Supporting open standards is putting the user first, they just may not understand it right away:).
What I was kinda getting at was, if you detect what browser the user has, and give them standards-compliant code most of the time, but different code if you recognize their browser to be broken, then you're supporting the user AND supporting open standards. Unrecognized browsers should be given standards-compliant code.
P.S.: Don't look for good examples of this on my home page. I'm too lazy to practice what I preach. I bet it renders correctly though.
Is Alt-Shift-Tab actually less documented than Alt-Tab? I don't believe I've seen official documentation for either, although I do notice that Mac OS X Help does mention Command-Tab and Command-Shift-Tab (under "Shortcuts for the Dock").
I guess... personally I prefer having all mine lined up and using alt+up and down arrows to scroll through them, so if I wan to go back I don't have to hit alt+tab 7 more times if I got 8 windows open... I can just hit alt+up arrow.
Alt-Shift-Tab can be pressed with the left hand without taking the right hand off the mouse.
Because then it only renders correctly in browsers that correctly support the standards. If your attitude is "screw you, users should switch to a standards-compliant browser," from a user's perspective that's no different from the developers who say "screw you, users should switch to the latest version of Internet Explorer on Windows." You're not putting the user first, and they won't be happy.
Websites like the forthcoming Windows equivalent of iTunes will REQUIRE IE in order to use their service.
iTunes is made by Apple, who has no love of Microsoft or IE. It's not a web page. They'll use their own rendering engine within iTunes, and their own DRM.
In the future server-side browser detection may be more about detecting whether the browser supports the DRM your "web service" uses than what version of Javascript or CSS the browser supports.
Browser detection has always been about identifying what capabilities the browser supports, or what bugs need to be worked around. Otherwise you wind up with sites that don't work in some browsers, and everybody bitches at you for not supporting them. The key is to not redirect to a page recommending that the user download IE or Netscape, since that really pisses people off.
I don't plan on producing DRM-protected content, so I don't plan on detecting browser support for it.
I think the reason CG Yoda was more believeable over Jabba or Jar Jar, etc... was the fact that they tried to make him look and act like the Puppet Yoda and not a real live creature/character.
Apparently a lot of effort went into this; early designs were too expressive and too life-like, so they had to back off and tone things down so he's look more like the puppet. When they were studying the way Yoda's mouth moves in Episodes I and V, they could tell the way Frank Oz's hand was moving, and they tried to make CG Yoda's mouth move as if Frank Oz's hand were inside.
Ah! You're correct, they have released MSN for Mac OS X.
My understanding is that MSN includes its own IE-based browser thingie, similar to the way AOL works. So, MSN for Mac includes a hacked-up version of IE, but the question is, will they also be releasing a new stand-alone version of IE? Unconfirmed rumors suggest maybe.;-)
Ah! Thanks for the correction - I knew Spyglass no longer existed as a company (and spyglass.com no longer works), but I didn't realize they'd been acquired by another company.
A musical that the creators can make even more money on! That's the way I see it, and that's sad, they're just out to get every last pence out of the LOTR concept, and they didn't even write the books themselves!
Um, Peter Jackson didn't write the books either, and he's making a hell of a lot of money on the movies. The creators of the musical will be making money (assuming it does well) on the musical, not the books.
Oh good - I thought I'd heard this, but I wasn't sure. They also use Gecko in AOL for Mac OS X.
I think (hope) the AOL chiefs are smart enough no to give give all control to MSIE since it often links back to MSN, like it or not.
I hope so too.
It's important to note that MS is not longer providing an IE port for the Mac, and as such AOL cannot commit solely to IE since they'd face a real risk of alienating their paying Mac customers.
I believe I heard a rumor that Microsoft does plan to release another version of IE for Mac OS X, but it won't be for a long time (a year or so?) and will be after they release a Mac version of MSN. I don't know how they could hope to compete with Safari though.
I doubt Mozilla/Netscape is going anywhere and I wouldn't be overly surprised to see Gecko in AOL 9.0
I would, but I'm hoping to at least see Gecko in AOL 9.0b! That will mean AOL doesn't actually WANT Microsoft to walk all over them.
Whoops, my bad - Yellow Box is indeed what I was thinking of, not Red Box. Thanks for the reminder about WebObjects for Windows! Looks like it's also available for Solaris, which I hadn't been aware of.
Man, if they'd just package up Cocoa for Windows and start licensing it to developers for a fee - along with ProjectBuilder - mmmmmm. Maybe they could use it to port iTunes (yes, iTunes is Carbon, but porting from Carbon to Cocoa ought to be easier than from Carbon to Win32's APIs, and then they could migrate to a single code base for iTunes 5).
The commercial Netscape browser (Seamonkey) will almost certainly stop being pushed real soon now (which in a way is convenient because Moz fans should switch to Firebird anyway)
Almost certainly? Haven't been paying attention I see. Mozilla the all-in-one app is going away, and being replaced by Firebird (browser), Thunderbird (mail/news), and other apps, all of which will require the Gecko Engine to also be installed. I expect Netscape-branded versions to be released as well. Officially, Mozilla is for developers, not for end users.
What does a media company need with an ISP anyway?
Remember when @Home bought Excite, so they'd have both content and distribution? That failed miserably, but the idea will never die, and TW has content people actually want.
Once their content is on MS technologies, they can arrange to distribute it over MSN. No need for AOL any more.
AOL has around 30 million customers, many of whom don't know what the Internet is, but like movies and will happily click buttons.
Hmm, it seems to me that Firebird on Linux looks like it uses native widgets, even if it doesn't.
I'm not positive about Firebird, but in Mozilla some widgets in the Classic theme are native, such as scroll bars, while others, such as web forms (including drop-down menus, submit buttons, etc.) are not. Some Mozilla derivatives such as Camino and Galeon use native widgets, I believe.
show me an equivalent to the XP list view control, with all its features, that operates at the same speed when it has 10,000 items, then maybe I'll believe you.
*shudder* spinning pizza of death for half an hour? Let's hope Panther is significantly faster.
Also intersting to note that they use a Netscape bar at the top (I have no idea why they still brand it as such, as most people associate Netscape with a browser--not the "Netscape Network," although I guess it sounds more professional than "AOL Network").
charging that the NCSA team used Unix source code in their browser code in Mosaic, and all subsequent versions of all browsers violate SCO's intellectual property.
Internet Explorer is also based on Mosaic, licensed from Spyglass. As I recall the license stated that Spyglass would be entitled to a percentage of all sales of Internet Explorer, which Microsoft then began giving away for free. By the time they announced Internet Explorer and Windows were one and the same, Spyglass was already out of business.
Safari is one of the few browsers that uses native OS widgets for rendering pages.
Few? I thought Mozilla (and derivatives) were relatively unusual in not doing so?
So safari is based around the Aqua interface and rendered in OpenGL.
The OpenGL rendering is done by Quartz Extreme and has nothing to do with Safari. Applications running on Longhorn will also be rendered in OpenGL.
In essense it is 100% glued to OS X.
The front-end is written in Cocoa, which is indeed tied to OSX at the moment. Apple had looked at releasing a win32 port of Cocoa (code-named RedBox I think) but it never saw the light of day, which I think is unfortunate. I'd still like to see it.
iTunes is written in Carbon, which is even more tied to OSX (and classic Mac OS). They've promised to release a Windows version by the end of the year. Anything is possible.
Even if they did port it to windows, you wouldn't see the same type of speed or beauty in the browser simply because Windows widgets are clunky, ugly and slow.
Windows widgets are slow? Compared to Mac OS X widgets? Have you used Win2k recently, or WinXP with the Fisher-Price theme turned off? Absolutely no argument to clunky and ugly, but I wouldn't call Mac OS X's UI fast.
Slashdot Mirror
Supporting open standards is putting the user first, they just may not understand it right away :).
What I was kinda getting at was, if you detect what browser the user has, and give them standards-compliant code most of the time, but different code if you recognize their browser to be broken, then you're supporting the user AND supporting open standards. Unrecognized browsers should be given standards-compliant code.
P.S.: Don't look for good examples of this on my home page. I'm too lazy to practice what I preach. I bet it renders correctly though.
It's undocumented, but entirely logical.
Is Alt-Shift-Tab actually less documented than Alt-Tab? I don't believe I've seen official documentation for either, although I do notice that Mac OS X Help does mention Command-Tab and Command-Shift-Tab (under "Shortcuts for the Dock").
I guess... personally I prefer having all mine lined up and using alt+up and down arrows to scroll through them, so if I wan to go back I don't have to hit alt+tab 7 more times if I got 8 windows open... I can just hit alt+up arrow.
Alt-Shift-Tab can be pressed with the left hand without taking the right hand off the mouse.
Why not just code one page to the standards?
Because then it only renders correctly in browsers that correctly support the standards. If your attitude is "screw you, users should switch to a standards-compliant browser," from a user's perspective that's no different from the developers who say "screw you, users should switch to the latest version of Internet Explorer on Windows." You're not putting the user first, and they won't be happy.
Think about sitesyouwont be able to print.. or copy text out of or look at the source for.
Oh hell. I'd forgotten about that threat, and you had to go and remind me. And because they control the OS too, they can also disable screen shots.
Websites like the forthcoming Windows equivalent of iTunes will REQUIRE IE in order to use their service.
iTunes is made by Apple, who has no love of Microsoft or IE. It's not a web page. They'll use their own rendering engine within iTunes, and their own DRM.
In the future server-side browser detection may be more about detecting whether the browser supports the DRM your "web service" uses than what version of Javascript or CSS the browser supports.
Browser detection has always been about identifying what capabilities the browser supports, or what bugs need to be worked around. Otherwise you wind up with sites that don't work in some browsers, and everybody bitches at you for not supporting them. The key is to not redirect to a page recommending that the user download IE or Netscape, since that really pisses people off.
I don't plan on producing DRM-protected content, so I don't plan on detecting browser support for it.
I think the reason CG Yoda was more believeable over Jabba or Jar Jar, etc... was the fact that they tried to make him look and act like the Puppet Yoda and not a real live creature/character.
;-)
Apparently a lot of effort went into this; early designs were too expressive and too life-like, so they had to back off and tone things down so he's look more like the puppet. When they were studying the way Yoda's mouth moves in Episodes I and V, they could tell the way Frank Oz's hand was moving, and they tried to make CG Yoda's mouth move as if Frank Oz's hand were inside.
The spinning pinball scene ruined it.
All I want to know is:
Is it true that Steve Jobs has a Dell PC on his desk?
Ah! You're correct, they have released MSN for Mac OS X.
;-)
My understanding is that MSN includes its own IE-based browser thingie, similar to the way AOL works. So, MSN for Mac includes a hacked-up version of IE, but the question is, will they also be releasing a new stand-alone version of IE? Unconfirmed rumors suggest maybe.
Ah! Thanks for the correction - I knew Spyglass no longer existed as a company (and spyglass.com no longer works), but I didn't realize they'd been acquired by another company.
Wow. And I switched all my friends over to a developer-only browser.
Don't feel bad about this; thousands of people have done the same. Notice I said "officially". It works quite well.
Do you have a reference to back this statement up?
How's this?
We make binary versions of Mozilla available for testing purposes only! We provide no end user support.
(emphasis theirs)
btw: who is Peter Jackson?
The director of the Lord of the Rings films.
When Firebird v1.0 ships, with AOL support or without, it will be extremely unlikely that AOL will release a Netscape-branded version of Firebird.
At this point I disagree. Time will tell, I suppose.
A musical that the creators can make even more money on! That's the way I see it, and that's sad, they're just out to get every last pence out of the LOTR concept, and they didn't even write the books themselves!
Um, Peter Jackson didn't write the books either, and he's making a hell of a lot of money on the movies. The creators of the musical will be making money (assuming it does well) on the musical, not the books.
They do use Gecko for their Compuserve service.
Oh good - I thought I'd heard this, but I wasn't sure. They also use Gecko in AOL for Mac OS X.
I think (hope) the AOL chiefs are smart enough no to give give all control to MSIE since it often links back to MSN, like it or not.
I hope so too.
It's important to note that MS is not longer providing an IE port for the Mac, and as such AOL cannot commit solely to IE since they'd face a real risk of alienating their paying Mac customers.
I believe I heard a rumor that Microsoft does plan to release another version of IE for Mac OS X, but it won't be for a long time (a year or so?) and will be after they release a Mac version of MSN. I don't know how they could hope to compete with Safari though.
I doubt Mozilla/Netscape is going anywhere and I wouldn't be overly surprised to see Gecko in AOL 9.0
I would, but I'm hoping to at least see Gecko in AOL 9.0b! That will mean AOL doesn't actually WANT Microsoft to walk all over them.
Whoops, my bad - Yellow Box is indeed what I was thinking of, not Red Box. Thanks for the reminder about WebObjects for Windows! Looks like it's also available for Solaris, which I hadn't been aware of.
;-)
Man, if they'd just package up Cocoa for Windows and start licensing it to developers for a fee - along with ProjectBuilder - mmmmmm. Maybe they could use it to port iTunes (yes, iTunes is Carbon, but porting from Carbon to Cocoa ought to be easier than from Carbon to Win32's APIs, and then they could migrate to a single code base for iTunes 5).
Just dreaming, I know.
The commercial Netscape browser (Seamonkey) will almost certainly stop being pushed real soon now (which in a way is convenient because Moz fans should switch to Firebird anyway)
Almost certainly? Haven't been paying attention I see. Mozilla the all-in-one app is going away, and being replaced by Firebird (browser), Thunderbird (mail/news), and other apps, all of which will require the Gecko Engine to also be installed. I expect Netscape-branded versions to be released as well. Officially, Mozilla is for developers, not for end users.
What does a media company need with an ISP anyway?
Remember when @Home bought Excite, so they'd have both content and distribution? That failed miserably, but the idea will never die, and TW has content people actually want.
Once their content is on MS technologies, they can arrange to distribute it over MSN. No need for AOL any more.
AOL has around 30 million customers, many of whom don't know what the Internet is, but like movies and will happily click buttons.
AOL's version of IE has little or nothing to do with the regular MS offering. Most AOLers do not know or care what code base delivers their webpages.
I'm mostly referring to the rendering engine, not the front end. Users don't care, content producers do.
Hmm, it seems to me that Firebird on Linux looks like it uses native widgets, even if it doesn't.
I'm not positive about Firebird, but in Mozilla some widgets in the Classic theme are native, such as scroll bars, while others, such as web forms (including drop-down menus, submit buttons, etc.) are not. Some Mozilla derivatives such as Camino and Galeon use native widgets, I believe.
show me an equivalent to the XP list view control, with all its features, that operates at the same speed when it has 10,000 items, then maybe I'll believe you.
*shudder* spinning pizza of death for half an hour? Let's hope Panther is significantly faster.
I may be being extremely stupid here, but why would they use IE over Gecko.
The topic in #mozilla right now says "...He was later seen walking out of Bill Gates' office pulling up his pants."
Also intersting to note that they use a Netscape bar at the top (I have no idea why they still brand it as such, as most people associate Netscape with a browser--not the "Netscape Network," although I guess it sounds more professional than "AOL Network").
They could always rename it the Winamp Network...
charging that the NCSA team used Unix source code in their browser code in Mosaic, and all subsequent versions of all browsers violate SCO's intellectual property.
Internet Explorer is also based on Mosaic, licensed from Spyglass. As I recall the license stated that Spyglass would be entitled to a percentage of all sales of Internet Explorer, which Microsoft then began giving away for free. By the time they announced Internet Explorer and Windows were one and the same, Spyglass was already out of business.
Safari is one of the few browsers that uses native OS widgets for rendering pages.
Few? I thought Mozilla (and derivatives) were relatively unusual in not doing so?
So safari is based around the Aqua interface and rendered in OpenGL.
The OpenGL rendering is done by Quartz Extreme and has nothing to do with Safari. Applications running on Longhorn will also be rendered in OpenGL.
In essense it is 100% glued to OS X.
The front-end is written in Cocoa, which is indeed tied to OSX at the moment. Apple had looked at releasing a win32 port of Cocoa (code-named RedBox I think) but it never saw the light of day, which I think is unfortunate. I'd still like to see it.
iTunes is written in Carbon, which is even more tied to OSX (and classic Mac OS). They've promised to release a Windows version by the end of the year. Anything is possible.
Even if they did port it to windows, you wouldn't see the same type of speed or beauty in the browser simply because Windows widgets are clunky, ugly and slow.
Windows widgets are slow? Compared to Mac OS X widgets? Have you used Win2k recently, or WinXP with the Fisher-Price theme turned off? Absolutely no argument to clunky and ugly, but I wouldn't call Mac OS X's UI fast.