Is IE7 so much better than Firefox?

[Telstar]

I think not.

And as for FF being OK here... the post I replied to did NOT say to
view the URL in less than full screen.

Yes, in reduced screen, it's messed up.

There. You happy?

Buh-bye, bozo. I've got better ways to spend my time.

Richie Hardwick

You guys are all idiots wasting time and bandwidth.

 

[C A Upsdell]

Hint - How many html errors can you count /per page/ at this web site?

Try to keep it under 100...

100 binary.

 

[~BD~]

Hint - How many html errors can you count /per page/ at this web site?

Try to keep it under 100...

Hello Pete

112 Errors, 59 warning(s) were found when I submitted the link (shown in
my first post in this thread) into this facility
http://validator.w3.org/

There are 99 Errors, 39 warning(s) when I paste in the second URL I
mentioned.

I do not intend to test every page!

There are clever folk here who will know whether or not this is as it
should be. I simply notice things!

I have no idea of the competence of the site owner, but I personally
find it difficult to understand why errors are ignored or not noticed. I
have read somewhere on the Microsoft web sites that a 'spoof' web page
often has errors such as those I have noticed here and also at IdentIT
Inc.

Dave

 

[C A Upsdell]

Hello Pete

112 Errors, 59 warning(s) were found when I submitted the link (shown in
my first post in this thread) into this facility
http://validator.w3.org/

There are 99 Errors, 39 warning(s) when I paste in the second URL I
mentioned.

I do not intend to test every page!

There are clever folk here who will know whether or not this is as it
should be. I simply notice things!

I have no idea of the competence of the site owner, but I personally
find it difficult to understand why errors are ignored or not noticed.

Errors tend to be ignored because (a) many tools to create web pages
create broken code, (b) many designers don't care, (c) many designers
test with IE, and stop testing if it works with IE, and (d) IE tries to
recover gracefully from coding errors by guessing what the designer wanted.

Errors tend to be fixed because designers test their wonderful IE-tested
sites with Firefox, Opera, and/or Safari, and scream WHY DON'T THESE
BROWSERS DISPLAY THE PAGE PROPERLY!!! (Of course, these browsers likely
do.)

This may change with IE8, which is supposed to adhere strongly to the
standards. Those who create broken code are in for a shock.

 

[~BD~]

Errors tend to be ignored because (a) many tools to create web pages
create broken code, (b) many designers don't care, (c) many designers
test with IE, and stop testing if it works with IE, and (d) IE tries
to recover gracefully from coding errors by guessing what the designer
wanted.

Errors tend to be fixed because designers test their wonderful
IE-tested sites with Firefox, Opera, and/or Safari, and scream WHY
DON'T THESE BROWSERS DISPLAY THE PAGE PROPERLY!!! (Of course, these
browsers likely do.)

This may change with IE8, which is supposed to adhere strongly to the
standards. Those who create broken code are in for a shock.

Thank you for taking the time and trouble to post again 'C A Upsdell'
(that sounds very formal, doesn't it?) I appreciate your comments.

If the web sites in question had been constructed by 'ordinary folk'
such errors would, perhaps, be understandable. In the cases I mention,
'professionals' are (supposedly) involved and thus, in my view, should
be subjected to closer scruitiny (but by whom I don't know!).

Dave

 

[~BD~]

Would you expect that from a site designed to bring someones computer
back to a pristine state, Rob?

Just another of my hinky feelings!

Dave

 

[FromTheRafters]

[...]

You guys are all idiots wasting time and bandwidth.

[...]

Fullquoted and crossposted 'that' to *complain* about wasted
bandwidth?

Thousands of comedians out of work and this guy just gives it
away for free. )

 

[rob^_^]

Chuck Upsdell

WHERE?

Ain't no "Chucks" post in this thread in Google Groups, and I'm not
about to collect a bazillion past posts and wade through them with my
news reader.

Richie Hardwick

 

[~BD~]

Thanks, Sammy!

Dave

I do not see anything wrong with IE6 looks good.

Sammy

 

[Richie Hardwick]

Chuck Upsdell

You're smoking some really bad stuff.

Richie Hardwick

 

[rob^_^]

Acid test 3. Don't smoke!

You're smoking some really bad stuff.

Richie Hardwick

 

[~BD~]

Maybe not, in the browser groups. Borderline interesting in any MSFT
group,
but really only appropriate in a browser group in the
'microsoft.public.*'
hierarchy.

--

Perhaps I'm not properly awake yet, but I don't understand your
response, Norman. Please would you rephrase for me.

You appear to imply that I'm posting to somewhere other than a
'microsoft.public.*' newsgroup but, on reflection, I'm sure you don't
mean that.

As you changed the groups too, I guess you don't feel that there could
possibly be an issue of security involved. I hope you are correct.

Dave

 

[~BD~]

MS Internet Explorer 7, Firefox 3.0.5, Opera 9.62; they all appear the
same
to me.

It's strange how things look differently to all of us. On closer
inspection of the page using Internet Explorer 7, I can now spot errors
*there* which I didn't notice before!!

I've changed my screen resolution, but I still see those same errors.
Maybe if you look really carefully, especially on the right hand side of
the page, you may start to notice too, Norman. Others reading here seem
to pick up what I do.

Perhaps you'll let us know if you can see anything amiss after a second
inspection. Thanks.

Dave

 

[Neil Rieck]

Errors tend to be ignored because (a) many tools to create web pages
create broken code, (b) many designers don't care, (c) many designers
test with IE, and stop testing if it works with IE, and (d) IE tries to
recover gracefully from coding errors by guessing what the designer wanted.

Errors tend to be fixed because designers test their wonderful IE-tested
sites with Firefox, Opera, and/or Safari, and scream WHY DON'T THESE
BROWSERS DISPLAY THE PAGE PROPERLY!!!  (Of course, these browsers likely
do.)

This may change with IE8, which is supposed to adhere strongly to the
standards.  Those who create broken code are in for a shock.

After Microsoft won the browsers war with Netscape, they did very
little development on IE. In what has to be a classic case of the
"Tortoise and the Hare", Microsoft was caught sleeping as open source
developers (like Google) reinvented the web into "web 2.0". The main
"selling feature" of IE was that it could render any page no matter
how badly formatted (in fact you do not even need main tags like
<HTML>, <HEAD> and <BODY>). But it turns out that search engine
spiders (which are effectively "blind people") can extract much more
useful information from a standards-compliant document. The same is
true for companies using document management systems from companies
like OpenText.

You are correct about crappy publishing tools and this is one reason
why many professional web-developers use plain-text based editors like
Aptana Studio (http://www.aptana.com). In fact, I think it is safe to
say that 80% of non developers use IE for everything while 80% of
developers first use Firefox to test their initial pages then attempt
to shoe-horn-in tweaks for IE. I can only imagine what the developers
at eBay and Amazon need to do in order to satisfy every customer's
demand to use their favorite browser. At the very minimum they need to
test with 6 different browsers as well as all versions of IE.

One final point, there seems to be a new trend taking place where some
employees will have their PCs replaced with (rather than supplemented
with) mobile devices like the BlackBerry. This means that all dual-use
web pages need to be first developed for hand-held devices, then CSS
is applied to mark up the page for use by full-blown PCs. When a page
is rendered on a mobile device the styles are simply discarded. To
test this with Firefox, make sure you have installed the "Web
Developer" plug-in then type CTRL-SHIFT-S to toggle off the styles.
Repeat the same key sequence to toggle them back on. Use FF to try
this at your favorite corporate web site.

Neil Rieck
Kitchener/Waterloo/Cambridge,
Ontario, Canada.
http://www3.sympatico.ca/n.rieck/

 

[Rabbit]

JERK!

Would you expect that from a site designed to bring someones computer back
to a pristine state, Rob?

Just another of my hinky feelings!

Dave

 

[Rabbit]

JERK!

Hello Pete

112 Errors, 59 warning(s) were found when I submitted the link (shown in
my first post in this thread) into this facility http://validator.w3.org/

There are 99 Errors, 39 warning(s) when I paste in the second URL I
mentioned.

I do not intend to test every page!

There are clever folk here who will know whether or not this is as it
should be. I simply notice things!

I have no idea of the competence of the site owner, but I personally find
it difficult to understand why errors are ignored or not noticed. I have
read somewhere on the Microsoft web sites that a 'spoof' web page often
has errors such as those I have noticed here and also at IdentIT Inc.

Dave

 

[Rabbit]

Does this website serve up any malware to you, or does it just not look
pretty? JERK!

 

[~BD~]

Ah! Thank you for that. I'll make a mental note!

Thanks for replying to me. I appreciate it!

Dave

 

[Rabbit]

***JERK***