a different style. in my stylesheet a.leaf{ text-decoration: none; color: rgb(254, 100, 253); font-size: 0.75em; } I have the following in my javascript textanchor.setAttribute("class", nodeType); the result (in firebug) looks like this (fragment) <span> <a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a> </span> <br/> <span> <a class="leaf" href="products?catagoryId=1:1">Earrings</a> </span> This works perfectly in Firefox and Opera and any other non IE browser I care to test it in, leaves are rendered in pink and nodes are rendered in my default style(sky blue). In IE the browser ignores anything but the default style... error handling, I don't think so. I have tried all sorts of thing to get this to work to no avail. It just doesn't work in IE ... just one example BTW, I have many others. Go Figure Idaho >> DuncanIdaho <Duncan.Idaho2008@googlemail.com> wrote in news:V6- >> dnYCgE6lrz73VRVnyggA@bt.com: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/quirks-mode.html SignatureBlinky Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org NEW --> Now evaluating a GG-free news feed: http://usenet4all.se >>> DuncanIdaho <Duncan.Idaho2008@googlemail.com> wrote in news:V6- >>> dnYCgE6lrz73VRVnyggA@bt.com: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/quirks-mode.html > Thanks for the link, interesting, OK, but this is not the issue then as I have a doctype declaration right at the head of the doc. Er well actually the document states "Moreover, put the doctype declaration at the very start, since some browsers go to Quirks Mode, if there is anything (even a comment) before it... " Well actually I have <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> So I removed it and tried and it doesn't seem to make any difference, certainly not to the dynamic style application thing. Hmmmm Idaho >>> Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Well actually I have > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> Sorry, didn't read the whole thread before my prior reply. It is now time for you provide a URL to this page that is giving your problems. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> DuncanIdaho <Duncan.Idaho2008@googlemail.com> wrote in news:V6- >> dnYCgE6lrz73VRVnyggA@bt.com: [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' Then bloody google for it. You will find three hundred and seventy three thousand references to it. > I have this > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> The above line puts IE into quirks mode. Anything at all, even a comment, before the doctype puts IE into quirks mode. This is one of the reasons you should not use XHTML, apart from the fact that IE simply does not understand it, unless you serve it up as text/html and rely on IE error correcting it correctly back to HTML. <snip irrelevant stuff> Run IE in standards mode and see if your other problems go away too. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' > > Then bloody google for it. You will find three hundred and seventy three > thousand references to it. Irrelevant, it was a passing comment. And don't swear at me. >> I have this >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > This is one of the reasons you should not use XHTML, snip annoying stuff Really, well now I'm even more annoyed, I think I'll put a link on the front page suggesting people download Opera or Firefox. As for posting a URL, well I'm working on a company intranet behind a firewall, the network boffins laughed when I suggested they open up so I can post URLs, they are setting me up a nice isolated server so I can post stuff here. Idaho > > <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> > > The above line puts IE into quirks mode. Richard, Duncan is using IE 7 and that xml-declaration triggering quirks mode was fixed in IE 7. " Details on our CSS changes for IE7 Details on some of the other bugs (from sources other than the positioniseverything.net list) that we fixed: (...) <?xml> prolog no longer causes quirks mode " http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/08/22/712830.aspx Regards, Gérard > Then bloody google for it. You will find three hundred and seventy three > thousand references to it. Microsoft still suck sh.t. Our lives are every day a thousand times more pain the a.s than they had to be, because Microsoft intentionally did everything in an incompatible way, in order to bankrupt Netscape. Every day you fight through a maze of bullshit they put there in front of us all. Browsers could do 3D the same way, for christ sake, if it hadn't all been splintered into a thousand pieces of glass by Microsoft. So the original post--nerdy details beside the point--had it right. Signaturecut the board three times and it's still too short > Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is that what you mean ? Have a look at this, please: http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php > Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff. Please be convinced! Signature-bts -Friends don't let friends drive Windows >> Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Have a look at this, please: > http://tekrider.net/html/doctype.php Been there, read that, tried everything. > >> Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff. > > Please be convinced! Anyway, thanks to everyone for all the input, it wasn't really an attempt to get someone else to fix my problems, I'm quite happy to try and figure it out myself (with a little help from my friends). Can't say I've changed my views in any way at the moment. Still, perhaps IE 8 will be better. Thanks again Idaho >>> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?> >>> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Been there, read that, tried everything. ..including changing your page to HTML 4.01 Strict? Give it a try. >>> Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff. >> >> Please be convinced! > > .. Can't say I've changed my views in any way at the moment. A little experimentation is always fun - and may prove useful in this case. > Still, perhaps IE 8 will be better. Hah. Don't count on it! (Oh, and lots of people are still using IE 6, y'know.) Signature-bts -Friends don't let friends drive Windows >> Still, perhaps IE 8 will be better. > > Hah. Don't count on it! (Oh, and lots of people are still using IE 6, > y'know.) Er, yea, actually I'm ignoring that issue hoping it will go away :-| I found a nice big soft pile of sand to bury my head in. I looked at the site in IE 6 and frankly felt a little sick. Ah well, it's all character forming stuff so they tell me. Idaho <snip> > Not sure what you mean by 'quirks mode' > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Is that what you mean ? Why are you using XHTML-like mark-up with a browser (IE) that does not understand XHTML at all? > Anyway, I'm not convinced by all this error handling stuff. > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > textanchor.setAttribute("class", nodeType); Internet Explorer has lots of bugs in relation to its - setAttribute - method, particularly in this case one where it expects to be given the (case sensitive) name "className" when it is being asked to set the CLASS attribute, but that will do nothing useful on any other browsers. You get round this problem when scripting HTML DOMs (but not XHTML DOMS) by using the W3C HTML DOM specified properties of Elements that correspond with attributes. In this case the - className - property. I.E.:- textanchor.className = nodeType; If you really were using XHTML (rather than just suffering from the delusion that you are using XHTML) you would have needed to use the namespace qualified version of the - setAttribute - method (- setAttributeNS -) in order to get effective outcomes in more than a couple of browsers. As IE does not recognise XHTML, and does not provide any of the namespace qualified methods (as they are not needed in an HTML DOM) using that method will not influence IE's buggy handling of attribute setting. > the result (in firebug) looks like this (fragment) > > <span> > <a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a> ^^^^^^^^^^ Never ever use a javascript pseudo-protocol HREF with IE (at least all version up to and including 6), if someone clicks on that and the result does not navigate away form the current page then all bets are off as to how IE <= 6 will behave afterwards (especially with regard to image handling). > </span> > <br/> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > browser ignores anything but the default style... error > handling, I don't think so. If the technique you were using to set the CLASS attribute was ineffective the symptoms you describe could be explained by that. > I have tried all sorts of thing to get this to work to no avail. > It just doesn't work in IE Given how well-known IE's problems with - setAttribute - are I assume that one of the things you did not try was learning browser scripting before inflicting it on customers/clients/visitors/users. > ... just one example BTW, I have many others. With the pseudo-protocol HREF on the page that is not at all surprising. > Recently I was given the task of setting up a website from scratch > including the front end. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > What a nightmare. Duncan, If you want precise help, contextual help, first make sure your webpage passes markup validation, also passes CSS validation and then provide an URL where the problem occurs along with a short, clear description of the problem. Why we won't help you "Validation may reveal your problem. (...) Validation may solve your problem." http://diveintomark.org/archives/2003/05/05/why_we_wont_help_you I also fully agree with those saying to stop catering for IE 6 users. IE 6 is just too buggy in my opinion. Some recommendations: 1- avoid setAttribute because it's buggy in IE 7; use DOM 2 HTML methods instead 2- avoid relying too much on float: it's very buggy in IE 7 3- consult this page for CSS webpage templates which will work in IE 7: http://www.gtalbot.org/NvuSection/NvuWebDesignTips/WebDesignResources.html#CSSWe bpageTemplates You coded: textanchor.setAttribute("class", nodeType); Use instead textanchor.className = nodeType; <span> <a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a> </span> javascript: pseudo-protocol should never be in href attribute. This is a commonly seen error in accessibility.An href should always referenced a retrievable resource on the web. Always. Otherwise, it will create problems for those with javascript support disabled or inexistent. As coded, your <a> is not compliant with basic accessibility guidelines. Useful reading for general web development: Using Web Standards in your Web Pages http://developer.mozilla.org/en/docs/Using_Web_Standards_in_your_Web_Pages Web development mistakes, redux by Roger Johansson http://www.456bereastreet.com/archive/200408/web_development_mistakes_redux/ Truth & Consequences of web site design by Chris Beal. 14 well written articles on very frequently encountered mistakes on web design and how to correct them. I highly recommend these articles to beginners. http://pages.prodigy.net/chris_beall/TC/index.html a.leaf{ text-decoration: none; color: rgb(254, 100, 253); font-size: 0.75em; } Using font-size: 0.75em; is demanding to the browser to set the font-size to 75% of the preferred normal size for the user! This is NOT what I would do. Web standards checklist by Russ Weakley. http://www.maxdesign.com.au/presentation/checklist.htm In 44 items, Russ covers all the issues a web designer required for a web designer to create web standards compliant websites. Just excellent! (for beginners and intermediates) Regards, Gérard -- Internet Explorer 7 bugs (130 bugs so far) http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/ Internet Explorer 7 bugs (79bugs so far) http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/ >> Recently I was given the task of setting up a website from scratch >> including the front end. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > provide an URL where the problem occurs along with a short, clear > description of the problem. OK, well lots of good advice there and lots of reading to be done but I've already explained elsewhere on this thread why I am unable to post a URL. Actually I never explicitly asked for help, all I wanted to do was have a grizzle about the nonsense that I was experiencing with Microsoft IE 7 call it catharsis if you like. The line of code textanchor.className = nodeType; works in all my browsers seemingly independant of the DOCTYPE declaration, sorry if that offends anyone it's just observation that leads me to this conclusion. HTML DOM, XHTML DOM, FOO DOM whatever, it works regardless and for that I thank all of you who suggested it. This code does however make my code asymetric, as someone who has spent his entire working life using Object Oriented languages this offends me. Finally then, the fact that so many people have taken the time and trouble to explain why IE doesn't work in the way I was expecting (hoping) it would (ie like other browsers) only leads me to believe that my original assertion (slightly more qualified this time) is indeed correct. For me, in my experience, as someone who is working out of his comfort zone, IE 7 is indeed rubbish. However I have no choice but to live with it. Perhaps the developers of this piece of software read this list, at least it appears so from other responses. If so, for gods sake get a grip and get it working like other browsers do, rightly or wrongly it's what the vast majority of people who write for the web want. Idaho > The line of code > textanchor.className = nodeType; works in all my browsers seemingly > independant of the DOCTYPE declaration, sorry if that offends anyone > it's just observation that leads me to this conclusion. We (a large majority of web developers) have reported buggy support for setAttribute in the past. It will be fixed in IE 8. Already, setAttribute for class attribute has been fixed in IE 8 beta 1; there are event handlers and a few cases still left (reated to table model) to fix for IE 8 final. > Finally then, the fact that so many people have taken the time and > trouble to explain why IE doesn't work in the way I was expecting > (hoping) it would (ie like other browsers) only leads me to believe that > my original assertion (slightly more qualified this time) is indeed > correct. For me, in my experience, as someone who is working out of his > comfort zone, IE 7 is indeed rubbish. Nobody seriously argued on this. The last time I checked the %tage of failure of IE 7 for the CSS 2.1 test suite, Internet Explorer 7 fails 129 tests out of 500 (25.8% failure) while other browsers failed less than 10%. I would have to run the tests again since the testsuite changed a bit and Opera, Safari and Firefox have new releases. Same thing with DOM 1 Core and DOM 1 HTML: IE 7 fails fails 85 tests out of 224 tests, a 37.9% rate failure which is well over/above the percentage rate of Firefox 2 (6.3% failure rate) and Opera 9 (5.1% failure rate). Remember that 25.8% and 37.9% still mean that IE 7 will pass the testsuite for a majority of cases. Same thing with HTML 4.01 tests. http://www.robinlionheart.com/stds/html4/results IE 7: 44; other browsers: 70 and higher > However I have no choice but to > live with it. Perhaps the developers of this piece of software read this > list Do you really think/expect/hope that IE dev. team visit and has been visiting comp.infosystems.www.authoring.stylesheets forum discussion in the last 6 years? Regards, Gérard <a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a> Duncan, To be more thorough, accurate on that issue...: "javascript:" links break accessibility and usability of webpages in every browser. * "javascript:" pseudo-links become dysfunctional when javascript support is disabled or inexistent. Several corporations allow their employees to surf on the web but under strict security policies: no javascript enabled, no java, no activeX, no Flash. For various reasons (security, public access, text browsers, etc..), about 4% to 8% of users on the web surf with javascript disabled. * "javascript:" links will interfere with advanced features in tab- capable browsers: eg. middle-click on links, Ctrl+click on links, tab- browsing features in extensions, etc. * "javascript:" links will interfere with the process of indexing webpages by search engines. * "javascript:" links interfere with assistive technologies (e.g. voice browsers) and several web-aware applications (e.g. PDAs and mobile browsers). * "javascript:" links also interfere with "mouse gestures" features implemented in browsers. * Protocol scheme "javascript:" will be reported as an error by link validators and link checkers. Regards, Gérard > <a class="node" href="javascript:getMenuUpdate('1')">Jewellery</a> > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Regards, Gérard All good and valid reasons I'm sure Gerard, however I rather like the idea of making my web site behave more like a desktop application, consequently when I 'discovered' that the XMLHttpRequest class existed in my browser I was absolutely delighted. Are we now saying then that AJAX (to use a common acronym) should not be used to implement a smoother experience for our users ... do I really want to refresh an entire page just because a user selects a different node on my navigation tree or puts something in their cart ? no, not if I can help it. As I'm sure you know if you've read the rest of this thread I'm well out of my comfort zone here. So maybe you can help me out. If I can't use javascript:getMenuUpdate('1') to call a method of mine which in turn instantiates and invokes methods on a javascript component how might I do it otherwise. Thanks in advance Idaho > All good and valid reasons I'm sure Gerard, however I rather like the idea > of making my web site behave more like a desktop application, consequently [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > user selects a different node on my navigation tree or puts something in > their cart ? no, not if I can help it. Yes, you do want to refresh the whole page. But only for users that don't have JavaScript. Degrade gracefully. You don't have to just have one or the other. You can have both. Add your Javascript links to the DOM *using* Javascript. Have an equivalent link that forces a page refresh that you either 1) enclose in noscript tags or 2) hide using Javascript. > As I'm sure you know if you've read the rest of this thread I'm well out > of my comfort zone here. So maybe you can help me out. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Idaho snip > What a nightmare. snip Hello I realise this thread has probably run it's course but I thought it would be good to make one final comment Today, at 11:30am I uploaded the first draft of the user interface for the new intranet site. I'm asking for comments and input on the look and feel of the site. I have spent the best part of 10 working days getting it to look the same in my chosen browsers. It's important that it looks the same in all browsers so we can conduct training sessions without having to have three sets of slides. I would say at least half this time has been spent reworking things that work fine in Opera and Firefox (for whatever reason) just to get them to work in IE 7. So there we have it, 50% of the effort has been expended just because Microsoft released a complete pile of crap. Fantastic, can I bill them for wasted time do you think ? I have taken on board everything that has been said in this thread, I have learned a lot about how things should work and how they actually work in IE 7. I still have a lot to learn. One respondent suggested that if I actually took the time to learn HTML/XHTML whatever then I would not have so many problems, others seem to refute this by virtue of the fact that there are hundreds of bugs outstanding in IE 7, percentages of test suite failures have been mentioned as well that should convince anyone that IE 7 is a poor piece of software. It always amazes me how people defend the indefensible, not just in software engineering but in many walks of life. If I released such rubbish I would be sacked, in fact I have a certain pride in my work that will not allow me to release bug infested software, even if it means I have to stay behind and work in my own time. I guess the fact that this browser is packaged with the 'operating system' that ships with most new PCs these days means Microsoft don't really have to try, why should they care when people have no choice. For years I have kept out of the 'Microsoft is rubbish' arguments because I don't really use Microsoft software unless there is no alternative, consequently I don't feel in a position to comment. Well I'm afraid to say that in the case of IE 7, if any one asks me I will recommend anything BUT Internet Explorer, when they ask me why I will say 'because it's rubbish' and I will feel I have plenty of data to back up my assertion. That's it Thanks for listening Idaho > snip > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I realise this thread has probably run it's course but I thought it > would be good to make one final comment [...] > It always amazes me how people defend the indefensible, not just in > software engineering but in many walks of life. If I released such [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > will say 'because it's rubbish' and I will feel I have plenty of data to > back up my assertion. You're right, it is rubbish, and significantly more rubbish than any of their other stuff (much of which is reasonably good if you like that sort of thing, which I don't). I was also quite taken aback by it when I knew enough about these things to realize just how bad it is. Recent article by Lie in The Register: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/19/hakon_ms_reform_plan/ "Microsoft's IE is bug-ridden and the company, despite its vast resources, has shown little interest in fixing problems that cost web designers time and sleep. IE dominates the web due to its being bundled with Windows. This forces web designers to prioritize coding for IE. Coding for standards-compliant browsers becomes a secondary consideration. "Microsoft is keenly aware of this and therefore has little interest in improving their support for standards. They will never become standards compliant unless forced by someone in a position to demand a change, something that users and customers are not. Requiring standard compliance would greatly lessen Microsoft's monopolistic stranglehold in the web browser market, would delight web developers everywhere and would, ironically, make IE a better product." [snipped] > I have spent the best part of 10 working days getting it to look the > same in my chosen browsers. It's important that it looks the same in all > browsers Duncan, Several people and experts in web design will tell you (and have told you in this thread) that trying to achieve perfect-pixel design in all browsers is a mistake, a grave error in judgment. I am telling you that too. Target fluid, scalable webpage design is the way to go. > so we can conduct training sessions without having to have > three sets of slides. I would say at least half this time has been spent [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I have taken on board everything that has been said in this thread, Really? > I > have learned a lot about how things should work and how they actually [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > mentioned as well that should convince anyone that IE 7 is a poor piece > of software. That's not what I remember from the whole thread. Learn good web design techniques first by reading recommendable tutorials, articles, columns... not by visiting w3schools.com, not by visiting dynamicdrive, not by using Front-Page, etc. I have provided you with such suggestions, recommendations. Then, yes, eventually, you'll occasionally reach problems and limitations in IE 7, then you will, yes, stumble on real bugs in IE 7, incorrect implementations, partial implementations, buggy stuff in IE 7. We know there are bugs in IE 7... but we also know there are lots of amateur web designers out there using Front-Page, Yahoo geocities, and other poor, weak, buggy, Krusty-The-Clown softwares... web designers who never heard of standards compliant rendering mode, doctype declaration, strict DTD, etc. > It always amazes me how people defend the indefensible, not just in > software engineering but in many walks of life. If I released such > rubbish I would be sacked, in fact I have a certain pride in my work > that will not allow me to release bug infested software, even if it > means I have to stay behind and work in my own time. We Never Saw Any Webpage [sample] From You. Not even a sample or reduced example of your webpage causing you headaches, problems in IE 7. All we saw is a very few and very small chunks of code and we have provided corrective proposals. Gérard > [snipped] > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > browsers is a mistake, a grave error in judgment. I am telling you > that too. Target fluid, scalable webpage design is the way to go. snip > We > Never [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > headaches, problems in IE 7. All we saw is a very few and very small > chunks of code and we have provided corrective proposals. Jeez man you do go on don't you. I don't wish to be rude as you have provided some good advice but I have explained at least twice in this thread that I am unable to post URLs as I am working in a restricted environment. Short of paying for a server out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being. Posting entire (fragments) of pages is also frowned upon here according to my reading of past postings. Given that I am unable to post URLs and don't wish to offend anyone by posting (possibly incomplete) web pages verbatim and given that I never explicitly asked for help I don't really understand why this is such an issue for you ... I was going to explain why posting URLs to public newsgroups is a bad idea anyway but now I have to get on with this bloody web site :-)) OH BTW, my manager came to see me this morning to say how fantastic the site is looking and thanking me for all my hard work. He was amazed and pleased that I had managed to get the thing looking and working the same in all our recommended browsers ... Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) Idaho > Short of paying for a server > out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being. There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without ads. Please send me $US5 and I will give you a URL of a beauty. > Posting entire (fragments) of pages is also frowned upon here according > to my reading of past postings. This is nonsense. The fact is that, with one or two exceptions, no one worth listening to would condemn anyone for posting a relevant fragment. It is when the fragment is not relevant or truly representative of the problem that the objections reasonably appear. > I was going to explain why posting URLs to public newsgroups is a bad > idea anyway but now I have to get on with this bloody web site :-)) You will stop getting on with your work and you will damn well hang around here and amuse us. Is that clear? > OH BTW, my manager came to see me this morning to say how fantastic the > site is looking and thanking me for all my hard work. He was amazed and > pleased that I had managed to get the thing looking and working the same > in all our recommended browsers ... > > Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) Just hold it right there! You will request a Merc Bus with all mod cons so that we all can trip around Europe and have some fun. The HTML/CSS bus. Seating arrangements to be decided later. JK, rf and I, naturally will sit together, drinkin' and fightin' and singin'... named individuals and disgraceful cowards all behaving badly and without inhibition... Signaturedorayme >> Short of paying for a server >> out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being. > > There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without > ads. Please send me $US5 and I will give you a URL of a beauty. Only 5 bucks, bargain, post your postal address here and I'll send you a nice surprise. Do they support transactional MySQL databases for free as well, how about Java and Tomcat, my own private JVM, root access to the servers so I can start them on port 80 etc, Linux (a real OS etc). Fantastic, $US5, bargain . >> Posting entire (fragments) of pages is also frowned upon here according >> to my reading of past postings. > > This is nonsense. Whatever >> I was going to explain why posting URLs to public newsgroups is a bad >> idea anyway but now I have to get on with this bloody web site :-)) >> > You will stop getting on with your work and you will damn well hang > around here and amuse us. Is that clear? Glad to be of service, I mean this group can be soooooooo serious sometimes don't you think. >> OH BTW, my manager came to see me this morning to say how fantastic the >> site is looking and thanking me for all my hard work. He was amazed and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Just hold it right there! You will request a Merc Bus with all mod cons > so that we all can trip around Europe and have some fun. Europe isn't any fun anymore, too many bloody Americans all over the place, besides Americans can't hold their beer like us Europeans. Have a nice day Idaho > >> Short of paying for a server > >> out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being. > > > > There is no need to pay for one. There are some good free ones without > > ads. > Do they support transactional MySQL databases for free as > well, how about Java and Tomcat, my own private JVM, root access to the > servers so I can start them on port 80 etc, Linux (a real OS etc). There is an offer for a free service here and you are upping your requirements already? I am going to be generous here and tell you about one: 890m.com; it is certainly adequate to post things for problems with CSS, which is what this group here is about. So check it out. Signaturedorayme >>>> Short of paying for a server >>>> out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation for the time being. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > one: 890m.com; it is certainly adequate to post things for problems with > CSS, which is what this group here is about. So check it out. I will do, thanks. Idaho > Americans can't hold their beer like us Europeans. I'll bet you couldn't hold our beer either! I can hold a Guinness as well as the next guy though. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net >> Americans can't hold their beer like us Europeans. > > I'll bet you couldn't hold our beer either! I can hold a Guinness as well > as the next guy though. > > sherm-- Spent 9 months in the states, drove 66, stayed in the desert, drove through Death Valley and down the Ventura Freeway in a big Caddy, heard gunfire in the San Fernando Valley, got lost in the San Gabriel mountains. Watched American Football in Yuma, did San Diego, LA, San Fransisco, had a weeny roast on the beach at Oceana Dunes, stood on a corner in Wimslow Arizona etc etc. Still never found a beer with a decent kick, mond you I tried plenty. Go America, and Americans, but why are they such idiots when they hit Europe SignatureIdaho >>> Americans can't hold their beer like us Europeans. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > corner in Wimslow Arizona etc etc. Still never found a beer with a > decent kick, mond you I tried plenty. Not talking about kick - talking about taste. I can't get enough of the swill down to even feel it, much less get kicked. :-) sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) Buy some free web space. Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) > > Buy some free web space. > > Googling for "free web space" will tell you where to get it. Why do I have to buy it if it's free ? Idaho >>> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why do I have to buy it if it's free ? Because you totally missed the sarcasm :-) SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>>> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) >>> Buy some free web space. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Because you totally missed the sarcasm :-) <humourmode state='on'> Ah ha ha, of course. ;) </humourmode> >>>>> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) >>>> Buy some free web space. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > </humourmode> <grin/> In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free host perhaps) is a good two very good reasons. Firstly, it allows us to see exactly what you are talking about. And often what you are talking about is not the actual problem. the problem can well be elsewhere, especially when IE is involved. Secondly, by building such an example page you may serendipitously find the problem yourself as you revisit the code and prepare it for republication. I have forgotten what your original problem may have been but I can assure you that if you had posted an example to support your original rant you would have had explicit solutions to not only your problem but a whole range of other issues as well, in far less time than this thread has been running. So far you have a whole lot of conjecture about something only you can see. Step outside the door and try viewing it from our side. Hiding "behind the firewall" or "I can't upload my database to a free server" or "my page needs PHP" or whatever is an option. At the very least you simply "save as webpage" any page you have that exhibits the problem. Publish that, which does not need any server side skulduggery. File off serial numbers as required. What you see (and save) in your browser is a totally static page, independent of any server side dynamics. We don't need to see your "application". We need to see an example of some HTML and CSS that causes your problem. With few exceptions your problem has been seen before and can be commented on. But only if we can actually see it. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>>>>> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) >>>>> Buy some free web space. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > your problem. With few exceptions your problem has been seen before and > can be commented on. But only if we can actually see it. A very sane and reasoned response and one that is hard to argue with. My post was originally designed to 'relieve the tension' so as to speak. I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing and needed to 'share' with others (HR tells us it good to share our problems). I really wasn't asking for any explicit help (I'm starting to sound like a broken record here). I have now found what promises to be the answer to my prayers, a free host at http://www.890m.com/ Thank you 'rf'. So now I have a way of posting code, prepare to be amazed and astounded by my naivety. Thank goodness for Java, Linux and jakarta.apache.org, I don't think I'd stay sane very long if I had to do this for the rest of my working life. Idaho >> In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free >> host perhaps) is a good two very good reasons. <snippily> > A very sane and reasoned response and one that is hard to argue with. > > My post was originally designed to 'relieve the tension' so as to > speak. I simply couldn't believe what I was seeing and needed to > 'share' with others (HR tells us it good to share our problems). Hmmm. Not to be pedantic but you shared your rath, not your problem :-) > I > really wasn't asking for any explicit help (I'm starting to sound like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So now I have a way of posting code, prepare to be amazed and > astounded by my naivety. Waiting ;-) But, be warned, somebody *will* comment on *everything*, especially on your choice of font size. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >>> In reality the suggestions to post an example page URL (at a free >>> host perhaps) is a good two very good reasons. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Hmmm. Not to be pedantic but you shared your rath, not your problem :-) Correct, at last. I shared my rath(sic) not my problems. Glad you can see that. Horray. Idaho Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com Idaho > Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com Strewth, was dorayme in this thread? I'll bet she was trying to sell you something :-) > Idaho BTW the convention is to precede your signature with dash dash space CR, as in SignatureIdaho That way our newsreaders automatically trim it. Does not Thunderbird do this? -- Richard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org >> Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com > > Strewth, was dorayme in this thread? I'll bet she was trying to sell you > something :-) Tried to tap me for $US5 actually, lucked out though. I spent the bonus on a new Bentley (I wish). >> Idaho > > BTW the convention is to precede your signature with dash dash space CR, as > in Yes, Thunderbird does indeed trim it Is this better -- Idaho [sig] > Is this better > > -- > Idaho No. dash, dash, space, CR. You are missing the space. Stupid convention I know, for years outlook express trimmed the space off the end of the sig separator. SignatureRichard Killing all google groups posts The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org > [sig] > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Stupid convention I know, for years outlook express trimmed the space off > the end of the sig separator. SignatureIdaho > >> Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Tried to tap me for $US5 actually, lucked out though. I spent the bonus > on a new Bentley (I wish). Mate of mine has a 1954. I have a nice picture of it I took. You can see it for $US1.75 or for free when you post your first URL. Signaturedorayme > Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com It's ok, rf and I chuckled about this one in his kf. What happens is this. He comes down every night after work to have a few drinks with me. His killfile has a bloody good battered fridge stacked with beer. He also catches up on all my posts and all Google posts down there where he can't be seen publicly. Apparently, he reckons, he does not want Blinky to know. (Just btw, Blinky's kf is at best, difficult. I have to wear scuba gear and am always worried about oxygen supplies. So far he has done the decent thing and replenished them.) When we get really pissed, we discuss his public image and fight about it. Signaturedorayme >> Of course that should have been thank you dorayme for www.890m.com > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > When we get really pissed, we discuss his public image and fight about > it. I think you must have been at the Mercury vapour, it's not good for you you know. SignatureIdaho > Firstly, it allows us to see exactly what you are talking about. And > often what you are talking about is not the actual problem. the problem [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the problem yourself as you revisit the code and prepare it for > republication. Absolutely agreed, but I would reverse the order. :-) I've found that building a test case is a very, very useful debugging technique, not only in HTML but programming as well. I rarely need to publish the tests - probably 97 times out of 100, I find the answer while I'm creating the test. And, if you do need to ask for help, a minimalist test page will be far easier to grok than one that has 32k of body text, ten product photos, etc. By trimming out all of the inessentials, you'll be doing a favor to the folks who look at the code. Seeing as how they're looking at it so they can help you fix it, it seems to me that making it easy for them is the polite thing to do. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Short of paying for > a server out of my own pocket I am stuck with this situation Are you aware that there's free web hosting out there? There are a *lot* of us in similar situations - working on internal sites, or on sites the owners don't want to make publically available yet, or on pages that are on a public server behind a password protected area, or on a site whose domain isn't yet registered, etc. So, this is not a rare problem, nor one that's difficult to solve. Googling for "free web hosting" tuns up many hits - here's one: <http://www.000webhost.com/> The server is slow and the service non existent. I wouldn't put a real site here, but I do have an account. It's plenty good enough for a test page. sherm-- SignatureMy blog: http://shermspace.blogspot.com Cocoa programming in Perl: http://camelbones.sourceforge.net > Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) A Beemer has two wheels ... I'd go for that. In fact, I just got back from a breakfast ride on mine. (Maybe you meant a Bimmer?) Signature-bts -Friends don't let friends drive Windows >> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) > > A Beemer has two wheels ... I'd go for that. In fact, I just got back > from a breakfast ride on mine. > > (Maybe you meant a Bimmer?) Hmm, the new 1000cc sports bike looks a blast, this weeks MCN also says a new 675 triple is on the way. I'm old now, my GS1000 is long gone and believe it or not I'm looking at tractors, sorry Harleys, Dyna Low Rider maybe. Mid life crisis, you bet. SignatureIdaho >>> Now shall I get a Merc or a Beemer with my bonus this month :-)) >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Hmm, the new 1000cc sports bike looks a blast, I've been pestering our dealer about that... (Demo .. demo ..) > this weeks MCN also says a new 675 triple is on the way. Innovation from the Fatherland! I'll keep my K75S triple though, along with the other two boxers. > I'm old now, my GS1000 is long gone and believe it or not I'm looking > at tractors, sorry Harleys, Dyna Low Rider maybe. Mid life crisis, > you bet. Heh, my midlife crisis was almost twenty years ago. You must still be a youngster, and I'm still riding my Beemers just about every day. Signature-bts -Motorcycles defy gravity; cars just suck |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.