In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Jim
<james@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote
on Thu, 10 Aug 2006 13:47:56 GMT
<gOGCg.8349$f31.5222@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
> Aunty Diluvian wrote:
>
> <snip>
>> MS makes their web sites to render well in a decent browser with
>> alternate code for the less fortunate users that insist on using
>> "FREE" crap that may or may not work. They can't be bothered
>> by those that won't play by THEIR rules on THEIR web site.
>> This begs the question, why are you, or any other open source
>> thief, visiting an MS site anyway? Are you trying to get something
>> for free or trying to steal something. MS has nothing for you guys.
>> Go visit the open source web sites for your alternate software.
>>
> <snip>
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Mozilla/Firefox derived from *commercial*
> Netscape code?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong again, but didn't Microsoft *give* *away* Internet
> Explorer in a successful bid to kill Netscape, which was payware?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong yet again, but do Microsoft not now "bundle"
> Internet Explorer in with its Windows platform?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong *yet* *again*, but aren't Frontpage extensions
> compatible with, and *only* with, Internet Explorer? This is standards
> compliance? Every other browser on the planet is at least halfway compliant
> with w3c html standards. Why isn't Microsoft Internet Explorer?
Probably because Microsoft has yet to get the language IE
actually *parses* standardized. :-) (That's assuming they
can work out what language IE *does* parse.)
>
> As an example, check out the link below. It looks the same in Firefox as it
> does in Mozilla, the same as it does in Opera, the same as it does in
> OffByOne, the same as it does in Safari, the same as it does in Konqueror.
> The formatting is BROKEN in IE. Does that make *every* *other* *browser*
> wrong?
>
Erm, either the link got buried in your signature (and
thus autosnipped by SLRN), or you missed it entirely.
Not that it matters; I was doing some styling work on
my own and came up with an interesting difference while
fiddling with JBoss portals/portlets. The style I created
looks rather nice, if a bit skinny, on Firefox (I probably
need to move to 12x12 icons), but the title bars bloat up
on IE because of positioning issues. There's also a gap
between nav buttons and the portlets.
IE's non-compliance with fixed backgrounds is also well
known; there's also PNG's transparency, which IE7 --
*finally* -- might process correctly. (I hope they process
a non-zero, non-full alpha channel properly as well.
Mozzie already does. :-) )
But never mind that, IE is *standard* by virtue of
de facto. Mostly because it's moronically stupid and
accepted by over 80% of computer users, who either don't
know any better or who haven't bothered. :-/
My brain hurts.
So...what web pages did IE want to mangle today? :-)
--
#191, ewill3@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Windows Vista. Because it's time to refresh your hardware. Trust us.
|
|
