newest version - Mozilla

This is a discussion on newest version - Mozilla ; Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem of some websites not being compatible with 1.1.18, the version I am running now? Bing Maps is a good example, I get a message asking me if I'm sure I ...

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: newest version

  1. newest version

    Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem of some
    websites not being compatible with 1.1.18, the version I am running
    now? Bing Maps is a good example, I get a message asking me if I'm
    sure I want to use my browser on their site, and when I go ahead the
    page doesn't come up the same as it does with Firefox.

    If I stick with SeaMonkey I know I'll have to update sooner or later,
    but I don't want to do it until it's of some benefit to me.

  2. Re: newest version

    DonWB wrote:
    >Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem
    >of some websites not being compatible with 1.1.18,
    >[...]Bing Maps is[...]asking me if I'm sure
    >I want to use my browser on their site, and when I go ahead
    >the page doesn't come up the same as it does with Firefox.
    >

    The funny part here is that
    you actually expect Micros~1 to know what they are doing.
    I'm curious to know what is is about Bung[sic]
    that makes it valuable to you (besides M$-slanted results).

    Have you done the standard bad-website troubleshooting?
    http://google.com/search?q=cache:H9h..._some_websites
    http://tinyurl.com/Basic-Website-Troubleshooting
    http://kb.mozillazine.org/Error_load..._some_websites

    Way down on the list is **compensate for a webmaster
    who doesn't know WTF he is doing WRT "sniffing"**.

  3. Re: newest version

    Arne wrote:
    >Bing Map[...]
    >There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.
    >

    There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
    JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.
    (Of couse, this would break M$'s foul business model.)

    The ONLY need to sniff is for NON-compliant browsers.
    (Guess who builds those.)
    http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3

    The only need to serve up "special" pages
    is because junky browsers won't render compliant pages right.

  4. Re: newest version

    >>Arne wrote:
    >>>Bing Map[...]
    >>>There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.
    >>>

    >JeffM wrote:
    >>There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
    >>JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.

    >

    Arne wrote:
    >Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
    >

    You're too easy on developers who don't know WFT they're doing.
    The *DEFAULT* should be **serve up a compliant page**.

    Stupid M$ even treats the W3C Validator like it has 3 heads:
    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht...bing.com/maps/
    (Look at the "Address:" bar on that page.)

    >All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff
    >but at least they give the user an option to enter any way,
    >other simply throw you out!
    >

    So, instead of being rock-head stupid,
    they're just bonehead stupid.

    WEBMASTERS,
    JUST SERVE UP *COMPLIANT* PAGES BY DEFAULT.
    If you want to sniff, then sniff for the **broken** browsers
    (y'know, the ones Micros~1 builds)
    and only treat **those** as "special" (as in "retarted").

    BTW, you bunch of dim bulbs who can't seem to get it right
    http://geckoisgecko.org/

  5. Re: newest version

    BJ wrote:
    >[...]IE will display the page,
    >but if the code is not written in "IE standards["]
    >

    ....and you have to specify **which** "IE standards".
    Each *version* of IE renders the same code differently.
    IE is a complete botch.
    Even the latest IE only gets 20 percent on Acid3
    while other browsers achieved in excess of 90--some hit 100.

    >Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM,
    >

    Some (techie) sites are seeing parity with IE (cumulatively)
    and Firefox (Gecko, cumulatively, according to their methods).

    >developers will be faced with the reality that,
    >even though they write W3C compliant code,
    >it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.
    >

    Pros know that after they have built a compliant page
    that looks fine in all other browsers
    they have to do specific tests on their pages
    to see how they look in IE6/7/8.

    *Smart* pros give a price for a compliant site
    and a separate price beyond that to make it look right in IE
    (actually, a separate price for *each version* of IE).

    The old hands have lots of tricks up their sleeves
    gathered over years of kludging things up for IE
    and they don't give those away for free.

    >And even then
    >(i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
    >I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.
    >

    ....and water is wet. M$, however, doesn't have a choice.
    The slower they are to become compliant,
    the faster they will lose market share.

    After the google.cn/IE6 fiasco, government agencies in
    France, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand
    advised their residents to stop using *all* versions of IE.
    U.S. CERT advised that back in 2004.

  6. Re: newest version

    Phillip Jones wrote:
    >Page designers that design pages for w3c [compliance]
    >should add a notation.
    >/This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards
    >and should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers
    >

    There's even a tag for that.
    Put this in an HTML file and view that with IE, then Gecko:



    >/If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
    >and please tell them you will discontinue use of
    >[their] product until [it] meets specifications/.
    >

    ....or simply:
    This site best viewed with a standards-compliant browser.
    http://google.com/search?q=%22+best....pliant.browser
    When combined with the tag shown above
    and using large red text, it grabs the attention.
    Using the flash tag would put the icing on the cake.

    >The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C
    >

    It's easier to do damage when you're one of the Fifth Column
    than when you're an overtly declared enemy:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace...and_extinguish

+ Reply to Thread