RE: [MLUG] Netscrape and Internet Exploder (was a long title about Ev il MS)

["Ross, Matt" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

Define "everywhere"

The current standards involve CSS replacing Font tags. (turn page)
The current standards involve Font tags, as CSS is not fully supported yet.
(turn page)
The current standards involve CSS as Font tags are being depreciated.

In summary: Font tags are a pain, but if you use an older version of
Netscrape, or a really old version of IE (not sure how it shapes up in the
less famous browsers) - CSS doesn't work... However, if you use Font tags to
correct this, you've totally lost the benefit of the CSS, which is supposed
to be part of the current standard, depending on which of W3C's pages you
look at.

Right now, I'm using CSS and letting the page degrade for people who can't
be bothered to use Opera, or some other modern browser that their system can
handle.  Personally, at home I'm on a POS with a 166 mhz, 32 mb ram, and a
33.6.  This means I use Opera, or watch my computer do the one thing it does
fast...crash.  Opera supports ECMAscript, the standardized code that used to
be javascript before Netscape submitted it to ECMA.  This means it won't do
all the fancy stuff other browsers do, but it does the basic javascript
package.  What puzzles me is that it offers to identify as if it were IE.  I
would think such a great browser would have more self respect than that. ;-)

One neat thing about CSS is the level of control it gives.  The pages I'm
doing now use only one graphic per page and no javascript, yet still have
button links and mouseover effects, thanks to the CSS.

As for Amaya, it is for development, yes, but in development you still need
to use your page.  In the time it takes me to test a site on Amaya, I have
been able to test the same site in IE 4.0 and 5.5, NS 3.0, 4.04, 4.5, and
6.01, Opera, Lynx and WebTV viewer.  This comes from the difficulty of
navingating with Amaya.  It requires a double click, which doesn't always
catch the click area.  Frankly, I'm of the opinion that Amaya is the
Mother-in-law of all browsers.

-----Original Message-----
From: Ian Monroe [mailto:EMAIL:PROTECTED]
Sent: Saturday, August 04, 2001 1:09 PM
To: EMAIL:PROTECTED
Subject: Re: [MLUG] Netscrape and Internet Exploder (was a long title
about Ev il MS)


I've been getting my pages verfied, so I've been looking at some of the
standards papers. Many of the people writing them are from Netscape and
Microsoft. This just makes it more odd that they don't follow the rules
they write themselves. But I guess it does kind of make sense. Why would
you want to have a product that didn't stand out? Then again the products
that do stand out (Konqueror, Opera) are more standard compliant.

I find that if you write a standards compliant web page that doesn't have
JavaScript or DHTML then it will look good everywhere. It is a shame that
JavaScript isn't more standard, as it would be very useful and allow a lot
of things to go off of the server and unto the browsers.

Ian


On Fri, 3 Aug 2001, S.J.A. wrote:

> I disagree.  International standards are good.  Standards 
> should be set by such unbiased parties as the W3C.
> Commercial interests will always try to control these
> standards by diviating from them in products that they know
> will have a wide distrobution even if they are broken.  
> 
> Amaya is for testing purposes.  It is not really designed
> with the end user in mind.
> 
> Simply put, we need a new browser.  One that is standards
> compliant, but designed for the end user.  One that is
> free, modular, scalable, portable, and stable.  
> 
> steve
> 


--
To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/
--
To manage your subscription, go to http://mlug.missouri.edu/members/edit.php

Archives are available at http://mlug.missouri.edu/list-archives/