Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grimloq on January 13, 2005, 04:55:26 pm
-
ok, i am sick of getting these popups!
NO! I DO NOT WANT TO PURCHASE A BOOK CALLED '17 MIND-BLOWING SEX POSITIONS'!!! SO LEAVE ME ALONE!
*sigh* so, what kind of popups do you guys get? im really curious as to some of the worst and dumbest ones ever :)
go wild.
-
I don't get pop ups, I use Firefox. So should you.
-
Pop-ups + Firefox = no more pop-ups
-
I use firefox, ad-aware, and spybot. That'll take care of your problem right away.
-
I use IE on XP SP2 + MS antispywae beta.
The only things that still gets on my way are those flash popups...
-
Anti-Spy by MS? :wtf:
That's not just a hidden contradiction.
-
Firefox = no flash popups, either. It's superior in every way. I don't know why Zarax refuses to accept that a program not made by MS could do a better job than an MS one. :doubt:
-
Originally posted by Liquid Fire
I use firefox, ad-aware, and spybot. That'll take care of your problem right away.
-
I do not refuse anything, i just feel good with what i got.
And for those interested... www.microsoft.com/spyware
Enjoy.
-
lemme rephrase: i mean ads on various websites. sorry, my bad.
i DO use firefox!
firefox + norton + adaware + MSN firewall (meh, it works)+ win XP SP2 = home free
-
...I don't get it, if you're using firefox, how are you getting popups? It automatically blocks them, unless you specifically allow them for that site. :wtf:
-
too many firewalls/popup blockers in that case... Someone here once likened it to having too many guard dogs... They end up fighting over every peice of meat (popup), and it can damage the system...
-
http://adblock.mozdev.org = Your best friend. Blocks ANY kind of advertisement implimented, including most google ads (the ones embedded in IFrames).
Also, if you don't feel like registering to view some article on say nytimes.com, download bugmenot (http://bugmenot.mozdev.org) and never register for another news site again. :)
Now, for future reference (ie: Before someone that doesn't know any better asks):
Adaware (http://www.lavasoftusa.com/)
Spybot Search & Destroy (http://www.spybot.info/en/index.html) (Use both because one will find what the other won't, and vice versa.)
-
I use Maxthon, a shell application over IE. I am very well aware of the exploitation issues regarding IE, but I try to further protect myself by logging in as a standard user, having Sygate running 24/7, redundant gateways for IP spoofing (when going to an untrusted site), and I always keep maxthon and IE updated.
If you take out the security issues of IE, it is better than Firefox by far.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
If you take out the security issues of IE, it is better than Firefox by far.
If you consider the lack of tabbed browsing, being closed source, and proper rending of HTML being better....
-
Yeah, Scuddie, care to validate that statement with some kind of... anything? What is it that makes IE better than firefox?
-
Originally posted by Vertigo1
If you consider the lack of tabbed browsing
www.maxthon.com
being closed source
Windows 2000 and Server 2003 are closed source, and look how much better they are than most linux distros. Open source, so what?
and proper rending of HTML being better....
OK, now I have to ask you... Where did you find those shrooms? Can I have some?? So it doesnt follow the w3c's crap spec, and allows users to actually specify exactly what they want, while still following the generally accepted standard? It is Mozilla that has the crappy rendering engine, not IE.
And, I was actually referring to the browser engine itself, not the actual browser.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
www.maxthon.com
I was referring to IE by itself, not some stupid shell.
Windows 2000 and Server 2003 are closed source, and look how much better they are than most linux distros. Open source, so what?
You are aware of the massive bug list that Windows 2000 had when it was released, right? You are also aware of how long it takes Microsoft to release a patch AFTER THEY'VE FINISHED MAKING IT, right? The entire point of open source software is that the community (not just one organization, but EVERYONE) can work together to fix a problem and release it in a timely fashion. As far as Windows being better than Linux, that depends entirely what you use it for. If you're running a server, Linux is so far ahead of Windows its not even funny.
OK, now I have to ask you... Where did you find those shrooms? Can I have some?? So it doesnt follow the w3c's crap spec, and allows users to actually specify exactly what they want, while still following the generally accepted standard? It is Mozilla that has the crappy rendering engine, not IE.
And, I was actually referring to the browser engine itself, not the actual browser. [/B]
Psst...you do realize what standards are meant for, right? :rolleyes: Thats the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread so far. The entire point of the W3C spec is for conformity. If someone follows W3C specifications, then the site they design and maintain will look and function exactly the same regardless of what browser is used. Thats the reason why IE, and MS's FrontPage gets so much flak. They prefer to use MS' proprietary code, which most browsers will not recognize and ignore. Quite frankly, if you said that to any real web designer, he/she would laugh at you right to your face and tell you what a rediculous notion that is.
-
Whoa, calm down there sparky. Firstly, Firefox actually follows conventions, so yes, their rendering is better, period. Arguing for IE's bizzare and ridiculous propeitary workarounds automatically disqualifies you from any kind of rational commentary there.
Seriously, did you like using tables to place your animated gifs and blinking text? Does proper CSS scare you? Are you afraid your webpage with the centred comic sans text and the marquee images may not display correctly when used outside of IEs broken world?
Gad, it's people like you that are making strict so difficult to implement, who continue to stick with IE6 even though you now have to move to 3rd-party vendors to keep up with innovations from the 90s. Longhorn ain't coming till late 2006, so are you really going to stick to your wacky outdated practises? Keep sticking your head in the sand?
Heh, nice comment on Linux distros - however, I've got a bunch of IT friends on /. who would really disagree with you. I personally don't use either, being a gamer, but there's enough people using, advocating and coding for linux for me to take any statements you make with more than a few grains of salt.
-
Originally posted by Vertigo1
I was referring to IE by itself, not some stupid shell.
Can you guess what Firefox is? Hmmm? It's a "stupid shell" over the Mozilla browser. I acknowedge vanilla IE is crap, just as vanilla Mozilla is crap.
You are aware of the massive bug list that Windows 2000 had when it was released, right? You are also aware of how long it takes Microsoft to release a patch AFTER THEY'VE FINISHED MAKING IT, right? The entire point of open source software is that the community (not just one organization, but EVERYONE) can work together to fix a problem and release it in a timely fashion. As far as Windows being better than Linux, that depends entirely what you use it for. If you're running a server, Linux is so far ahead of Windows its not even funny.
You are aware of the fact that UNIX has been around for decades, and Windows 2000 was MS's first venture into a true 32 bit OS, as well as the purposes it was used for? Come on, you dont think the first versions of linux were perfect, do you? Also, if something were open source, and commercially available, it would kind of have conflicting interests. Plus, with open source comes the further possibility of knowing which loopholes you can get past, and if it wasnt updated daily, it'd be a security nightmare. Also, name ONE linux distro (SuSe doesnt count :p) that can do as much as Server 2003 can without serious complications and configuration nightmares.
Psst...you do realize what standards are meant for, right? :rolleyes: Thats the stupidest thing I've seen in this thread so far. The entire point of the W3C spec is for conformity. If someone follows W3C specifications, then the site they design and maintain will look and function exactly the same regardless of what browser is used. Thats the reason why IE, and MS's FrontPage gets so much flak. They prefer to use MS' proprietary code, which most browsers will not recognize and ignore. Quite frankly, if you said that to any real web designer, he/she would laugh at you right to your face and tell you what a rediculous notion that is.
Oh brother... So if I made a standard that said everyone who makes tea should only make it hot, would you follow it? It's this kind of thinking that limits what we are allowed to do, and without IE, we'd still be using HTML version 3 (which only a public service website would use now), along with jpeg compression only. And furthermore, what is your idea of a "real" web designer? I consider myself a real web designer, and I am smart enough to stay away from JavaScript, DHTML, and CSS. Browser dependancies are a bad idea.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
Can you guess what Firefox is? Hmmm? It's a "stupid shell" over the Mozilla browser. I acknowedge vanilla IE is crap, just as vanilla Mozilla is crap.
LMFAO! What planet are you from dude? If Firefox is a "shell" over Mozilla, then why doesn't it require that Mozilla be installed? Futhermore, why is it moving to a seperate codebase than Mozilla Suite if it was a "stupid shell"? :rolleyes: Where is your proof that FireFox is just a shell over Mozilla?
You are aware of the fact that UNIX has been around for decades, and Windows 2000 was MS's first venture into a true 32 bit OS, as well as the purposes it was used for?
Erm, last I checked NT was the first true 32-bit operating system from MS, not 2000. Furthermore, NT was MS's first server oriented platform as well.
Come on, you dont think the first versions of linux were perfect, do you?
Of course not. :rolleyes: Nowhere did I ever say Linux is perfect. Superior to windows in many ways, yes. Perfect, no.
Also, if something were open source, and commercially available, it would kind of have conflicting interests. Plus, with open source comes the further possibility of knowing which loopholes you can get past, and if it wasnt updated daily, it'd be a security nightmare.
Erm...isn't that the entire POINT of open source software? :rolleyes: When someone notices a loophole, it gets fixed ASAP instead of waiting weeks on end for companies like MS to take their sweet time releasing a patch and hope to hell it even works properly.
Also, name ONE linux distro (SuSe doesnt count :p) that can do as much as Server 2003 can without serious complications and configuration nightmares.
Erm...WHAT "serious complications"? If you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be ****ing with it in the first place. What, just because linux doesn't have a nice pretty fisher price GUI like XP's default theme, it isn't as robust? Thats a laugh.
Oh brother... So if I made a standard that said everyone who makes tea should only make it hot, would you follow it?
Drinks and software standards are two complete different beasts bub.
It's this kind of thinking that limits what we are allowed to do, and without IE, we'd still be using HTML version 3 (which only a public service website would use now), along with jpeg compression only.
Limits? What limits? Oh, you mean so it will actually work properly for everyone instead of for just one browser? Furthermore, I challenge you to prove that we'd still be using HTML 3.0 even if IE didn't come around and dethrone Netscape 3. You are aware that software is constantly evolving, right? :rolleyes:
And furthermore, what is your idea of a "real" web designer?
Someone that designs websites professionally, not some dinky mom & pop site on geocities.
I consider myself a real web designer, and I am smart enough to stay away from JavaScript, DHTML, and CSS. Browser dependancies are a bad idea.
You are aware that proper DHTML and CSS coding will render exactly the same on every browser, right? :rolleyes: (Well, except for IE since MS seems to ignore the "px" and wants "pt" instead.)
-
Well, apart from all IE's problems with pop ups, no tabbed browsing, among many other things which people have already pointed out, my main problem with it is it doesn't properly support PNGs. PNGs are awesome. But also the tabbed browsing thing.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
I consider myself a real web designer, and I am smart enough to stay away from JavaScript, DHTML, and CSS. Browser dependancies are a bad idea.
If you're anything near a "real" web designer how can you possibly not have encountered one of the numerous IE specific bugs with styling? (padding errors with floated boxes, box model errors, etc.) For that matter, how do you make any "real" websites without CSS? Separating styling and structure is a good thing.
-
Originally posted by Vertigo1
LMFAO! What planet are you from dude? If Firefox is a "shell" over Mozilla, then why doesn't it require that Mozilla be installed? Futhermore, why is it moving to a seperate codebase than Mozilla Suite if it was a "stupid shell"? :rolleyes: Where is your proof that FireFox is just a shell over Mozilla?
"Moving from" is alot different than "Done from scratch". All that really means is that Mozilla Suite and Firefox are beginning to go different directions. A fork in the road, so to speak. What you dont seem to know is that Mozilla was infact around a helluva lot longer than you might think. Back in the days, the browser based off of the Mozilla engine was called "Netscape". Perhaps you've heard of it? :rolleyes: Irrelevant, yes, but it still doesnt change anything... I suppose... Or something.
Erm, last I checked NT was the first true 32-bit operating system from MS, not 2000. Furthermore, NT was MS's first server oriented platform as well.
Not entirely true. NT 3.5 was their first NTOS, ofcourse and it was, in all of it's glory, 16 bit. When NT4 came out, it saw the ability to use some 32 bit optimizations, but it was still only 16 bit. Enhanced 16 bit, but 16 bit nonetheless. It wasnt until Windows 2000 came along when they had a REAL 32 bit OS. Furthermore, it wasnt WHAT it did, but HOW it did it. The way NT4 worked was very different from 2000, and they re-invented the spokes, so to speak.
Of course not. :rolleyes: Nowhere did I ever say Linux is perfect. Superior to windows in many ways, yes. Perfect, no.
Perfection is a paradox. I wont go into Newtonian physics or Murphy's law (I owe all my failures to Murphy ;)), but true, it's not perfect. Neither is Server 2003. Superior to Linux in many ways, yes. Perfect, no. What the differences of what many superior ways one OS has against the other are, is purely speculation aside from application. I think you failed to mention that part.
Erm...isn't that the entire POINT of open source software? :rolleyes: When someone notices a loophole, it gets fixed ASAP instead of waiting weeks on end for companies like MS to take their sweet time releasing a patch and hope to hell it even works properly.
I agree, MSs practices are less than perfect. Hell, I even would say they downright suck sometimes. However, to blindly say that open source is better is just plain stupid. There is something called context, learn to understand it.
Erm...WHAT "serious complications"? If you don't know what you're doing, you shouldn't be ****ing with it in the first place. What, just because linux doesn't have a nice pretty fisher price GUI like XP's default theme, it isn't as robust? Thats a laugh.
Oh, grow up. Do you honestly think every XP user is some old lady who uses the internet to check e-mail from her grandchildren? As my grandfather used to say, "Step aside, kids. The adults are busy".
Drinks and software standards are two complete different beasts bub.
Hear here! *raises a shotglass*
Limits? What limits? Oh, you mean so it will actually work properly for everyone instead of for just one browser? Furthermore, I challenge you to prove that we'd still be using HTML 3.0 even if IE didn't come around and dethrone Netscape 3. You are aware that software is constantly evolving, right? :rolleyes:
...
I can tell by that response that you are extremely ignorant about this type of thing... or much more likely, you're an anti-ms fanboy in denial. HTML 3 was a rock solid standard, except it was just that. A standard that was like a giant rock (dont ask me, I dont know what that means either). Apparently, table sizes were proportional to the browser window, even if the table was written in pixels. MS saw that it was flawed logic, and made it so pixels meant pixels in the early MSIE 4 era. This was one of many things that MS decided to superseed (sp?) on the spec. This was ofcourse a wakeup call, and it was no surprise that many people started to question the ideas of the W3C. This was about the time where browsers started coming up with their own things. MS with iFrames, Netscape with extended DIV tags, etc. As of now, the W3C is unofficially considered just what the standard SHOULD be in their own eyes. MS has abandoned them, as has Opera and Mozilla in some cases. The standards are gone after HTML4 CSS (which was never really official to begin with). XML ofcourse is a touchy subject, so I wont go there.
Someone that designs websites professionally, not some dinky mom & pop site on geocities.
See above and note the "not everybody" line. No cookie for you.
You are aware that proper DHTML and CSS coding will render exactly the same on every browser, right? :rolleyes: (Well, except for IE since MS seems to ignore the "px" and wants "pt" instead.)
Again, see above. "Proper" DHTML never existed. And as for the px vs. pt, it was a MacOS and Windows thing, not Mozilla and MS. But as far as "common" goes, they are very similar. As a web designer, it is in the primary interest of my customers to fall under that common umbrella. Think about it for a second. Not everyone has Mozilla Suite, not everyone has MSIE6, not everyone has Opera, not everyfrikkinone has Netscape 4.78, Not everybody and his god damn bastard of a brother (I HATE that guy) has Lynx, etc. Therefore, I leave DHTML and JavaScript completely out of the picture. My target audience may be using MSIE, but I will not make it so that Firefox cant read the page correctly, nor likewise. I make clean sites, and I leave layers, floats, iFrames, and stupid needlessly flashing text at the door.
But oh well, if you decide to continue backing up your arguments with personal insults, I suppose it's not worth my time. If you use personal insults, back them up with arguments, not the other way around. Regardless, it looks like the discussion is getting off topic, and I'll finish the argument with four simple words:
For each, their own.
EDIT:
Originally posted by Kamikaze
If you're anything near a "real" web designer how can you possibly not have encountered one of the numerous IE specific bugs with styling? (padding errors with floated boxes, box model errors, etc.) For that matter, how do you make any "real" websites without CSS? Separating styling and structure is a good thing.
You can make a "real" website without CSS... It's called HTML 4, and it's a very useful markup language. Otherwise, use minimal CSS and make it supplementary, instead of primary coding. I dont know why everyone seems to think to make a good website, you need every stinkin feature there is under the sun.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
You can make a "real" website without CSS... It's called HTML 4, and it's a very useful markup language. Otherwise, use minimal CSS and make it supplementary, instead of primary coding. I dont know why everyone seems to think to make a good website, you need every stinkin feature there is under the sun.
Why HTML 4.0? It's an old language that's been replaced by XHTML, which is tighter and cleaner than HTML 4.0. It's also good practice to separate styling and content. While content is very variable (especially on a dynamic site) styling doesn't change as much. It's useful to use a stylesheet so the user can save a bit of downloading by caching. It's not really a matter of "primary" or "supplementary" coding. It's just separation of content and presentation.
Stylesheets also are useful because you spend less time making small specific changes (like changing those stupid, deprecated font tag attributes) that make for useless added effort. You can also design for multiple media (screen, print, pda, projection, etc.) and allows for more graceful degradation in less capable browsers.
It sound like you're making it harder and less practical for yourself for no reason. There's nothing wrong with CSS and it doesn't make websites bloated or whatever. In fact it actually does reduce bandwidth usage on sites.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
Also, name ONE linux distro (SuSe doesnt count :p) that can do as much as Server 2003 can without serious complications and configuration nightmares.
Eh? Server 2003 really isn't competition for Linux in that kind of market. Linux is the kind of OS that scales from PCs to mainframes to clusters. Name me one version of Windows that runs on mainframes like IBM S/390s or z-series mainframes. Do people use Windows for large clustering projects?
The competition for Linux is in operating systems like Solaris and FreeBSD.
-
Woah, another MS supporter!
About Windows Server 2003 it's initial target is small and medium businesses, but you can scale it quite much.
Microsoft is also extending scalability so that large clustering is getting doable without having to hack the source because your network card manifacturer did not write a proper driver for your distro :)
Windows Server 2003 is not my specialty, but if you visit the Microsoft newsgroups you will find real, certified and awarded professionals who will show you a few things and maybe a lot more.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
"Moving from" is alot different than "Done from scratch". All that really means is that Mozilla Suite and Firefox are beginning to go different directions. A fork in the road, so to speak. What you dont seem to know is that Mozilla was infact around a helluva lot longer than you might think. Back in the days, the browser based off of the Mozilla engine was called "Netscape". Perhaps you've heard of it? :rolleyes: Irrelevant, yes, but it still doesnt change anything... I suppose... Or something.
From what I understand its not "Done from scratch" because it is open sorce and is always being updated.
Kinda like SCP....
-
Yeah? But does Firefox use HTL and shinemapping? NO!!
No cookie for you :p.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
Yeah? But does Firefox use HTL and shinemapping? NO!!
No cookie for you :p.
[color=66ff00]You're not even arguing sensibly, many of your arguments are frankly downright nonsense and you zealously stick to your guns whilst talking down to people who have a different view than you.
If you can't make a valid, objective point then I'd advise you to quit this line of discussion now.
[/color]
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]You're not even arguing sensibly, many of your arguments are frankly downright nonsense and you zealously stick to your guns whilst talking down to people who have a different view than you.
If you can't make a valid, objective point then I'd advise you to quit this line of discussion now.
[/color]
Uhmmm... Due to the :p at the end of the post, as well as the amount of ridicule, irrelevance, and absolutely out of place statements in the post you quoted, I would imagine I was being sarcastic. But then again, since you're probably right, I am obviously wrong.
And as far as "downright nonsense" goes, please, tell me one incorrect thing I may have posted, and I will check into it, and one of us will be proved wrong. If that someone was me, I will admit to it.
zealously stick to your guns whilst talking down to people who have a different view than you
Are you sure you arent reading Vertigo1's posts and not mine? Others challenged my initial statement, and I backed it up with legit arguments, while Vertigo1 just used one rolleyes smiley after another. Also, I was the only one who ever said "for each their own" in this thread.
And since it seems I come off as an MS fanboy, let it be said that I am definately not an MS fanboy. Bill Gates is an evil corporate bastard who will burn in hell, then buy himself a ticket to Heaven... but that does not mean his company doesnt make some damn fine products. He's rich for a reason.
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
You are aware of the fact that UNIX has been around for decades, and Windows 2000 was MS's first venture into a true 32 bit OS, as well as the purposes it was used for? Come on, you dont think the first versions of linux were perfect, do you? Also, if something were open source, and commercially available, it would kind of have conflicting interests. Plus, with open source comes the further possibility of knowing which loopholes you can get past, and if it wasnt updated daily, it'd be a security nightmare. Also, name ONE linux distro (SuSe doesnt count :p) that can do as much as Server 2003 can without serious complications and configuration nightmares.
1. you are aware that linux was intended to be UNIX like not to be unix
2. yes linux can be downloaded and can be bought, the reason the GNU GPL (General Public Licence) you can read it here http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html)
3. as someone else already pointed out one of the benifits of open source is that security holes can be found and promptly delt with, also 95% of "hackers" don't have a clue what there doing these people are more commonly knowen as "script kiddys", they are people who download programs and use them to cause harm to systems, but i'm not saying that there arn't people who don't know what there doing but these people are a rare breed
4. Slackware, Red Hat Enterperise, Gentoo and god knows how many more all of wich can be configured and left in a corner and they'll just work, oh wait that'll require using your brain wich seems to be something your not good at
i realise that you posted this awhile ago but stuff like this annoys me greatly
-
Originally posted by Scuddie
"Moving from" is alot different than "Done from scratch". All that really means is that Mozilla Suite and Firefox are beginning to go different directions. A fork in the road, so to speak. What you dont seem to know is that Mozilla was infact around a helluva lot longer than you might think. Back in the days, the browser based off of the Mozilla engine was called "Netscape". Perhaps you've heard of it? :rolleyes: Irrelevant, yes, but it still doesnt change anything... I suppose... Or something.
You are realized that the entire Mozilla project is based off of the Netscape 6.0 source code, right? Mozilla (the browser) is quite different than Mozilla (the browser engine that Netscape 4.x and previous used.). Its easy to get the two confused, but they are radically different. That being said, I suggest you actually research why FireFox and Thunderbird are splitting off from Mozilla Suite. See, the Mozilla Suite (as in the build with everything built into one program) is being discontinued and everything else is going into FireFox and Thunderbird. (A decision I disagree with since I find Mozilla Suite infinitely more usable than FireFox since I don't have to hunt down half a dozen damn plugins to do what I can do with three mouse clicks in Mozilla Suite.)
You still haven't supported your claim that FireFox is a "shell". Wheres your quotes from the source code backing your claim?
Perfection is a paradox. I wont go into Newtonian physics or Murphy's law (I owe all my failures to Murphy ;)), but true, it's not perfect. Neither is Server 2003. Superior to Linux in many ways, yes. Perfect, no.
I'm glad we can agree on something.
What the differences of what many superior ways one OS has against the other are, is purely speculation aside from application. I think you failed to mention that part.
Thats where you're wrong. The differences in which is superior is shown in the actual application, not speculation. How many servers out there run Linux/Unix by comparison to Windows NT/2000/2003? I rest my case.
I agree, MSs practices are less than perfect. Hell, I even would say they downright suck sometimes. However, to blindly say that open source is better is just plain stupid. There is something called context, learn to understand it.
And theres this thing called patch releases coming out promptly instead of making users wait weeks on end so you can just lump them out all at once. :rolleyes:
Oh, grow up. Do you honestly think every XP user is some old lady who uses the internet to check e-mail from her grandchildren? As my grandfather used to say, "Step aside, kids. The adults are busy".
Actually, a large ammount of users ARE that ignorant. Maybe if you've done as much work as I have in the field repairing computers, you'd realize that. I've only been doing it ever since the 486 days....
I can tell by that response that you are extremely ignorant about this type of thing...
Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. :rolleyes: I suggest you look up the definition for standards and the reason they exist, and then come back sonny jim.
or much more likely, you're an anti-ms fanboy in denial. HTML 3 was a rock solid standard, except it was just that. A standard that was like a giant rock (dont ask me, I dont know what that means either). Apparently, table sizes were proportional to the browser window, even if the table was written in pixels.
Funny, I had no trouble defining fixed table sizes back in those days. As long as you didn't use percentages, it would stay fixed.
MS saw that it was flawed logic, and made it so pixels meant pixels in the early MSIE 4 era. This was one of many things that MS decided to superseed (sp?) on the spec.
No, they decided it was time to dethrone Netscape (Which needed to be done, I agree. No-one should stay on top indefinitely.) and introduce proprietary code that at the time would only be recognized properly by their browser. They also made it extremely forgiving and CORRECT flaws on the fly. (A good idea in implimentation, but unfortunately it has the side effect of allowing people to run poorly coded websites. Thus, having the effect of broken table cells, incorrect font sizes, etc.) This is where CSS comes in, but I'll elaborate on that later in this post.
This was ofcourse a wakeup call, and it was no surprise that many people started to question the ideas of the W3C. This was about the time where browsers started coming up with their own things. MS with iFrames, Netscape with extended DIV tags, etc.
Actually, when MS implimented their own proprietary code "standard" (Which is still in use today if you use Frontpage....which is the laughing stock of the developer community.) Netscape decided to play their game with the extended DIV tags, like you mentioned. Unfortunately that backfired on them, which helped to their "fall from grace" so-to-speak.
As of now, the W3C is unofficially considered just what the standard SHOULD be in their own eyes. MS has abandoned them, as has Opera and Mozilla in some cases. The standards are gone after HTML4 CSS (which was never really official to begin with).
Funny, I see alot of sites around that advertise that they follow W3C, CSS, and HTML4 spec. I guess not too many people abandoned them after all. :rolleyes:
XML ofcourse is a touchy subject, so I wont go there.
Well, you better get used to it since Explorer (not talking about IE here, just explorer the shell itself...which is redundant since IE is part of explorer, but you get the idea.) is going the way of the do-do pretty soon. (Longhorn)
Again, see above. "Proper" DHTML never existed. And as for the px vs. pt, it was a MacOS and Windows thing, not Mozilla and MS.
Then why does IE fail to render it correctly? IE is cross-platform just like Mozilla. :rolleyes: (Not AS cross-platgorm since IE, to my knowlege, only works on MacOS, Linux, and Windows.)
But as far as "common" goes, they are very similar. As a web designer, it is in the primary interest of my customers to fall under that common umbrella. Think about it for a second. Not everyone has Mozilla Suite, not everyone has MSIE6, not everyone has Opera, not everyfrikkinone has Netscape 4.78, Not everybody and his god damn bastard of a brother (I HATE that guy) has Lynx, etc.
Thats why you don't design for IE, for the reasons I stated earlier. You code for it to work in Mozilla. If it works in Mozilla, it for damn sure will work in everything (re: modern browser) else.
Therefore, I leave DHTML and JavaScript completely out of the picture. My target audience may be using MSIE, but I will not make it so that Firefox cant read the page correctly, nor likewise. I make clean sites, and I leave layers, floats, iFrames, and stupid needlessly flashing text at the door.
IFrames have their uses, but I agree with you on the floats and the lame ass flashing text.
But oh well, if you decide to continue backing up your arguments with personal insults, I suppose it's not worth my time. If you use personal insults, back them up with arguments, not the other way around. Regardless, it looks like the discussion is getting off topic, and I'll finish the argument with four simple words:
For each, their own.
Well if you act like a moron, expect to get called on it. Why should I play nice to a moron spouting off on something and getting it all wrong?
EDIT:
You can make a "real" website without CSS... It's called HTML 4, and it's a very useful markup language. Otherwise, use minimal CSS and make it supplementary, instead of primary coding. I dont know why everyone seems to think to make a good website, you need every stinkin feature there is under the sun.
You are aware why CSS is around, right? Take it from someone thats had experience with scripting. Its alot easier to call a function defined in a seperate file, than to totally write another subroutine. Its also alot cleaner to read when you're trying to see what someone else has done, or you're trying to repair a mistake. Ask Kazan or any of the other SCP coders if you don't believe me.