__/ [Nigel Feltham] on Saturday 10 September 2005 18:21 \__
> Bones wrote:
>>> Jafar As-Sadiq Calley <jafar@xxxxxxxx> said:
>>> Try this site with IE, then try it with Firefox, Opera or any other
>>> advanced browser.
>>> See the difference? It doesn't work with IE :D:D
>> I dunno if I'm as happy about it. It's rather annoying, because PNG
>> offers many useful options in a single format. IE also doesn't do CSS
>> right, and this is a source of headaches for me as well.
> Strangely last time I experimented with PNG and CSS in several browsers a
> few years ago I discovered that despite the windows version of IE being
> broken the Mac version worked fine. Maybe the developers of the Windows
> version should try talking to their Mac department one day.
> This made me wonder - was the Mac version of IE really developed from a
> hack of Netscape rather than being developed from Spyglass mosaic like
> windows IE was?
That is a very good point. I have an iMac with OS 9 at work. It uses
Netscape and IE5 for browsing. A glimmer of faint memory tells me that
richer transparencies worked inac/IE when I last did some testing.
As a matter of fact, until about a year ago I assumed that lack of support
for 32-bit transparencies was at O/S-level. Something tells me that in
Windows 95 (maybe 98 as well) icons did not blend with the background image
(AKA wallpaper) too well unless depth hacks or depletions were in place.
All are very fuzzy memories, so feel free to disagree or mock my senility.
Roy S. Schestowitz | "Computers are useless. They only solve problems"
http://Schestowitz.com | SuSE Linux | PGP-Key: 74572E8E
6:30pm up 16 days 19:01, 3 users, load average: 0.35, 0.56, 0.68