Slashdot Mirror
Yahoo Pledges Full Firefox Support
homerj79 writes "News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site. Despite its search bar for Firefox, which was launched in February, users still had to revert back to IE for certain features of Yahoo, like customizing your Yahoo Messenger avatar via the web. A specific date has not been set, but the company did say it would not launch any new services until all existing one supported Firefox." Update: 03/18 18:24 GMT by Z : GraffitiKnight (among many others) wrote in to mention that the claim has been retracted by the Yahoo! central office.
(Heard Wednesday at SDWest) Even ASP.NET 2.0/VS 2005 will have (better) support for Firefox. It sure perked up my ears. What's their plan?
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Wow! News at 11.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
What about launchcast? There's no mention of it in the article, but hopefully that's included. It's one of the few things keeping my wife from using firefox.
"I drank what?" -Socrates
Well, this is certainly a cause for celebration.
What word could we yell in exultation?
Something short and perhaps cowboy-based?
Yeeeha!
You can't talk about Wikipedia's flaws on Wikipedia
Well, that is a great step but, I would like them to support games like Bejewelled 2 and other, that are ActiveX only...
They should make all they games with Java. And, I experience some problems with the calendar also... well, they say, the devil is in the details
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
I bet they'll support it! They're gonna have to if they want to get their search bars integrated into Firefox.....Hello, adware.
From ZD Net UK:
Yahoo said on Friday afternoon that a statement from the company's Australian office on Tuesday, which claimed that all future products would be compatible with both the Firefox and Internet Explorer (IE) browsers, was inaccurate.
In February, Yahoo launched a search toolbar for Firefox, but users of the open source browser were forced to switch back to IE when accessing some Yahoo services. Following communications between Yahoo and ZDNet UK sister site ZDNet Australia , Yahoo issued a statement saying the company would not launch any new products or services in the future without ensuring they work on both IE and Firefox.
However, on Friday, a Yahoo representative from the US admitted that the original statement was 'factually incorrect' because, although Yahoo realises that Firefox-compatibility is important, it is not in a position to promise all future products would be both Internet Explorer and Firefox compatible.
Not that I've seen, it still fractures. I think they've left some things open. It seems to vary with the ads.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Support from yahoo is better than not having support from yahoo. But I think what firefox really needs is a major player to go out of their way and advertise and promote them. Can you imagine if yahoo made a statement like 'we reccomend firefox as a superior browsing experience...'. The major thing keeping them from this is fear of M$ to be sure. Too bad.
Once again, it looks like competition is good. I've been bugging Yahoo! for years about supporting non-IE browsers, but only getting automated replies. I guess Google, and its cozyness with the Firefox creators, is enough of a threat that they felt some real heat. I hope this announcement also means that maybe Google will start supporting Firefox and other non-IE browsers when they roll out new toys like desktop search. If Yahoo! and Google keep going at it like this, it can only mean good things for the end user!
To the making of books there is no end, so let's get started
Let's hope Yahoo finally decides to support Adblock ... right now, their adverts are only partially blocked by most filer sets.
It has always been a bother having firefox set as my default browser and using yahoo IM. Would have to copy and pase the url into IE to change my avatar or play games. Is this showing us that companys are finally embraceing alts to IE and its propritary ways? I wish more sites would follow suit and embrace a standard, its a win win situation if they do. While I am sure its nice to be able to use certain functionality of IE there are bound to be ways to do the same things in Firefox. Though it looks like the broweser wars might be back in full swing with IE7 and Firefox going neck to neck.
string sig = llGetSig("dimentox"); llSay(0,sig);
"...but the company did say it would not launch any new services until all existing one supported Firefox"
No, they didn't say that. They said they wouldn't launch any new services until making sure they worked with Firefox. They don't have a timeline for when they get all existing services supported on Firefox and, not surprisingly, don't want to hold off on launching new services for an arbitrary period of time.
sigs are a waste of space
A quick fix is hitting Ctrl + and then Ctrl -
Who cares. I love the irony of all the standards fanboys posting about how great standards are on a site that can't even spell standard and viewing said pearls of wisdom in a browser that may or may not render them correctly depending on some random quirk. Gotta love it.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
I hope they add support for opera too. I use opera as my primary browser and I have all kinds of problems trying to use Yahoo mail. Is it really so hard to make sure your website works with all popular browsers?
MSN is also going to pledge full support of Firefox :)
The article doesn't say all previous services will be made compliant before launching new services (they just announced Yahoo! Assassins, remember? Do you think they're going to put that on hold until every obscure service they offer in every obscure market is up to scratch?).
It says "[...]the company will not launch any new products or services in the future without ensuring that they work on both IE and Firefox" which is quite a different kettle of fish entirely. Indeed, it goes on to say that "[...] Yahoo would not commit to a date when all its current services--including avatar customization--will be available to Firefox users."
Start with the goddamn Launchcast service which would REALLY ROCK with Firefox support. I have an IE window running in my background just to play music at work. It's annoying.
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
I was just swearing at Yahoo! Movies last night, for promising to show me a movie trailer and then telling me at the last moment that I couldn't do it in Firefox. This was on a Mac, so I wasn't about to do it in IE.
I was very disappointed to find that LaunchCast does not work in Firefox(or any mac browser for that matter).
The error message displayed is:
'Sorry, we are unable to support Netscape 6.0+ at this time.'
If this is true, It is a great step for Yahoo. I have tried to move everyone I know to firefox, including my mom. The only thing that was holding my mom back from completely using firefox was yahoo's online streaming music radio. Maby finally she can dump IE once and for all!
Wouldn't it be a h00t if Microsoft came out with IE 7.0 and said it was Firefox compatible ...
"our thingie is just like their thingie and is better in the Dubious Advantage Benchmark!"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Just browse games.slashdot.org with opera. THE HORROR! A good browser but yikes what a horrible color rendering.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Two points
1) Slashcode isn't W3C HTML compliant
2) usually it's Firefox renders before the page is loaded bug. hit ctrl + , Ctrl - and it's fine.
Of course it doesn't happen all the time either. Some days it happens every time. or i can go weeks in-between.
i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
Last time I installed some plugin or other with IE (shockwave I think), Yahoo promptly took over the menu bar, and I've yet to work out how to undo the damage. So now this will happen to Firefox too? And this is something to celebrate?
Virtually serving coffee
I actually think this is a dumb statement by Yahoo, and I use firefox daily.
Yahoo should not pledge firefox support, it should pledge STANDARDS support. If all their pages validate, and contain the proper doctypes, then Yahoo becomes stardards supporting, and all good browsers that obey standards will render them correctly. They'll also gracefully degrade per platform/browser.
Reason, free market capitalism, and individualism
I wonder if this covers partnerships Yahoo! has with other companies.
Being from Canada, Yahoo! has partenered with Rogers to incorporate features like LaunchCast into high speed internet service bundles. I know this is the only thing I currently use IE for as LaunchCast won't support anything but IE... boo-urns.
Yeah, it used to do that for me. But nightly builds solve the problem just fine. The Moox 1.0 build also works fine. If you don't like those solutions though, there's also the slashfix extension.
I am most annoyed that the main search bar at yahoo.com grabs focus when you start typing no matter where you click on the page. This breaks type to find ("begin finding when you begin typing" in options) and I always have to do a find on their page since it is so busy.
Baby steps. Each company out there that realizes that windows/ie only doesn't make business sense makes the world a better place for freedom of choice.
Lots of people used to complain about banking problems with non-ie browsers. Yet I use the dutch Postbank as my bank and it works perfectly fine with opera on linux and firefox as well. It is slow progress but there is progress.
I can foresee a time when every serious website will simply run on every browser out there. For someone old enough to remember "this site best viewed with" messages or even links to microsoft.com that is a nice vision.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
At home, I tend to use my iMac to surf the web, and I always start at Yahoo.
So now I can upgrade from IE4 to a real browser like Firefox, safe and secure in the knowledge that my fave portal will work with it.
Kinda stomps on the Fear Uncertainty and Doubt, doesn't it?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Standards fanboys eh? Man, fanboy is a word that's just getting WAAAAY over-used.
This just comes up again and again, doesn't it? Let's recap:
I love how people complain incessantly about slashdot standards support.
1) Slashdot was coded years ago, when the accepted way to do things was to nest tables. It may not have been right, but it did the job at a time when CSS had even less support than it does now. Also at that time IE was a leader in the adaption of CSS (remember when NS 4 didn't even support external stylesheets without a hack) and its implementation was still poor. Developers had little choice.
2) Last i checked slashcode was open source. Recode it to standards and submit it as a patch.
3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.
The only thing that was holding my mom back from completely using firefox was yahoo's online streaming music radio.
...
Now if I could just get Nathan Hale High School radio (KNHC) to broadcast in a Mac-friendly way - with Yahoo Streaming Music - my life would be complete!
It's all about the music. The rest is just worldly possessions that should be invested in a European value index fund
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
The sentence as copied directly from the story:
News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site.
I understand your point about apostrophes, but in this case there's nothing wrong.
I'm not good in groups. It's difficult to work in a group when you're omnipotent. - Q
I use opera as my primary browser and I have all kinds of problems trying to use Yahoo mail.
This is why my Mac (sadly) at home still uses IE (or did until I heard that Yahoo will work on Firefox for the Mac now), whereas my other Windows boxen all use Opera at home.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, way to go.
:)
Let's go back to Lynx.
Nah, let's go back to Gopher!
Or let's just ditch the Internet, and bring back the BBS!
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
use the ctrl + and ctrl - shortcuts to increase the text size, then reduce it back to normal. This will re-render the page properly. Why this works, I have no idea.
There are some people that if they don't know, you can't tell 'em.
whenever I browse Slashdot with Firefox the page just doesn't seem to be drawn correctly.
See that little icon in the upper right corner? The one that if you mouseover says "Firefox Upgrades to Download" or somesuch?
Try clicking on that and downloading the upgrades.
I did that and since then have never had any problems.
Now, the stories I could tell about WebPine glitches are another matter...
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Yeah, and then you can upgrade from Firefox to a good browser like Safari.
If I wanted to go on a Safari, I would have.
I'd rather twirl Fire with the Foxes.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
It's not nesting tables (that's not really bad in my book, it just slowed down old Netscapes) that is the big problem.
a shdot.org%2F
It is the fact the Slashdot pages are invalid HTML.
And rather than fix it, or at least address the criticism, Slashdot gives a 403 Forbidden error when trying to use validator.w3.org.
As if that will make us have confidence in the HTML being valid, making it so we can't even see the errors. It would be like buying a car with a sheet over it, and not being allowed to look under the sheet before purchase.
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsl
Just because it CAN be done, doesn't mean it should!
Posted today:
9 020384,39191834,00.htm/
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/applications/0,3
----- Open Source = More Secure (mmmmkay)
3) Why has complaining about slashdot standards support become an exercise in growing your karma, all these redundant posts are always modded interesting in any discussion regarding the web.
/code is cleaned up enough for people not to notice the differnce x-browser, then you'll have reason to complain.
As long as it remains a problem, people will still comment on it. Possitive ratings for comments only mean that the moderator/metamoderator saw those comments as relevant to the topic/metatopic. When the
I have no tag line
Well, maybe that, but it's probably more that Google has started officialy supporting Firefox in most things (there's even a rumor about a GBrowser based on Firefox), so Yahoo couldn't be left behind on that.
Treehugger? Treehugger... Treehugger!
The biggest problem is Slashdot's, they're the ones paying for the bandwidth on this bloated code.
The page works in all browsers(at least the 4 I have). As i understand it the issue with firefox is a bug in the browser.
A little off topic, but your sig fit PERFECTLY with that post.
"It is better to risk sparing a guilty person than to condemn an innocent one." - Voltaire
There's actually a firefox plugin called SlashFix. google it. It fixes the rendering errors.
...spike
Ewwwwww, coconut...
I think the term he was looking for is 'standards whore'.
Well and that is why Google will continue to be the dominant search engine and why I will continue recommending their products to my clients, friends, and family.
And why Yahoo's product incompatibility will be irrelevant once Google takes over by doing it the right way.
Bye Yahoo, unfortunately your 1998 mentality won't get you far nowadays.
[alk]
Now all they have to do is.
Stop truncating my email at x chars.
Support SSL for pop3 so my email isn't sent for everyone to see.
Support message ID's in pop3 so kmail doesn't download my email 3 times.
Stop putting plain text attachments in the message body or at least let me downlaod them, it really screws up patches.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
1) Oh good; excuses. That will fix anything. Also, I think you meant "adoption of CSS." Finally, you point out that Slashdot was coded years ago -- do you think that slashcode has been under code freeze for all those years? No. But has the HTML been fixed? Also no.
2) Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one, part two) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no.
3) Complaining about Slashdot standards support is te ONLY way we have to goad slashdot into supporting standards -- just like it's the only way we have of convincing MS to support the same standards. Clearly, the devs aren't motivated by much -- hell, the code was handed to them already! -- but maybe they'll get sick enough of their users bitching that they'll implement one of the eleventy trillion fixes that has already been created for them.
REM Old programmers don't die. They just GOSUB without RETURN.
Yahoo isn't doing this as a favour to anyone. Firefox has a sizeable share and Yahoo is squandering away business by not supporting Firefox. Like someone way above said, Yahoo should have supported standards in the first place.
The way they do things now is a bit messy, and cleaning this up (which they might not even do) is just a first step to getting more business. It'll save 'em more money in the long run to adhere to standards. Firefox is the flavour of the day; it'll likely be replaced by something "better" at some point.
Ironically, MSN seems to be moving toward support for all browsers. I don't use it enough to verify anything thouroughly though.
"When the atomic bomb goes off there's devastation...but when the atomic bong goes off there's celebraaaaation!"
Big hint.
Laws are for people with no friends.
How did we ever survive without life critical necessities like messenger avatars and smileys?
This is what is wrong with the web and web based applications.
How did we ever survive without the web?
How did we ever survive without the internet?
Honestly, who the fuck said this was about survival?
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Since when was Firefox a standard?
Has anyone else noticed that Yahoo's homepage is no longer very "selectable"? I try searching for text within the page (-F in Mozilla), and can't get the "Find" dialog to appear. I can't drag-select other text. It's like they've got the page locked down, so only their UI (not the client SW) is effective. That's hardly "full" support, of Firefox or any other browser.
--
make install -not war
2) Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one [alistapart.com], part two [alistapart.com]) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no.
Actually in the list apart article, they only downloaded the index page through their browser and retooled that with new html. They never even downloaded the slashcode source. Also slashdot does care (see this), however no one including the people in the ALA article, have made a real effort to improve slashcode.
Your come here to battle and you didn't even read the articles you posted as 'proof'.
I was under the impression that all, or nearly all, of Yahoo!'s content was served up by FreeBSD machines. What kind of perversion went on that they decided to put IE-only content on these boxes? Maybe their press release confusion is an indicator of other weirdness in the company, too.
...about more support for FireFox. But perhaps they should have been standards compliant to begin with?
It's good news, sure. But they shouldn't have relied on IE to fix malformed metadata in the first place.
I'll let it slide (to an extent) if it's taking advantage of IE-specific APIs, considering years ago IE was more-or-less the only browser people used. When 95%+ of your userbase uses IE, you can usually get away with that if it means getting even more of a user base (a prettier easier to use website at the expense of support for other browsers). In the end, if you have even more users, the ends justify the means to a business.
Google first.....and now yahoo.... Finally were getting some support --------------- Check out firemonger, the CD with Firefox/TB/themes/extensions Http://firemonger.org
Now if they'd just upgrade the Messenger client for Linux so I could use the webcam feature without resorting to Windows.
I decided to come back and craft a more thorough rebuttal to make sure your uninformed reply does not get modded up.
"Oh good; excuses. That will fix anything. Also, I think you meant "adoption of CSS." Finally, you point out that Slashdot was coded years ago -- do you think that slashcode has been under code freeze for all those years? No. But has the HTML been fixed? Also no. "
Nope, you're correct, there is no code freeze, but as with any project its tough to find time to go back and fix something that works. Slashdot HTML obviously works as is.
" Last time I checked, "open source" did not necessarily imply "the developers give a shit about third-party patches." There are open source projects out there who appreciate it, but slashcode ain't one of 'em. It's got Not Invented Here syndrome in a bad way. In fact, someone at A List Apart retooled Slashdot to be standards compliant (part one, part two) -- then showed how it would be PDA compatible, and save OSDN bandwith costs. Did the slashcode group care? Hell no. "
In the ALA article, they only downloaded a single page (through their browser, not from slashcode source) and rewrote the html. Big deal, anyone here could have done that. It provides nothing for slashdot to use. Big deal, they proved something we already knew, that the slashdot layout can be reproduced using cleaner code. Had the people really wanted to help they would have downloaded the source code.
" Complaining about Slashdot standards support is te ONLY way we have to goad slashdot into supporting standards -- just like it's the only way we have of convincing MS to support the same standards. Clearly, the devs aren't motivated by much -- hell, the code was handed to them already! -- but maybe they'll get sick enough of their users bitching that they'll implement one of the eleventy trillion fixes that has already been created for them"
Complaining is NOT the only way. Contributing is another way that comes to mind. You again mention code being handed to them, where is this code? The code from the ALA article that you obviously did not read otherwise you'd know there is no code, just a rebuilt index page?
While it looks this story is incorrect, it still should be pointed out that the problem is not designing websites to work with specific browsers, it is getting them to comply to existing standards. If major sites like Yahoo started coding for W3C standards it would push developers of compliance-challenged browsers <cough>Microsoft</cough> to fix their software. Then, in the Utopia that would develop, web developers would know that their compliant code would display the same in whatever browser was used. Kind of the whole idea for standards, you know? Oh, and then monkeys would fly out of my butt.
Yahoo! have retracted their promise: not everything will be Firefox-compatable after all.
Simple, end users expect microsoft word user interfaces with web based applications.
Going from basic html, javascript, cgi to a near ms word wysiwyg interface doubles the cost to develop implement and deploy a web based application.
view source
...HREF="//slashdot.org/index.rss" TYPE="application/rss+xml">
...
save as
upload check on validator
File: C:\slashdot[1].html
Encoding: utf-8
Doctype: HTML 3.2
Errors: 119
No Character Encoding Found! Falling back to UTF-8.I was not able to extract a character encoding labeling from any of the valid sources for such information. Without encoding information it is impossible to reliably validate the document. I'm falling back to the "UTF-8" encoding and will attempt to perform the validation, but this is likely to fail for all non-trivial documents.
So what should I do? Tell me more...
This page is not Valid HTML 3.2!
Below are the results of attempting to parse this document with an SGML parser.
Line 4, column 80: there is no attribute "TYPE"
You have used the attribute named above in your document, but the document type you are using does not support that attribute for this element. This error is often caused by incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Transitional" document type to get the "target" attribute), or by using vendor proprietary extensions such as "marginheight" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).
This error may also result if the element itself is not supported in the document type you are using, as an undefined element will have no supported attributes; in this case, see the element-undefined error message for further information.
How to fix: check the spelling and case of the element and attribute, (Remember XHTML is all lower-case) and/or check that they are both allowed in the chosen document type, and/or use CSS instead of this attribute.
Line 11, column 11: there is no attribute "TOPMARGIN"
TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0"
Line 11, column 26: there is no attribute "LEFTMARGIN"
TOPMARGIN="0" LEFTMARGIN="0"
Line 12, column 13: there is no attribute "MARGINWIDTH"
MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0">
Line 12, column 30: there is no attribute "MARGINHEIGHT"
MARGINWIDTH="0" MARGINHEIGHT="0">
Line 16, column 8: there is no attribute "BGCOLOR"
bgcolor="#cccccc" style="border-top: 1px #999999 solid; border-bottom: 5px #0000
Line 16, column 24: there is no attribute "STYLE"
bgcolor="#cccccc" style="border-top: 1px #999999 solid; border-bottom: 5px #0000
Line 18, column 46: there is no attribute "STYLE"
Line 76, column 15: element "NOBR" undefined
You have used the element named above in your document, but the document type you are using does not define an element of that name. This error is often caused by incorrect use of the "Strict" document type with a document that uses frames (e.g. you must use the "Frameset" document type to get the "" element), or by using vendor proprietary extensions such as "" or "" (this is usually fixed by using CSS to achieve the desired effect instead).
Line 90, column 16: an attribute value must be a literal unless it contains only name characters
You have used a character that is not considered a "name character" in an attribute value. Which characters are considered "name characters" varies between the different document types, but a good rule of thumb is that unless the value contains only lower or upper case letters in the range a-z you must put quotation marks around the value. In fact, unless you have extreme file size requirements it is a very very good idea to always put quote marks around your attribute values. It is never wrong to do so, and very often it is absolutely necessary.
Line 123, column 15: element "NOBR" undefined
Line 132, column 15: element "NOBR" undefined
Line 144, column 16: element "NOBR" undefined
Line 154, column 16: element "NOBR" undefined
Line 175, column 41: character "%" is not allowed in th
Some sites won't accept mail from my yahoo account claiming it's not RFC compliant. Heck if I know but it'd be nice get on it if not...
http://www.rfc-ignorant.org/
Who are these guys anyway???
World wide web standards are going to benefit emensely from Firefox's popularity, since I assume it's a browser that uses real standards, so for people to make sites that work well with it, they will also be making a website that works well with other standards compliant browsers.
In this way Firefox is trailblazing through the world wide web, and going to make things easier for other IE killers.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
Wow. They corrected it.
No joke. I copy/pasted my quote directly from the Slashdot headline. I know for a fact it had an apostrophe.
I wonder if they corrected it because of me? Seems doubtful, but it's also strange that they went back and corrected it.
If there was a comparable service by somebody else that either used proprietary software or worked in Firefox, I'd be on it already.
Microsoft Internet Explorer is proprietary software.
News.com.com is reporting that Yahoo! has pledged full support of Firefox across its entire site.
:D
So does this mean we should all start getting our news from Yahoo instead of Slashdot?
-1 Uncomfortable Truth
No it doesn't. "htmlarea" is free and released under the BSD license, and it works exactly like a regular text area.
Why code yourself what you can leverage (legally) in five minutes?
Today I tried to make a Yahoo! Photos thing in Firefox. The little flash video thing said there is a tool you can use to upload many photos at once. I couldn't find the link at all for this "tool". Of course not, doesn't work at all in Firefox. If you want to use Firefox, you have to upload ONE file at a time. So right now I'm using IE, but glad to see I won't have to for much longer.
K Man
Will this finally be upgraded from it's netscape 4.77 dependancy?
-Cnik
From TFA:"In the grand scheme of things Firefox is still a new technology."
What's so new about following some damn W3C standards that have been around for some time now? This isn't about Firefox, it's about standards-compliance!
I just wish Yahoo would fix their spell checker when using Firefox with Yahoo Mail. It almost always mangles up the words it is correcting.
i.e.
Original Message:
"\nThis is spelled uncorrectly."
It should change it to this:
"\nThis is spelled incorrectly."
But instead it changes it to this:
"This is spelled unincorrectly"
Notice it mangles the word "incorrectly" and it even removed the period. I can live with it removing the blank line ("\n"), but after spell checking my emails, they usually end up worse than the original email with the spelling mistakes.
Many times I end up pasting them into a word processor to check them before hitting Send.
Come on Yahoo.. Where is the spine? Well, google still gets my business!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Not exactly. They were given an HTML page and CSS file or two showing how it could be done. This is only the first step; reworking Slashcode to produce this standards-compliant HTML is a different, very non-trivial thing, and the ALA people did not do that. Evidently no one else has, either.
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
Yes, it is with mixed emotions that I look forward to this new capability. It will only increase the amount of HTML mail that I get, the vast majority of which uses NONE of HTML's capabilities except in the signature block, but still uses 4 times the disk storage. On the other hand, it probably won't increase such email much; IE users who decide to migrate after this change would be using the HTML already, if they were so inclined. Probably not many people who are already using Firefox will start using the HTML feature once Yahoo[ungrammatical punctuation omitted] turns it on.
In days of old, Yahoo[u.p.o] would let you hand-code your own HTML if you checked a box saying "Allow HTML" or something like that. I guess enough people were scared by the notion of having that much control that they decided to take it away, but I miss that feature from time to time.
one hundred twenty
is just enough characters
to write a haiku
It got retracted? That sucks.
One of the only things I use IE for is Yahoo! LaunchCast. If only they had some sort of contact information, I'd demand that they put out FireFox support or I'd withdraw my subscription...
1. Release pro-open source alternative - get your story on slashdot
2. Retract statement at last moment but story is still up
3. ???
4. Profit?
"Firefox is still a new technology"
Since when is a web browser a "new technology" (as quoted from Yahoo's rep)? Come on. Just be standards-compliant!
It's probably a competition issue for them because I'd expect that the people most likely to switch to Firefox probably make up a really juicy demographic that they don't want to lose out on.
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Because I mod up troll's ,++flaimbates and mod down funny in my personal settings. since troll is often used for insightful but I didn't understand the poster, and if I want jokes I'll look at my self in the mirror.
thank God the internet isn't a human right.
"...there may be some products that are, perhaps, not appropriate for that browser."
Someone needs to tell Yahoo that if an application is not appropriate for one standards compliant browser, then it is not appropriate to be a web application. In fact, it really can't be called a web application anymore if it only runs in IE - it is a Windows application at that point.
This whole retraction is just an excuse to cover the fact that they're too lazy to fix all of their buggy code.
Yippee-kayay-motherfucker?
Yippee-kayay-mother-fooler!
Or, and I swear I'm not making this up:
Yippee-kayay-Mr-Falcon!
Hollow words will burn and hollow men will burn.
Why dont they try for full W3C compliance and Javascript standards compliance, rather then just supporting a set of browsers.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
testing out my trending skills
You know, it shouldn't be such a big deal these days when companies announce "adding FireFox support." For one, Firefox isn't "new technology" or even its own browser really, it's just a Gecko browser (and Gecko is a few years old). If they add "Firefox support" then shouldn't Galeon, Netscape, Mozilla Suite and KMeleon work too?
All this implies is that these companies ignorantly programmed all of their web technologies under ActiveX, which only works under one browser under one operating system and only if ActiveX is turned on (and SP2 turns it OFF!), and they're just NOW trying to fix this. If companies like Yahoo would, for example, write their Avatar maker in pure Flash or something instead of ActiveX, then Mac/Linux/OtherOS and even Win32 Firefox/Mozilla/Opera users can all use the technology. It seems like Y2K all over again, when companies thought hitting the 99-00 roll-over would never happen in their lifetime.
Companies are just now realizing that there's web users other than Windows/IE users, especially since Mac users tend to be music nuts and would gladly use Yahoo Launch if only it would work for them. Programming only for the "lowest common denominator" is just now seeming to be a bad business practice, and just plain lazy to boot.
Yahoo must have heard the cries of their fans, the ones they haven't lost completely to Apple and Google for similar services:
Mac/Linux User: "Hello!! We can't use Yahoo Launch! It requires Windows! I'm gonna use iTunes!"
or
Windows Gecko/Opera User: "Hello! I am using a browser other than IE here. I shouldn't be forced to use IE, despite want Microsoft wants! I'm gonna use iTunes instead!"
or even...
Windows-IE User with ActiveX Turned Off: "Hello!!! I am NOT going to turn on that shitty, insecure ActiveX 'feature' just to use Launch. I'm going to iTunes!"
I don't see how this would be positive news if it were worded correctly: "Big, responsible web company realizes that proprietary web technologies only works in one specific browser/OS combination with insecure 'feature' left on, therefor supporting monopolistic control of one product and forcing said insecure 'feature' to be turned on, and now realizes more customers can be reached if it used safe and standard code that can be accessed by more than one browser and OS."
Hmmm, I have used Firefox regularly since, what whazit 0.3? and have really enjoyed the advanced features and fast execution times.
However, since Firefox started getting really positive press http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/17/139 253&tid=154&tid=218
I have noticed an increasing number of crashes as I surf around with Firefox at my side.
Methinks the cause is not Firefox but rather due to an ever increasing amount of malformed content.
OK you can cue Agent Scully now if you want but no shit I do not think its just about W3C compliance anymore.
There's a new browser war afoot.
Peace_out
Yeah, now wouldn't it be great if they came up with a version of messenger for linux that actually had features worthy of the 21st century?