Slashdot Mirror
Will Browser-Neutral Web Soon Become Thing Of Past?
Psychotic Venom asks: "I do ASP development as a part-time job during school. ASP's not my first love or anything, but I don't have a great deal against it. I recently went to an ASP site and got this message and I just wonder what's really going on. I mean, I LIKE Netscape. I like having an option...and I thought that was part of the reason behind a server side scripting language. So are we all slowly being pushed out to the point that we really DON'T have a choice if we want to really do Web surfing? Are we going to have to keep IE on our machines to view anything Pro-Microsoft and Netscape for everything against it?" And after reading this, I suddenly found the words "Netscape-specific tags" on the tip of my tongue. Yes, the bad karma finally catches up with Netscape, but the browser market is a hell of a lot larger now than it was in 1995. Pretty soon we may see e-Commerce sites silently echoing this sentiment, upgrading perfectly valid HTML forms to ones that depend on client-side components that will only work on Microsoft (or Microsoft sanctioned) operating systems. If a few major players on the Web adopt similar practices, the standards-compliant Web, as we know it, will die. Can this be prevented?
For those using the One True Browser (Lynx), it is necessary to view
the source to even see the message. I expect this also applies to those using those silly graphical browsers who have enough sense to browse with javascript off . . .
It's that they willfully decided they were going to break IE compatibility by not supporting document.all in favor of (the correct) document.getElementById().
I haven't really followed all the details of these "standards", but I'll take your word for it -- you sure make Mozilla's position sound wrong. A solution just occurred to me: I agree that they should add support for this (and, I assume, other analogous things), but if they want to do it "with attitude", they could do like OmniWeb, which has a Preferences panel with a label reading "Features" with the quotes included in the label beneath an icon that is a picture of a bug (a fruit fly, it looks like). In this panel, they give checkbox options to turn on the various "nonstandard features", but the label and the icon (especially in combination) never let you forget the old programmers' joke about "feature" being a euphemism for "bug". Programmers, at least, would get it, as well as almost anyone who has spent any time around them.
It lets them keep a "holier-than-thou" attitude about standards-compliance without impacting their functionality. They could turn them off by default in the "Mozilla" builds and on in the "Netscape" releases or even, if they have the balls, leave them off in the "Netscape" releases too, but with a prominent help message to make people aware of the issues (with the proper spin) by explaining that "For viewing sites designed with certain non-standards-compliant practices, you may wish to select options to support these practices in the 'Features' Preferences panel."
David Gould
David Gould
main(i){putchar(340056100>>(i-1)*5&31|!!(i<6)<< 6)&&main(++i);}
Yes, I'm sure there currently are, and always will be, standards compliance issues, but by the time AOL switches to Mozilla these will be for the most esoteric and cutting edge features, so for most sites, they will hopefully not be too bad. Even at this point, the latest Mozilla and IE support is supposed to be excellent.
Note that it's only AOL's use of Mozilla that will make Mozilla mean anything. Without AOL adopting Mozilla as its default browser, Mozilla will be relegated to the likes of Netscape, Opera and Lynx... no, I'm not bashing Lynx and Opera. It's just the truth that they will simply not be on any large commercial site's radar screens. They will not do anything to stop the tide of sites converting to IE only.
Some say that web access for other devices will help this situation, but I doubt it. The display needs and platforms for PDAs, cell phones, and whatever are so different that companies will code entirely different interfaces for those devices, instead of hoping that their HTML will work across all possible devices. This actually makes sense. Architecturally the "right thing" is to do the usual content/presentation separation, e.g. XML as the data stream and JSP/ASP/PHP for standard web display, WAP for wireless, etc.
----------
In a real emergency, we would have all fled in terror, and you would not have been notified.
Ditto here.
I used to run a couple small websites. One day I forgot to close a table, causing the table to not display under Netscape. IE rendered the table just fine, assuming that since the page/HTML section was over, I was likely not adding more to it.
I got six or seven e-mails about this, all of them nasty and insulting. My logs showed that fewer than a dozen Netscape visitors had even visited!
I fixed the error, but included some code to suggest an IE download to Netscape users. Insults poured in, someone attempted to DoS the site, and I even received a snail mail letter with some rather nasty material (feces?) smeared on it.
Frankly, I don't know what conclusion to draw here. At least people seem to have calmed down about the browser wars -- things like the story's hilighted site are less the norm, though I'll wager his Netscape bashing has tripled his site traffic overnight thanks to Slashdot's troll story.
I'm having no problems browsing the site from Netscape 4.6 on my Mac. That's about as non-MS as I could manage at the moment. Are you sure about your results, or did you just pick a page from the search engine to get slashdotted?
Fear: When you see B8 00 4C CD 21 and know what it means
I have to ask this... WHY do you want to view HTML4, XHTML, CSS, and the rest of the alphabet soup? How does CSS add to the CONTENT of the web? How does HTML4 add to the content of the web? I think people get so engrossed in the technology that they forget the important thing about the web.... The content. Graphic designers and Marketing people want special tools for layout because they want their web sites to be a mirror of the rest of their marketing literature. Graphic Designers don't want to be limited about the way their pages look either..
The CONTENT is more important than the style. I don't go to a website because they don't have CSS. The reason I wouldn't go to a website because there is no useful information.
The notiable feature of the web is the EASY, QUICK distribution of information. It's what made the web a 'killer app', and when people get caught up in dumb things like browser wars, and blocking content BECAUSE of a browser, then I guess it's time to find a new technology because this one is corrupt.
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
It appears that your operating system is not supported by shockwave.com. We support the following operating systems: Windows 95, Windows 98, Windows 2000, Windows NT 4.0 (or later), and Mac OS 8.1 (or later).
Have a look at what you get if you try to call up shockwave.com with a linux box.
Go to this link
and download mozilla-0.7-3 and psm and all your complaints are resolved. BTW do you have an example of a page that breaks JavaScript, as I haven't seen any since M17.
In my book the guy's a fucking arrogant dweeb.
He has certainly every right in the world to target whoever he wants, but he might consider a message that doesn't blurt to the world that he's full of it.
But then I mostly use Lynx most of the time anyway.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
It's patently obvious to anyone who knows how ASP works that this was done by the nice folks at aspalliance.com and not by Microsoft. You can use ASP to build netscape and opera friendly sites with no problem. You can also use mod_perl and apache on linux to build sites that reject netscape clients and only allow ie.
S .html
I've seen the same thing done by linux sites but with ie users as the targets. It's not new and it's not likely to become popular as it alienates customers.
Finally you'll note that the URL is http://www.aspalliance.com/dagon/rejectNS/rejectN
Dagon is a demonic fish god that was worshiped by the heathen cananites. This smacks of the actions of a lone satanist rather than a major corporation. Although I would expect satanists to like mozilla, the mascot is a demonic fire-breathing lizard after all.
--Shoeboy
Off topic: it's amazing but I've known people who work with and for MSFT and they really do believe the claims the company makes for inventing and having exclusives on various technologies.
*sigh* ASP, like JSP, PHP and Perl CGI works by generating HTML on the server, which is then sent to the browser. It's not like some weird ASP code is sent to Netscape, and Netscape gets confused and doesn't know what to do. From a browser point of view, there is absolutely no difference between ASP and plain static HTML files - the browser still gets plain HTML.
That's right it special cases people who come from slashdot .... so I suspect people are seeing several different things on this page (Konqueror just ignores this stuff and continues on to the main page)
I have argued many times with web developers about ensuring that web sites will work with any browser. It was easier to win the argument when I was the boss, but I'm still managing to prevail as a consultant :) Some simple reasons are:
:)
:)
1. A well designed & implemented web site which works on all browsers is more robust, better planned and easier to maintain.
2. It doesn't take much effort if you know what the hell you are doing!
3. Alienating even 5% of your potential audience is not a good idea if it doesn't take much more effort to make it right for "everyone" (don't forget, one happy person tells another, one pissed off person tells as many as they can
4. The "top sites" are coding for all browsers - if we use them as examples of good design, why not extend that to implementation as well?
Basically, those who can't be stuffed to write "generic" sites are lazy non-professionals who are taking advantage of an "easy out" argument.
Unfortunately, I do not see much progress towards a more balanced client-side of the web. Most office & personal installations are using IE (hey, it comes with the OS, installs out of the box, seems well integrated, hmmmm - bit of a no brainer - I just want it to work, I don't care who makes the engine - etc etc etc). The ones using non-IE browsers are those using alternate platforms - usually people with Unix workstations or a grudge against Microsoft
Until the non-Microsoft browsers are less than 0.5% of audience, though, I will keep recommending that people code for them. One can only hope that they will claw back enough marketshare to be taken seriously...
I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...
Other technologies exists for that purpose. HTML's purpose is not WYSIWYG publishing. Get over it.
This column focuses on Microsoft (only) technologies (take data binding and xsl for example) and, as
an intranet applications developer, I dont see any reason for me to bother myself with works of horror
such as netscape (no offense, its a fact).
This site's traffic (as well as the world's) is 90% Internet Explorer, I wont bother with compatibility issues
over a misely 10% who use an inferior browser.
In order to view this resource please switch to Internet Explorer 4 or higher.
ASP Alliance
Complain
- Dagon
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
I have been a web designer for approximately 7 years now. That is a long time. I have seen what the web is, and what a web designer is, change several times.Like back when all transparent graphics made the same grey as the default background of Mosaic because if the browser didn't support transparency it probably didnt support backgrounds either. And we were taught to never count out the text only users. Alt tags!!! Hell back then we didn't assume anything about layout. We didn't have tables or other methods. The best we had was we could run the text next to a graphic on either the left or right side. Oh and Lists...
So anyway, in all that time I have learned that it does not matter what browser 90% uses, or what browser has the most features, or best features, or whatnot. What matters is that when your client calls, and says "A reporter I wanted to cover our new web opening called, and he says it doesn't work" or "THe vice president in charge of marketting says your site crashes his browser" or "My college buddy says that your page looks like crap on a Sun using Netscape 3.0 beta 7 with a 1600x1200 screen (because the background image is a 1x1000 image...)" All of this has happened. Infact I had one of the earlier uses of Javascript to do roll over menus for one of the top Internet Providers, and they had me remove it from 300 pages (well ok search and replace made that work really easily) because it crashed a Netscape 3.0 beta user on Sun (a really small impact but) who was covering the company for Newsweek.
Folks like to claim that 10% is a small percent of the user base in the world. 10% of the 100 million users in america is 10 million. That is a very very big group you are alienating.No one would in their right mind give up 10 million potential customers merely because of a browser choice. Any web producer who suggests they can will lose to the one that says it is no problem to support both. Basicly I can say as an experienced web developer that I deliver 10% more client eyes automatically than someone who makes it IE browser dependent.
Javascript has it's place. ASP's are certainly used a great deal by companies that DON'T find it difficult to produce for Netscape. Hell. My Mozilla doesn't have problems talking to Microsoft websites.:) They certainly don't want to lose my business...
In the long run, the web is not the best manner to do alot of things we want to do, and PC's aren't the natural client for them. Handheld browsers, consumer set top boxes, PLAYSTATIONS, and other NON MICROSOFT products are going to dominate the user base, just as AOL began to do 5 years ago. You all don't remember what a panic it used to be "Our page won't show right on AOL browsers! %!@$@!$" before they started using more standards.
Let me remind you all that Microsoft was late to the internet party. They had their own proprietary page format they were going to use for Microsoft and then slam bam, they had to change directions. That allowed Netscape to grow so large they forgot to make good products, and forced Microsoft to accept all sorts of standards. I can assure you that Amazon can't afford to run a server with software that cuts off 10% marketshare. That 10% will go right to the one who doesn't.
Lets talk about it from a sheer number argument. There are 10 sites. There are 100 users. 90 use IE, 10 use other... All the sites but 1 say, Well IE is the only way to go... Each site is equally good besides that. Ok... Well each site gets 9 IE users....(including the 1 that supports other browsers) but the 1 supporting the other browsers gets the OTHER 10... Which site survives longest?
So while I can see arguments why one might want to use Microsoft only technology in a web page having some virtue (Well yeah it only works for 90% but it lets me enhance it enough to make a big difference to my usability...) there is no excuse for not delivering some service to any class browser. I have basicly rejected employee applicants because their sample websites were all graphics for instance. No search engine would find anything ont heir site. Or blind folks. Or Text only browsers. ETc...
And that is another thing. The ASP Alliance site is rejecting search engines if it only allows IE browsers. It's content is an island.
If it has any.
DLG
This isn't a troll. It's a vent.
I'm SO SICK of the open source community rallying behind Netscape as if it were the second coming, just because they are anti-Microsoft.
Netscape was HATED by the online community in the mid-90's. Don't you remember the protest pages, people turning their pages black-on-black with netscape-specific tags, with little comments "If you can't read this page, you're using Netscape."
Netscape tried to do the exact same thing MS does. They offered their software for free, and then tried to screw up an existing standard by securing market share and then making their own extensions more popular than the standard.
Netscape is just as guilty of shady practices as Microsoft. You can't be anti-MS for these reasons and be pro-Netscape. Some of you people are just so blind with your anti-MS fervor that you don't realize MS did what any company would do in its place -- even your beloved Netscape.
I stopped using Netscape 5 years ago and I'll never use it again.
Not representing or approved by my company or anybody else.
Will the browser-neutral web soon become a thing of the past? Yes, by about 1996, I would say.
-
-
Give me liberty or give me something of equal or lesser value from your glossy 32-page catalog.