Well, if javascript can be coerced to do such things then this is just one more vindication of my personal decision to disable javascript in my browser.
Well, if computers can be coerced to do such things then this is just one more vindication of my personal decision to disable...
Well, what do you suggest I do when I want to access my bank account (www.netbank.com) and cannot because they have problems with Mozilla not always working right so just decided to disable it entirely?
Tell them to ask Wells-Fargo why their site works fine with Moz (never had a problem with it since I started using Moz full-time around 0.8 or so) and if NetBank can't get a clue, you'll move your account there. A banking site that works in one browser but not another -- in other words, that depends on clientside quirks -- just demonstrates extreme incompetence. A banking site should perform the required functions (which all are serverside) and not be concerned with fancy-schmancies. Anyone who can't write something that outputs valid HTML should not be permitted to call himself a Web Application Developer.
Another thing, I don't appreciate a piece of software that, after taking as long as it did to be released, makes my PC respond like a PII 400Mhz with PC66 RAM. God help you if you minimize Moz for awhile and do other things, you'd think it died when you restored the window! No other browser acts like that.
That's interesting. I'm using Mozilla 1.2.1 on a Windows 2000 P-II 400 with 128 MB RAM and it doesn't do that.
My point is, lets come up with solutions to this problem that are a bit more practical than "only use these browsers to view only these sites". Because that is NO solution.
Absolutely. Which means the only practical solution is to adhere to standards and dump browsers and/or sites that don't. Otherwise you're just helping to perpetuate non-compliant crap.
Back on topic: This would not only be extremely annoying, it would go against any sane usability guidelines, and anyone pulling this sort of "wh333 im 4 l33t 5kr1pt k1dd13" BS ought to be drawn and quartered. There's no reasonable use for loading a new page on a mouseover. Shouldn't be that hard to circumvent, tho. I'd even be in favour of denying such functionality as a standard practice in all browsers. In any case, this is nothing new. We're only talking about a
Or you could do what we do here in Australia, and lock them up in concentration camps in the middle of the desert.
Hmmm, nobody's locked me up just yet. OTOH, I'm white, am a native English-speaker, am married to an Aussie gal, and generate income from outside the country. Go figure.
(WTF kinda tag is "<ECODE>"? I don't see that anywhere in the HTML spec...)
yey I am a pimple faced 13 year old I know how to make the screen realy wide I am cool!
Fortunately, since I use Mozilla, the text wraps very nicely, thank you, and Moz seems to be quite immune to all page-widening techniques I've seen employed at/.
Brain-dead moderator alert. Hopefully, I'll get the chance to do something about this in meta-moderation, but just in case, let me state why this is a horrid, knee-jerk moderation.
This post should NOT have been modded "Off-Topic", as the two functions the AC refers to are in fact features of Mozilla, and this discussion is also about Mozilla. (Duh.)
These aren't the only cool things about Moz, BTW -- tabbed browsing also is quite nice. Not mention support for HTML, CSS, and DOM standards that no other browser can touch. Not to mention MathML and optional SVG. I'm using Moz 0.9.9 for all my browsing, email, and IRC now, and it works pretty damn well.
And it's nice to see some positive mainstream attention, too.:-)
Back when you and I used to hang out on the M$ forums at SJMercury.com, I used to really admire you and think you were really cool. Good job of undoing that with this post.
When I do a CTRL-N, it means I want a new, blank window so I can open a different page in it. It does not mean that I want to wait around on a new copy of a page I've already got loaded. Window cloning is a pain in the ass.
I agree with the poster who speaks of the ability to "use the W3C specs as a manual" -- I've been enjoying that experience myself -- tremendously, in fact. It's such a breath of fresh air, it truly is. It's a hell of a lot quicker and easier to use the W3C spec for, say, CSS, than it is to spend 3 hours rooting through that marketspeak-muddled morass masquerading as a "developer resource" known as MSDN. Not to mention trying to figure out why something that IE allegedly supports, isn't -- only to discover (once again) that somebody at Microsoft decided, "Well, okay, we'll support this much of the standard, but we'll ignore this part." At least IE 5.5+ is actually supporting something resembling W3C-DOM now, something that Moz has done (barring a bug or two, which can be and has been reported and fixed) since its inception.
So you really want to hand over the ability to dictate Web standards to Redmond carte blanche? (Admittedly innerHTML wasn't such a bad idea, but enough's enough!) You really want to enshrine "That's not a bug, it's a feature" for all time? What a truly horrid idea. Blarg.
When I moved from Qwest-only territory to a part of the city where Cox service was available, I cursed because I wasn't going to be able to get Qwest DSL and would have to "settle" for Cox@Home. When I made the call to have it connected, I was flabbergasted to learn that I could have cable Internet, phone, and cable TV from Cox for less than phone plus DSL from Qwest. I felt pretty sure that I was there had to be a catch, but there hasn't been any so far. The phone service is cheaper and the quality's better than Qwest's, and the cable Internet service is very good. More important, while Cox has made a few bloopers with my account (e.g. misspelling my username with an "m" instead of an "n" so I couldn't access my email), its customer service and tech support people have always owned up to any mistakes moved quickly to correct them. After putting up with Qwest's "Well, we're the phone company, so we're always right, Bubba" routine -- not to mention its exhorbitant installation fees -- I have found the attitude demonstrated by Cox' reps to be singularly refreshing. Imagine that -- a communications provider that acts as though it's actually glad to have me as a customer. And did I mention that the Cox tech people actually seem to know what they're talking about?
Just so I don't wind up sounding like a commercial, I should point out that Cox *did* apparently give or sell my info to a couple of local companies. I can tell this by the fact that my surname was misspelled with -- you guessed it -- an "m" instead of an "n". Nonetheless, I remain very pleased with with its service and not too displeased with their behaviour towards me as a customer, and in general much happier with Cox than I was with Qwest.
My sympathies, Bowie. Sounds like you've had it pretty rough.
But as for mine, I really can't complain: I started out the year homeless, jobless, car-less, broke, and sick at heart. After a spell of doing temp work, I actually found a Webdev job where I made a decent salary and got to improve my skills as well. Got laid off from said job 6 months later, but that's proved to be a blessing in disguise, as I'd managed to get myself published twice during the interim and now I'm actually in demand as a freelance developer, consultant, reviewer, and writer. My former employer even continues to provide me with free office space -- complete with a decent workstation, high bandwidth, and even a few referrals to potential clients -- because he feels it's to his advantage to have me associated with his business, so even though he can't actually pay me anything, it's a pretty good deal. I have a decent apartment now. I have a used car that's still quite serviceable and is 2/3 paid off. I've gone through a divorce and emerged as something resembling a halfway-balanced individual again (my ex was and remains a certifiable nutjob). I've met a gal IRL from halfway round the planet with whom I'd been corresponding for about a year, and not only is she not a psycho, she's actually saner and more stable than I am, the meeting's gone well, and she's even agreed to stay with me here in the States for the next couple months -- and she's turning out to be a valuable asset in my consulting business as well.
All-in-all, '01 has been a pretty damned good year for me and I have a lot to be grateful for. And I am.
Hrm, I still have my orginal FP97 CD -- it makes a nice coaster and serves as a reminder of what was a fairly costly mistake ($US169.95) for me at the time. It's festively adorned with the words:
Okay, and I won't tell you that IIS is the same as Apache, either.
BTW, the "s" in Photoshop is lower case. And GoLive sucks almost as bad as FrontPage. And since when is MS Office highly productive?
Typical of someone who apparently thinks that web design consists of clicking widgets and drawing pretty pictures. Check this -- Linux is quite often the preferred OS of people who write those nice little pointy-clicky apps you enjoy so much.
[Sorry -- I know I oughtn't be feeding the trolls, I'm just in a pissy mood tonight. Note, however, that I'm not abusing my +1 for this.]
The document.form object (introduced with Netscape 3 and emulated in virtually every other browser) is a "vendor extention" that was never W3C ratified.
It is part of the W3C standard. Take a look in the DOM-1 and DOM-2 specs where "DOM-0" and backwards compatibility are discussed.
(To some extent, mozilla.org brought this on themselves by holding the pretention that the Mozilla browser is something entirely disconnected from their employers over at AOL/Netscape. If Moz sent a Netscape 6-like user-agent string, they wouldn't have had this problem.)
Don't blame the baby for getting thrown out with the bathwater. If MSN's developers tested for object and functional compatibility rather than taking the lazy route and testing UA strings, Moz wouldn't have been blocked.
Slashdot Mirror
Um, nevermind.
Well, okay it's PC100 RAM... Guess I'm busted, then. <G>
Absolutely. Which means the only practical solution is to adhere to standards and dump browsers and/or sites that don't. Otherwise you're just helping to perpetuate non-compliant crap.Back on topic: This would not only be extremely annoying, it would go against any sane usability guidelines, and anyone pulling this sort of "wh333 im 4 l33t 5kr1pt k1dd13" BS ought to be drawn and quartered. There's no reasonable use for loading a new page on a mouseover. Shouldn't be that hard to circumvent, tho. I'd even be in favour of denying such functionality as a standard practice in all browsers. In any case, this is nothing new. We're only talking about a
here. Fortunately, I have yet to see a site where this is actually being done. Does that mean I'm not getting my RDA of pr0n and warez?> If I can't afford it, I give 'em a 25% off coupon. Same thing. What does that "say"?
Hmmm... that you're selling porn to Namibian schoolkids at 75% of list?
WRONG.
> Some fucking W3C solution Mozilla is.
Indeed it is.
(WTF kinda tag is "<ECODE>"? I don't see that anywhere in the HTML spec...)
> But there should be a standard on what to do with badly formed HTML too.
I could not agree less. This would simply reinforce, encourage, and -- even institutionalise -- bad markup.
:)
[SLIGHTLY OFFTOPIC -- POSTING SANS +1 RATHER THAN APPLYING "-1, DOGMATIC" TO PARENT]
Using the empty phrase "moral law" undermines the credibility of this poster's argument.
Furthermore, positions espoused by anyone who spouts Ayn Rand at me are immediately suspect.
Set them up with the MSIE skin for Mozilla. :)
4) Use separate Moz profiles.
Nothing odd on your end, AC -- it's not even a very good Photoshop job. I could do better than that, and I suck at graphics pretty much. <G>
Brain-dead moderator alert. Hopefully, I'll get the chance to do something about this in meta-moderation, but just in case, let me state why this is a horrid, knee-jerk moderation.
:-)
This post should NOT have been modded "Off-Topic", as the two functions the AC refers to are in fact features of Mozilla, and this discussion is also about Mozilla. (Duh.)
These aren't the only cool things about Moz, BTW -- tabbed browsing also is quite nice. Not mention support for HTML, CSS, and DOM standards that no other browser can touch. Not to mention MathML and optional SVG. I'm using Moz 0.9.9 for all my browsing, email, and IRC now, and it works pretty damn well.
And it's nice to see some positive mainstream attention, too.
Brett,
Back when you and I used to hang out on the M$ forums at SJMercury.com, I used to really admire you and think you were really cool. Good job of undoing that with this post.
When I do a CTRL-N, it means I want a new, blank window so I can open a different page in it. It does not mean that I want to wait around on a new copy of a page I've already got loaded. Window cloning is a pain in the ass.
I agree with the poster who speaks of the ability to "use the W3C specs as a manual" -- I've been enjoying that experience myself -- tremendously, in fact. It's such a breath of fresh air, it truly is. It's a hell of a lot quicker and easier to use the W3C spec for, say, CSS, than it is to spend 3 hours rooting through that marketspeak-muddled morass masquerading as a "developer resource" known as MSDN. Not to mention trying to figure out why something that IE allegedly supports, isn't -- only to discover (once again) that somebody at Microsoft decided, "Well, okay, we'll support this much of the standard, but we'll ignore this part." At least IE 5.5+ is actually supporting something resembling W3C-DOM now, something that Moz has done (barring a bug or two, which can be and has been reported and fixed) since its inception.
So you really want to hand over the ability to dictate Web standards to Redmond carte blanche? (Admittedly innerHTML wasn't such a bad idea, but enough's enough!) You really want to enshrine "That's not a bug, it's a feature" for all time? What a truly horrid idea. Blarg.
When I moved from Qwest-only territory to a part of the city where Cox service was available, I cursed because I wasn't going to be able to get Qwest DSL and would have to "settle" for Cox@Home. When I made the call to have it connected, I was flabbergasted to learn that I could have cable Internet, phone, and cable TV from Cox for less than phone plus DSL from Qwest. I felt pretty sure that I was there had to be a catch, but there hasn't been any so far. The phone service is cheaper and the quality's better than Qwest's, and the cable Internet service is very good. More important, while Cox has made a few bloopers with my account (e.g. misspelling my username with an "m" instead of an "n" so I couldn't access my email), its customer service and tech support people have always owned up to any mistakes moved quickly to correct them. After putting up with Qwest's "Well, we're the phone company, so we're always right, Bubba" routine -- not to mention its exhorbitant installation fees -- I have found the attitude demonstrated by Cox' reps to be singularly refreshing. Imagine that -- a communications provider that acts as though it's actually glad to have me as a customer. And did I mention that the Cox tech people actually seem to know what they're talking about?
Just so I don't wind up sounding like a commercial, I should point out that Cox *did* apparently give or sell my info to a couple of local companies. I can tell this by the fact that my surname was misspelled with -- you guessed it -- an "m" instead of an "n". Nonetheless, I remain very pleased with with its service and not too displeased with their behaviour towards me as a customer, and in general much happier with Cox than I was with Qwest.
My sympathies, Bowie. Sounds like you've had it pretty rough.
But as for mine, I really can't complain: I started out the year homeless, jobless, car-less, broke, and sick at heart. After a spell of doing temp work, I actually found a Webdev job where I made a decent salary and got to improve my skills as well. Got laid off from said job 6 months later, but that's proved to be a blessing in disguise, as I'd managed to get myself published twice during the interim and now I'm actually in demand as a freelance developer, consultant, reviewer, and writer. My former employer even continues to provide me with free office space -- complete with a decent workstation, high bandwidth, and even a few referrals to potential clients -- because he feels it's to his advantage to have me associated with his business, so even though he can't actually pay me anything, it's a pretty good deal. I have a decent apartment now. I have a used car that's still quite serviceable and is 2/3 paid off. I've gone through a divorce and emerged as something resembling a halfway-balanced individual again (my ex was and remains a certifiable nutjob). I've met a gal IRL from halfway round the planet with whom I'd been corresponding for about a year, and not only is she not a psycho, she's actually saner and more stable than I am, the meeting's gone well, and she's even agreed to stay with me here in the States for the next couple months -- and she's turning out to be a valuable asset in my consulting business as well.
All-in-all, '01 has been a pretty damned good year for me and I have a lot to be grateful for. And I am.
Hrm, I still have my orginal FP97 CD -- it makes a nice coaster and serves as a reminder of what was a fairly costly mistake ($US169.95) for me at the time. It's festively adorned with the words:
:-P~~~~~~~~
FrontPage 97
Exactly like that.
So there.
Oh, you're soooo brave and clever, Ms. A/C Who Won't Even Post An Obfuscated Version Of Her Email.
BTW, not that it matters, but for the record I'm a "he."
BTW, the "s" in Photoshop is lower case. And GoLive sucks almost as bad as FrontPage. And since when is MS Office highly productive?
Typical of someone who apparently thinks that web design consists of clicking widgets and drawing pretty pictures. Check this -- Linux is quite often the preferred OS of people who write those nice little pointy-clicky apps you enjoy so much.
[Sorry -- I know I oughtn't be feeding the trolls, I'm just in a pissy mood tonight. Note, however, that I'm not abusing my +1 for this.]
Hey, AT's a Yes fan, therefore opinionated but not trollish. :)
This law is sooooo screwed up, it's amazing that it hasn't throttled itself already. Wish it would hurry up and do so.