Slashdot Mirror
Firefox and Opera Fail the Acid2 Test
naylor83 writes "Four weeks ago, Opera's CTO Håkan Lie put forward the Acid2 challenge to the IE developers at Microsoft. The Web Standards Project has now silently published the promised browser test. Somewhat surprisingly, both Opera and Firefox fail to correctly render the test page. Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer. More screenshots are available at my blog, as well as at other people's."
It's not fud...
did you look at the FF rendering and the IE rendering? Neither is perfect, but the IE rendering is absolutely horrid.
Jay | http://oldos.org
Right. So none of the browsers tested can display the test page correctly? And they're the best, most compliant browsers available?
And they've had how long to get it right?
In that case, it would seem to me that it is the standard that is broken, if it's really that difficult to render a page with a cascading style sheet.
(Spudley Strikes Again!)
is an analysis of what failed with each browser (especially Firefox.) None of the links told us why the browser failed to render the smiley face or what the WSP did to obfuscate the code. Any takers?
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/reference.html == proper rendering
http://webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#top == test page
Jay | http://oldos.org
It was known before the test was published that no browser would get it right. That's the whole point!
The reason for having this is to expose bugs in current implementations. Internet Explorer is the obvious retard, implementing about 50% of CSS 2.1, but that doesn't mean that the other browsers can just slack off at 95%. That's not what the W3C is about, it's not what WASP is about, and it's not what this acid test is about.
Which part of "obviously" is Fear, Uncertainity or Doubt? It's common knowledge that IE6 is far behind in implementing the W3C web standards.
What's really going to cook your noodle later is... what browser did they use to render it correctly to generate the reference rendering?
also fails
You obviously aren't a web developer. Everybody knows Internet Explorer's support for the W3C specifications is atrocious, its rendering engine was last updated in 2001 and has yet to implement HTML 4.01, CSS 1.0, CSS 2.0, PNG 1.0 or HTTP 1.1. Those specifications date from the 90s. Some of them are eight or nine years old.
Internet Explorer is famous for being crap. It's the new Netscape 4. So when somebody says "obviously", they aren't an anti-Microsoft troll, they are simply stating facts. If IBM or Redhat were responsible for that atrocity, it would be equally reviled.
In order for something to qualify as FUD, it has to be untrue.
Given that Microsoft itself does not pretend that IE has a complete CSS 2.1 implementation, it cannot be FUD to state that it is obvious that IE will do worse on a test of CSS 2.1 than other browsers which do claim to implement that particular standard.
Note also that many people consider CSS 2 to be overcomplicated and not very useful in practice. It is therefore not necessarily even a bad thing for a browser to fail this test - arguably, a browser that passed it would be bloated, as it would implement all sorts of things that are not necessary to view 99.99% of web pages. So to say that IE fails the test badly is not only not FUD - it isn't even (necessarily) a criticism!
Any chance you could train your knees not to jerk so quickly, please?
None, they used something like Gimp or Photoshop. I asked them.
Parent poster was right, that was anti-MS FUD. If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all."
On the contrary - it would have made the first page.
http://home.student.uu.se/dana3949/temp/acid2/ie.p ng is what I look like after using IE too. ;)
"On the contrary - it would have made the first page."
Not without a snide comparison to MS.
"Derp de derp."
There's no degree of broken.
Yes, there is. If Firefox gets, say, 90% of the CSS rules correct, and Internet Explorer gets, say, 40% of the CSS rules correct, that's significant.
If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all.
Huh? Firefox made the headline as failing the test. Internet Explorer didn't. And you consider that to be FUD against Microsoft?
like
safari on tiger anyone ?
please post a screenshot of that I would really be intrested
stats on web browsers market share
w3 numbers
Seriously now. If Firefox had done worse than IE6 in this test it would have made the front pages of every tech news site this side of Uranus.
The way the browser are rendering this its more of an On-Acid-Test
Right now I am looking at a handy CSS reference chart saying which browser supports what, and the fact is, one third to half of the standard is entirely un-implemented by Mozilla, Opera and IE.
If a CSS standard falls on browser designers to implement, and no one implements it, was it really "the standard?"
IE6 implement far less of the CSS2 spec than any other browser - that's a fact. Hence the "obviously".
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
In a way I agree - I think implementing CSS2 to its full extent would be more than twice as good as implementing half of it.
At the same time I think implementing 80% is better than implementing 35%.
At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken.
So when Firefox applies the display: table-cell rule correctly, that's utterly meaningless and should be filed as a bug because Firefox applies other rules on the same page wrongly? You aren't making sense.
There are many, many CSS rules in the test. The test is designed to exercise lots of different areas of CSS.
If you think that there's no useful information beyond "no browser applies all of the rules correctly", well then you've wasted your time reading this story, because I could have told you that before this test was even published.
Let's all pat the OSS Community on the back!
What does open-source have to do with this? Opera, a tiny company with nowhere near the resources of Microsoft, who haven't released their browser as open-source, have done miles better than Microsoft.
I think you're just trolling, especially when you try and turn this into some kind of open-source vs proprietary flamewar.
Umm take the actual test this time, rather than looking at the reference image.
I tried it on the pretty much the same machine as you (just plain Server vs Adv Server though), and it was the same hideous red mess shown in the IE screenshot.
"What does open-source have to do with this? Opera, a tiny company with nowhere near the resources of Microsoft, who haven't released their browser as open-source, have done miles better than Microsoft."
Agreed
According to TFA, they did this deliberately: compliant browsers should ignore bogus CSS attributes.
If you read the guide you'll see that they have intentionally put some strange characters into the code, to test if the browsers igonre them according to the specs.
"I think you're just trolling, especially when you try and turn this into some kind of open-source vs proprietary flamewar. "
Seeing as how you are the one trying to distort parent poster's comment, that would make you the troll. He never said anything about proprietary code.
If you go up to where this discussion started, it is pretty clear that his point was that Slashdot isn't being very professional.
I think he is going a little overboard, but I understand his point. Your defense of the comment made in the headline does more to show your biases than it does to show your grasp of what he was saying.
"There's no degree of broken."
That is not true. Broken is broken but there are dozens of various pieces of technology that compose this test. The uglier the rendering the more of those individual elements are broken.
In the real world you will maybe have 1 or 2 of the elements used in this page in your entire website. If 80% of them render correctly in FF/Opera and 20% in IE (don't take those specific numbers to heart) then FF/Opera are 4 times more likely to render your site correctly than IE. By all means insert the real numbers but the principle remains the same. Yes, considering that NONE of the browsers are 100% compliant, having a greater compliance level that is still less than 100% is still commendable.
The bottom line is that this really is not one test, it is dozens of hand picked tests so every fail or pass counts individually. Since this was just released the number of passes vs fails we see right now is an indicator of how seriously the developers of a given browser take advanced standards compliance.
In the end I would like to see all 3 browsers 100% standards compliant. Even after being fixed to pass this acid test none of the browsers will be 100% compliant. This test just uses some cherry picked features, it was intentionally designed so that none of the browsers would pass it.
Just out of curiosity...what browser did they use to get the successful reference rendering? I'm presuming there's one that successfully renders, otherwise, how do they know their test code is valid? I've clicked around but don't know what they used to generate that png.
"Hardly used" will not fetch you a better price for your brain.
Let's count the unsupported assertions in this post, shall we?
- When dealing with stuff like this, broken is broken.
- There's no degree of broken.
- It's not like Opera and FireFox can claim "well, when we break, there's only 25% degradation."
- In other words, just because the face was a little more legible in Opera or FireFox than IE, doesn't mean that in the real world, they'll at least be readable where IE absolutely will not.
- Parent poster was right, that was anti-MS FUD.
- If FireFox was more disappointing, it wouldn't ahve been mentioned at all.
--MarkusQAccording to whom? And on what basis?
How about "number of features correctly implemented" / "total number of features in spec"?
Why not? I think it's very likely that they'll claim exactly that.
How's this for a reason: if all of the features that fail in Opera and Firefox also fail in IE, no one will use them; this means that pages written to the subset that works in at least some of the browsers may well work 100% correctly in Opera or Firefox and still fail horribly in IE. This is at least a plausible counter example to unsupported claim #4.
The fact that you share his oppinion does not make hiim right. FUD is a fairly specific charge to lay against someone, and in this case seems hard to justify. Editorial bias perhaps?
And you know this how?
"He never said anything about proprietary code."
And he didn't say he had said so either...
I'm confused, is this supposed to be valid CSS2? The W3C CSS validator finds 8 errors in the page.
.parser-container div .parser .parser .parser .parser .parser
-molo
CSS validator results
* Line: 46
Parse Error - second two]
* Line: 91 Context :
Invalid number : color orange is not a color value : orange
* Line: 97 Context :
Property error doesn't exist : }
* Line: 100 Context :
Property m rgin doesn't exist : 2em
* Line: 100
Parse error - Unrecognized : };
* Line: 102 Context :
Invalid number : width only 0 can be a length. You must put an unit after your number : 200
* Line: 103 Context :
Parse Error - ! error;
* Line: 103 Context :
Parse error - Unrecognized : }
Using your sig line to advertise for friends is lame.
It's supposed to be invalid. The CSS specification defines error handling, and Internet Explorer gets it wrong. A conforming user-agent would never apply those rules.
In fact it is necessary for this stylesheet to be invalid - otherwise it wouldn't test the error handling parts of the CSS specifications.
I think people need to look up the definition of FUD, and then use the acronym properly.
This is not FUD.
Broken is broken, yes: that's a tautology. But some things are more important than others. Which would you rather have broken on your car? The hubcap or the rim? The ashtray or the steering wheel?
IE's standards support bites ass. Its absolute lack of two things (full PNG support and fixed positioning) has hindered web development greatly. It's piss-poor box model is responsible for some of the nastiest-looking CSS hacks around. Firefox's support isn't perfect, but it's very good.
If the only commonality you can find between two things is lack of perfection, you need to look harder.
This isn't as much "normalization" as it is "don't take so many drugs when you're designing tables."
"So when Firefox applies the display: table-cell rule correctly, that's utterly meaningless and should be filed as a bug because Firefox applies other rules on the same page wrongly? You aren't making sense."
Fair enough. I was talking about standards compliance. Never mind, you win.
"What does open-source have to do with this?"
Obviously not what you claim it is. Let me ask you a question: Was this story posted to light a fire under the FireFox dev team to make it better, or was it posted because it has a nice pretty number of how FireFox is better than IE?
If your answer is the former, are you saying that because you want to 'win', or because you can honestly look at Slashdot's track record and tell me that it's fair and unbiased when it comes to Microsoft?
"Derp de derp."
Saying that IE's renderer is obviously inferior to Firefox/Opera is like saying that Linux is obviously more difficult to use on a desktop than Mac OSX. It's just plain true. If you had ever designed a complex web site making extensive use of CSS, you'd know this. The only reason you never see IE rendering pages wrong is because every web developer out there has taken extreme pains to work around all of IE's problems.
The real lessons to be learnt from this seem to be getting lost here. If we put aside the MS vs Moz, FUD vs non-FUD and not-as-broken vs either broken or not debates we can see that web designers should have something to look forward to in the (near?) future.
Finally, here is something that could actually give the browser developers something to aim for and help to pull together the standardisation of modern CSS rendering. From how that smiley face is supposed to look I'm already quite excited about what we'll be able to do once all of the browsers are up to scratch.
Now all we need is for the browser developers to take note of this, use it as a learning tool and a target to aim for and give the web design/development community a hell of a lot less stuff to debate about.
It could happen...
But of course, in addition to this they shouldn't let the acid2 test be a final goal and then just sit back and let themselves get rusty. Personally i'd like to see a publicly available acid test for all the new versions/revisions of CSS standards so that Joe Home User can more easily choose which browser to use. An acidN test once every 8 years?
This is the fast moving world of technology, don't you know.
At the end of the day, I'd like to drive home in the car that's timing is a little off causing a loss of 2 mpg and 3 hp, as opposed to the car that is in such a state of disrepair that the axle falls off after 2 miles and the fuel tank spontaneously combusts.
There's also the idea that, assuming all parties are working to make their browser compliant, then it may also be assumed that one party may be closer to reaching full complaice than the other.
Or, to further mutilate an abused analogy, which of the above cars would be easier to repair?
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
I would agree with that, but then again - I wrote and submitted the post ;-)
" Which If the only commonality you can find between two things is lack of perfection, you need to look harder."
When I have to use IE because something didn't render right in Opera, then I have every right to demand perfection. Not only do the standards need to be supported, but thanks to the de-facto market share of IE, the mutations to the standard that Microsoft caused.
"Derp de derp."
So? That's a good thing. I prefer to know up front where someone's bias lies. Everyone has one and when you try to hide it you have no way of knowing where it might creep it. Just be honest about it and accept it. I can go read an MSDN journal for an IE-biased opinion.
"It was posted because it's news for nerds. It certainly wasn't posted because "it has a nice pretty number of how FireFox is better than IE", because it doesn't have a nice pretty number."
Right, that's why they snide comment about how lousy IE is was in the headline, right? You're deluding yourself.
"Derp de derp."
They made errors which the browsers should cope with if they follow the spec.
"The headline reads "Firefox and Opera Fail the Acid2 Test", when all browsers fail the test, and you are claiming that this is some kind of biased attack on Microsoft?"
Selective reading?
" Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."
It's right there in the summary. Don't call me a troll if you're not even going to try listening to me. I really don't care if you agree with me or not, but being willfully ignorant isn't 'cool'.
"Derp de derp."
Whatever you say sir. It's a fact that IE has "lousy" support of CSS 2. The heading was written the way it was cos no one in his right mind was expecting IE6 to get the Acid2 test right. Some, though, probably thought that Opera and Firefox would.
What publicly availbe browser can, if any? Because I would love to try it.
Webstandards.org may have good intentions, but I'm not sure I trust their test or their organization. For one thing, someone has pointed out that the W3C's CSS validator rejects it. (This link currently slashdotted.)
Gecko renders part of the second row of the face at the right edge of the viewport. I believe that that is actually the correct behavior according to the specifications. Row 2 is generated by
The blockquote is a block-level element with unspecified width, so except for the 60px left margin, it should occupy the entire width of the containing block (CSS 2.1, Sec 10.3.3). Therefore, the address element, which is floated to the right within the blockquote, is correctly placed at the right edge of the viewport. I don't see why the "shrink-to-fit" rule for computing the width of the blockquote should apply as they claim it does. There may be other errors, but I haven't investigated further.
When the W3C publishes a test, one can be pretty sure that it's authoritative. But who is behind webstandards.org? They claim to be a grassroots coalition, yet I don't see where on their website they invite site visitors to join or contribute to their cause.
Their explanation of the test lacks a contact address at the end to report errors. It seems rather careless of them to publish the test in that state, and it doesn't inspire confidence in the rest of the test.
It's good to see someone making an effort. I do hope that this test will help browsers improve, but I wouldn't trust that the test itself is 100% accurate, either. I would love to see the W3C devise more compliance tests of this sort.
So, are you saying the headline should have been "Opera, Firefox and IE Fail the Acid2 Test"?
"At the end of the day, no it's not. Broken is broken."
No at the end of the day a browser that has correctly implemented 90% of CSS has a 90% chance of correctly rendering of arbitrary complexity that implements CSS. A browser with 40% implemented has a 40% chance.
Obviously that is not the total picture; you could make the issue drastically more complex by arguing the commonality and usage of certain parts of CSS. As well as the theoretical usage of parts if authors were able to reasonably expect them to be supported and so on. And of course the GP pulled 90% and 40% out of his arse.
'Let's see: "Obviously though, they're no where near as lousy as Internet Explorer."'
The headline was that Firefox and Opera failed to pass the test. IE failing is expected and not suprising. This has nothing to do with OSS. Opera isn't OSS after all. IE and Microsoft in general have a hard earned reputation for standards incompliance. The statement you mention is simply heading off any FUD that might claim FF/Opera are not dedicated to standards compliance by IE apologizers. There is no FUD involved in stating that the status quo has not changed and the informed expectation that Opera and FF would exhibit greater compliance out of the box than IE was upheld.
Any expectation is a bias, not all biases are reasonable and some are common sense. Because it has been proven to me that water freezes at a certain point my belief is biased. If someone were to ask me what would happen if they chilled a tray of liquid appearing to be water below 0c I would be biased toward the belief it would freeze. I could be wrong of course, could turn out to be salt water. Most of the time I would be right because my bias was based upon logic and evidence.
Argue that MS software is easy to use. Argue that it is of reasonable quality. But if you argue that MS software could not be reasonably expected to be lacking in standards compliance compared to arbitrary programs performing the same function. At least when there are reference standards to compare those programs against, it is you who is showing a bias because there is a factual history of non-compliance on the part of Microsoft in every case. Further, intentional non-compliance is a well established business practice of the company.
As long as you can reasonably expect someone to be able to accurately state "Obviously, no program exhibited compliance as poor as that of MS Program X", it is not unreasonable to head FUD implying the opposite off at the pass. That said MS supporting FUD is inevitable if not immediately discounted is rather intersting considering this is a MS Basher oriented site eh?
Or, to further mutilate an abused analogy, which of the above cars would be easier to repair?
Well, let's continue this analagy. Microsoft has a team of crack developers, and nearly unlimited resources at its disposal. Firefox and Opera have 6 guys in the back of a white van huddled around a Commodore 64.
Suppose you're one guy who knows a little about cars and you decide to fix the timing on the first car. No problem.
Now, suppose you have a team of crack mechanics with the best tools, the most experience, and unlimited resources, and they offer to fix the horribly torn apart car for you. Also, no problem.
"Are you a native English speaker? There is a big difference between "headline" and "summary"."
Yeah yeah, I said 'headline' when I should have said summary. Sorry I missed the difference and gave you shit about it.
However, you still could have used a little common sense about it. The only reason you were being that literal was to try to discredit me. To that I say, grow up. (And, yes, I should take my own advice.)
"Derp de derp."
For the fourth (?) time - they drew it using a graphics app!
When every single major organisation and company in the business of implementing a standard fails I can't help wondering if the problem lies with the standard rather than the implementors. Just how hard is this?
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
"But no, you decided to criticise people when you are utterly ignorant of the facts at hand."
That's funny considering you're ignoring the facts at hand in order to criticize me.
"EVERYTHING to do with Internet Explorer being a shitty, shitty browser."
Though I'm not denying that IE is a piece of shit (I tossed it years ago.), you're full of shit when it comes to Slashdot's reasons to publish what they did.
If this had nothing to do with MS bashing, you wouldn't have gone this far. You're far too passionate for somebody who thinks it was an innocent comment.
"Derp de derp."
Fair and balanced as always!
" As far as I know, he's got no connection to Slashdot."
So? Slashdot got to make fun of IE and praise FireFox in one blow. Gee, I wonder why they posted it?
" I'm emphatic, because I don't like to see people criticised by people who are ignorant of the issues,"
Whatever.
"Derp de derp."
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
I dont know what you do for a living, but I make web pages, and god damn if IE isn't the biggest piece of non-standards-compliant horseshit browser I've ever had the displease of dealing with. As someone else who replied to you said, you don't see too many problems when browsing the web with IE because us lowly developers have lost countless hours and hair follicles figuring why the FUCK internet exploder is rendering our beautifully coded pure-CSS site like it was a big pile of steaming crap. So yes, it is obvious. IE renders CSS like your mom gives head - HORRIBLY.
Joseph?
Firefox and Opera Fail the Acid2 Test
In a perfect world it should read "every browser fails the acid2 test". Instead somebody chooses to single out firefox and opera.
/^([Ss]ame [Bb]at (time, |channel.)){2}$/
Now if only Gmail would work properly in Konqueror, I'd be all set...
I blame it on sleep deprivation, I mixed up the test and reference browser windows. Ignore me.
I just can't help but notice how non-objective this site is.
On slashdot, the users submit (and thus, author) stories. They aren't generally schooled in the intricacies of journalism. It's not fair to expect 'professional' journalistic practices from them.
As unfair as it is to expect standards never stated nor implied, the comparison to Fox News is especially bad. Fox outright lies about their objectivity. Most people don't hate Fox News because of their conservative bias, but because they try to pass it off as fair and balanced.
This is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Nerds don't tend to suffer poor software gladly.
Last, it was obvious that IE would be the worst of the bunch. Some other article could just as easily have said, "Obviously, the Perl version was slower," or "But obviously, the RIAA continues to cripple their music with DRM." Which are roughly equivalent in their subjective way of communicating objective truth.
[I] am no way an MS advocate.
I'm not all that convinced.
You are not consistent.
Makes me wonder how these guys can possibly test the performance of the system without a full implementation.
Well, this piece of news _WAS_ primarily negative about Firefox and Opera. (Not that Opera is open source, but some people seem to think so.) Since Firefox and Opera are claiming to follow the specs, this news item is mainly bashing those two browsers for not living up to their promises. The IE devs on the other hand have never made any claims that IE follows the current W3C specs. Hence the "obviously" and "lousy".
Slashdot editors will systematically post any negative news about Microsoft (or, if they're positive, spin them negatively) and will quietly ignore many negative news about open source issues.
That's a lie. This is negative news about a high-profile open-source project, and they didn't ignore this.
See for example the recent Mozilla vulnerability discovered by Secunia. It was published by the Register, CNET and many others. The Slashdot editors didn't find it worth posting.
This is also a lie.
You trolls are really pushing the "Slashdot bias" theme today, aren't you?
Also, don't get me started on performance. 3 machines in the lab range between 300Mhz celerons with 96MB ram and an IBM Personal Computer 300 (600Mhz celeron with 96M ram). Firefox on those is a no-no. Not only b/c painfully slow startup times, but also, painfully slow rendering of pages. Opera renders pages faster while running a kernel compile in the background than Firefox does on an idle computer. What's there in gecko that makes it so much slower than Opera or khtml? (Yes, you heard it right, starting Konqi from a foreign - Blackbox - wm is actually much faster both in startup and rendering of pages than firefox).
These slow machines function as simple 'terminals' btw - they have opera, gaim, xmms, rox - that can be choosen from a simplified menu.
This must be said at the risk of loosing karma (I have plenty, so go ahead) - there is something wrong with Firefox and its rendering engine, not only in compatibility or correct rendering of pages, but in performance as well. And this is not a minor issue, the performance difference b/w say opera or khtml and gecko is significant. So I have only one demand: inform the potential users correctly, don't give them the false impression that Firefox is better in every way than IE. It is not, and such misinformation will only create a backlash. 2 of those users are now actively looking for more and more justfications to have IE back as the standard browser. They are not interested in philosophy or open source ideals. They are interested in accessing the sites they want.
To use a comparison made by someone here earlier: With the ANSI C++ standard, one can know whether code is valid even if no compilers can compile it. It is the same thing here. The CSS standard is a textual document giving very clear rules for how code should render. Even if no actual browsers can render the code, the standard tells us how it should be rendered.
There are myriad free tools to read PDF. There are myriad free tools to write to PDF (or especially "print to PDF")
There is a serious, design driven lack of any way to edit PDFs. As in, I create a PDF in an application foo, send it to my friend who also has foo, they make changes and send it back. Word has been doing this for more than a decade, and PDF, as far as I can tell, doesn't do this ever. If one of those pieces of software does this, please point it out.
If you want a more detailed text case, try editing text in a paragraph without having to manually reflow the paragraph.
The next-best option available is to use Quark or InDesign, LaTeX or some other decent page layout program, and send back and forth the original files, exporting to PDF when you need to. But you're not editing PDFs if you do that.
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
I've got some of the non-IE-supported stuff going on like PNG files with alpha-channels, etc. Right now the pages I'm developing look like crud in IE as colours are missing from transparent windows, etc...
.CSS file that loads for the IE users. They won't look as spiffy as firefox/etc but the pages will at least not be hard on the eyes in IE.
Once all the pages are together though, I'll throw in a
And that's what makes it all the more frustrating for the users - MS has all of this potential programming ability, yet one of the tools that is used the most by more people is easily matched, nay surpassed, by 6 guys in a van, while their own utility sits on blocks and rusts away (ok, last one, I swear!).
09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
Yeah, that (GP) sound like a poster who hasn't got anything left to use in his defence... ;-)
Chill and re-read. That wasn't me.
Hey, man. You're seriously confused. I only post when logged in, as naylor83. I never said anything about Hitler, and I didn't write the post you're responding to now either.
Today, the 4th user came to me demanding back their IE icon (I have disabled access in windows xp to IE, which amounts to disabling access to its icon) ...
So I have only one demand: inform the potential users correctly, don't give them the false impression that Firefox is better in every way than IE. It is not, and such misinformation will only create a backlash. 2 of those users are now actively looking for more and more justfications to have IE back as the standard browser. They are not interested in philosophy or open source ideals. They are interested in accessing the sites they want.
Which prompts the question, why don't you simply give them IE instead of (apparently) making them search for additional justification?
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
While I don't necessarily disagree, (1) Firefox isn't proving to be much better, (2) in a highly managed environment like the grandparent poster describes the IE Admin Toolkit can go a long way towards locking down IE and eliminating many common attack vectors (e.g. user stupidity), and (3) it sounds like he'll be overruled by the business types in short order anyway.
His approach is a shining example of why IT & dev types are usually viewed as "part of the problem".
Slashdot quality declines as the number of hot grits posts decreases. - Provolt's Law, Apr-09-2005
Yeah, whatever you TROLL.
Most people don't hate Fox News because of their conservative bias, but because they try to pass it off as fair and balanced.
It's not FOX News alone that's fair and balanced. It's an hour of CNN plus an hour of Fox News that's fair and balanced. Rupert Murdoch saw CNN's liberal bias as un-fair to the more conservative segments of the populace, so he founded FOX News to balance it.
What are you talking about? You obviously got it wrong somewhere way back along the line, and now you can't let go of that thought (that I post as anonymous coward).
I've posted here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here here, here, here and here to people who definately aren't you.
Just let it go willya.
Thousands of websites use JavaScript and CSS for just one silly reason: To create menubars (with submenus etc.).
So why has the standards committee in all their wisdom never added a MENU tag? It would have been so easy, just allow nested <MENU> tags and voila. On any platform, menus are so common that implementing such a tag is as easy as killing babies.
Rather than giving the website makers what they want (a MENU tag, positioning on font units instead of pixels, proper vector image support) they concentrate on standardizing things no developer ever asked for.
I know why. It would put them out of a job. Try to standardize something like JavaScript and CSS and you're ensured of employment for a lifetime.
Heck, if you want the page to look exactly as you intended, just make a bitmap image of it and send it. It'll probably use less bandwidth than the equivalent in CSS/HTML.
Musicians don't die. They just decompose.
Dave Hyatt Is making progress with Safari's handling of the test, and blogging as he goes. very cool.
That's because you are.
Heh. That's like proving God exists or that he doesn't. I'm the only one here who knows that I only post when logged in. Since neither of us can prove anything, I suggest we rest this point.
Yet, I'm the one you're still talking to.
That's because you're the only one making false statements on matters which I have enough knowledge about to comment on.
You haven't posted outside of this article.
I have. Since I am not a paying slashdotter I cannot go back and find them. (I only post on articles which interest me. That's why my posts are a little scarce.)
You submitted an article. Your professionalism was called into question.
Yes it was. But I didn't take it very hard since I don't expect of myself to write as if I were a professional journalist (since I'm not). (Not sure if writing like a journalist is something to strive for though :-) )
(My job's been a little boring.)
It must be.
I'm not sure I understand, but anyway, glad that we can end this argument ;-)
Have a good weekend, man. :)
The same to you, sir :-)
Lynx gives this:
ERROR
ERROR
*
*
*
*
Has anyone tested Links?
Organization: alphabetical, sometimes numerical or messy
I get to metamoderate somebody's rating of this article as "Flamebait". I'm going to mark it unfair, but with mixed feelings. It's a great over-the-top flame, concise and well-deserved, but it's also an attractive nuisance that *ought* to attract flaming responses (and hasn't :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
if this is the usual response by a developer at Apple...
5 _04.html
http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/200
he hasn't gotten it all fixed yet, but what an effort.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)
GIMP probably, (or whatever their preference is,) the image is a reference to what should happen, assuming the standard were fully adhered to.
Since the standard is fairly clear about what should happen when certain things are done, you can follow the declarations in the style sheet and work out the layout with a pencil if you need to.
-- it's ridiculous how many people misspell ridiculous... (damn, damn, damn...)