Mozilla Vs Internet Explorer!!

[gonaads]

Try here:

http://www.w3.org/

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[gonaads]

Originally posted by Kevin Ar18
The issue with the NTFS.org menu in Mozilla has to do with how the <p></p> tags are rendered. I narrowed down the problem to the the way Mozilla and IE render a certain aspect of the paragraph <p> tag differently.

As an example of the W3 specs:
According to the W3C if the <p></p> are empty the browser should ignore them. Thus, the following code would not show anything in both IE and Mozilla:
<p></p>

The specific issue that SPeedY_B referred to occurs when the <p> tags contain some contents.

The problem area in the ntfs.org page is as follows (modified):

<td>
<p><img></p>
</td>

Notice that the paragraph tags contain something - an image. Added to that the paragraph tags are inside a table.

Now to understand this, you need to see what the two look like in the different browsers, so I've attached a screenshot for easy reference.

In internet Explorer you will notice that the menus are all aligned correctly. The table cell that the image is in, is just the right size.


However in Phoenix/Mozilla, the menus do not line up. What actually happens in Phoenix is that it is making the table cells higher than the image.
The reason for all of this is because of the <p></p> tags surrounding the image. They are causing space to be rendered above and below the image.
My question is where in the W3 specs is this issue referred to? Where does W3C defind that the <p> tags should add space before and after the contents? -- Anyways, that's what I'm looking for (or something to do with that ).

Actually, no...

The section with the problem is in this:

<table border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" bordercolor="#111111" width="90%" bgcolor="#2D3138">
<tr>
<td width="100%">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="283">
<a href="http://www.ntfs.org/"><img alt="NTFS" border="0" src="ekkoimages/logo.gif" width="283" height="69"></a>
</td>
<td width="100%" valign="top">

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="100%" background="ekkoimages/topbg.gif"> <-- This is the same background image that is used in that section that does not line up.
<p align="right">
<img alt="NTFS" border="0" src="ekkoimages/slogan.gif" width="226" height="47"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" background="ekkoimages/navbg.gif">
<a href="usercp.php?s=">

The above source code is from this page.


The below source code is from the main page.

<!-- Logo/Tab/Buttons -->
<table align="center" border="1" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="border-collapse: collapse" bordercolor="#111111" width="90%" bgcolor="#2D3138">
<tr>
<td width="100%">


<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="283">
<a href="index.php"><img alt="NTFS.org" border="0" src="ekkoimages/logo.gif" width="283" height="69"></a>
</td>
<td width="100%" valign="top">
<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%">
<tr>
<td width="100%" background="ekkoimages/topbg.gif"> <-- This is the background image that does not line up.
<p align="right">
<img alt="NTFS.org" border="0" src="ekkoimages/slogan.gif" width="226" height="47"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td width="100%" align="right" background="ekkoimages/navbg.gif">
<a href="forum/usercp.php">




The only differences are at the begining of the *Table* layout and other Code that is before this example that is different from *Main* page to *Forum* pages. But where the image is placed, is the same.

Sooo it could be in the way the *Table* is layed out.

Just my rant...

 

[gonaads]

But then, that's why in IE it's fine and in Mozilla and Phoenix it's not. IE is not aW3 compliant browser. Since there is probably something wrong in the way the page has been coded, a W3 compliant browser will show the page incorrectly due to the error and IE... being a piece of Crap browser ignores it. Or does not recognize the *Tag* that is causing the problem.

It's great for all the screwed up Web Pages out there on some sites. But in the end when all Web Content is W3 compliant it will be a big problem for MicroSquish's IE.

 

[Perris Calderon]

pretty harsh gonaads

the utility that has tolerance is the better concieved

it's the utility that cannot tolerate that's the piece of crap

 

[djwhite]

the quicksearch function (eg. I can type "goo XP" into the address bar to launch a google search for XP

Oh, yeah?
Well, I can type "g XP" to launch a google search for XP in Opera
That's efficiency.

/me hides from the flames that are sure to follow

 

[gonaads]

Originally posted by dealer
pretty harsh gonaads

the utility that has tolerance is the better concieved

it's the utility that cannot tolerate that's the piece of crap

Perfection never tolerates non-compliance

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by gonaads
Perfection never tolerates non-compliance

I do too

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[mbunny]

So Mozilla should do what IE does and insert tags for the author?

XHTML is not for lazy programmers. If you do not feel like conforming to the standards, stick with HTML.

Not only does Mozilla show it the way it actually is rather than trying to fix your mistake for you, if the author cross tested his page on mulitple browsers, this little problem would have been picked up straight away rather than having the little bug sitting there because IE decided that it can code like a human being and do things for you. IE then assumes that this is what you want it to do. Of course, in some cases it may not be what you want it to do.

It is not a bug if the bug is in the coding of the page. Mozilla is doing exactly as it should.

XHTML IS NOT FOR LAZY PROGRAMMERS!!!

 

[gonaads]

I still say it's in the way the table is set up. But it would be nice to figure it out.

But ya gotta D/L all the tabs, images, background images and everything else to yer HDD and then disect it and recompile it and then open it up in at least 3 browsers to see if whatever you do to the code is correct or fixes the problem... Sooooooooo...


Who's game???

 

[gonaads]

Sh!t... you should open up the front page (main page) of NTFS in Netscape 4.8. Man it's UGLY! I mean FUGLY UGLY.

Actually you can't see it (BIG BLACK BLANK PAGE), but if you load the FORUM (ntfs/forum/) page you will see what I mean about the tables and the alignment. IE could care less about the correctness of the coding since IE is halfassed anyway.

Why do you think is soooo popular, cause it's the lazy coder's browser.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Why do you think ie is soooo popular, cause it's the lazy coder's browser.

no, this has nothing to do with the ie browsers popularity...the people that make ie popular have absolutely no knowledge of just how easy ie makes it to code the page

So Mozilla should do what IE does and insert tags for the author?

XHTML is not for lazy programmers. If you do not feel like conforming to the standards, stick with HTML.

MOZILLA shouldn't do anything it doesn't think will help it's popularity,,,if it thinks it will be more popular by not being able tolerate simple coding erros, then it should continue with showing pages wrong when a person forgets somerhing as basic as "no captols". or "no empty tags"

now, you guys are clearly reading these rules from the wrong point of view, and you are falling for their lame excuses, as if you don't know how to think forward for yourselfs

the rule isn't "there should be no capitols"...the rule is "capitols cannot be intrinsic in how the page will read"

anyway, this is the meaning of the rule...the rule is not a maximum tolerance, it's minimum tolerance,,,pretty simple to write mozilla to minimum tolerance, and then advocates somehow convince people it's a bad idea to exceed minimum tolerance...

rediculous..

it's always a great idea to exceed minimum tolerance...who doesn't know this?

ms correctly takes code that is inccorrect, and it assigns to it the best guess at the correct code...it exceeds minimum tolerance...pretty basic stuff.

ms's idea is "if the author of the page messed up, let's not punish the user"

mozilla's idea is "if the author of the page messes up, screw the user, cause it's very important to punish the bad guy for not knowing all the rules"

this is the marketing strategy of mozilla

not

instead, this is the way a lazy programer writes code.

he says, hey, this fits the guidlines, so this is good enough

like the engineer that says, "well, if the highways fit spec, there are no pot holes, so I obviously don't need to install shock obsorbers in my automobiles...screw anyone that dares to go on a road that has potholes"

and of course, the more popular car would say" well of course I hope everyone makes roads that have no potholes, but just in case, I'm going to pu in these shock obsorbers for those times there are potholes anyway"

now, this analogy is absolutely perfect in this discussion

rediculous marketing strategy to leave out shock obsorbers...rediculous

 

[mbunny]

So easy to pick holes in that analogy dealer.

Fine... lets use your analogy...

If the highway was XHTML, then okay... no potholes, fits specs... the used doesn't need shock absorbers... Mozilla doesn't need to have AI and try to put information for the author.

Oh but heres comes the problem... Not every road is a highway, there are different standards. HTML for example could be your average gravel road. HTML is very lax and Mozilla knows that it is very lax and thus does try to compensate (at a minimal level) for sloppy coding. Gravel roads need shock absorbers.

Highways however, have specs for a reason. Your going fast, a pot hole can kill someone going fast and not noticing a pot hole. While XHTML may not kill somone because they didn't do it to spec, XHTML was introduced specifically to stop the laxness of some coders and make them do it properly. None of this attitude that currently exists with HTML where improperly done pages still render but makes the job that much more annoying for programmers that have to consider every combination of stupid mistake that people can make while still optimising the performance of their browser.

A shock absorber shouldn't be on a highway, however the shock absorbers are needed on gravel roads.

 

[Perris Calderon]

hi mbunny

analogies will always have "holes"...there is no perfect analogy.

never the less, this analogy holds as true as analogies can hold

None of this attitude that currently exists with HTML where improperly done pages still render but makes the job that much more annoying for programmers that have to consider every combination of stupid mistake that people can make while still optimising the performance of their browser.

life should be as easy for programmers as possible

obviously not at the expense of the user.

there will always be pprogrammers that make mistakes

if microsoft sees fit to try to compensate, that is to it's credit

if mozilla sees fit to not try to compensate, that is to it's discredit

I will take the car with shock obsorbers, and I will leave the car without shock obsorbers to those that want to prove their point

 

[Kevin Ar18]

deleted

 

[Rigsta]

Originally posted by djwhite
Oh, yeah?
Well, I can type "g XP" to launch a google search for XP in Opera
That's efficiency.

/me hides from the flames that are sure to follow

Well I could change it so that I don't need a prefix at all, so nyah!

erm, anyway... back to something resemlbing intellectual debate:

People are complaining that IE tries to compensate for coding errors. Excuse me, but it that such a bad thing? Programmers are human. Humans make mistakes. A bit of leeway is a good thing.

 

[mbunny]

IE compensating for the author makes the authors lazier and encourages them to take shortcuts. As time goes on, standards deteriorate (sp?). HTML has so many ways that it can be written that it had be made uber strict for XHTML.

Encouraging people to take shortcuts is never a good thing. Increasing efficiency and taking shortcuts is totally different by the way. You don't take shortcuts to be more efficient as in the long run the shortcuts catch up to you.

 

[Perris Calderon]

Originally posted by mbunny
IE compensating for the author makes the authors lazier and encourages them to take shortcuts. As time goes on, standards deteriorate (sp?). HTML has so many ways that it can be written that it had be made uber strict for XHTML.

Encouraging people to take shortcuts is never a good thing. Increasing efficiency and taking shortcuts is totally different by the way. You don't take shortcuts to be more efficient as in the long run the shortcuts catch up to you.

/me do not think this argument is solid

the user cannot be punished if a company seeks to write a program that compensates for beginners who are not writing code according to standard, or lazy programmers, just because they can.

punish the programmers somehow, with a tax on bad code or something that doesn't punish the user

do not punish our benefactors for their desire to make our internet experience a pleasure rather then a chore.

and if you want to prove a point, and drive a car without shock absorbers, I admire your sacrifice.

I'm driving with shock obsorbers...there is no point to be made as far as I can see...further, if I were to conceive a browser, or give awards to a browser, the award would go to the person that was not lazy, and wrote a browser that took into consideration the fact that mistakes will always be made by programmers that design pages

I would certainly not give any credit or award whatsoever to any programmer that took the lazy road, and decided it didn't have to exceed the minimum tolerance.

the writers of the mozilla browser are lazy programmers

they do not want to figure out how to compensate for bad code, so they make excuses for not doing it...and then, they have somehow convinced some people that their browser is better, BECAUSE IT DOES NOT COMPENSATE...this is a marketing trick...try to turn your liability, (lazy programming) into an asset.

here's a perfect example...true story;;

I used to own a modeling agency in n.y..

we were young, and had a very small investment profile.

our office was big, but not refined, like ford or Willamina.

so, when we would try to persuade a prospect to sign with us, instead of ford, we would say;

"look at our doors..they are not made of brass by tiffany!!!this is because we spend that money investing in our models, instead of in our doors"...

most people fell for this trick...

as soon as we could afford nicer doors, we got them

same thing

mbunny...do you really think if the mozilla browser could compensate for bad code, the mozilla people would turn the ability off?????????


OPERA UPDATE;

Since the beta opera has a trial period of no adds or add loading, I tried this browser

first, it is very polished in it's behavior

that's the end of it's good points

the toolbar is humongous, and can only be downsized to the point of aol proportions, taking tons of screen, even with all the toolbars disabled

speed of page-loading is illusionary

lots of acidity on the task bar gives the impression of lots being done, and the impression of speed.

however, going to server timed sites for measuring speed, on my box, ie rendered script faster then opera 9 out of ten times

plus, I couldn't get opera to eliminate the add banners...this may be my lack of experience

I took this thing off my box in about an hour, as how bothersome it is to me.

Phoenix is a much better concept and a much better application for those that want to get away from ie.

with Phoenix, you are giving nothing up at all...not speed, not user ability, not screen area available...everything is as adjustable as ie, and it is an excellent choice

with opera, you are giving up quite a bit in user preferences, and as far as my benchmarks you are also giving up speed.

to me, I was not even able to tolerate this browser.

 

[gonaads]

Hey, bottom line: IE is POOPY, Mozilla is UBER KEWL...

End of story. Dealer get a real browser, get Mozilla.