Applets: what browsers to support?

Discussion in 'Java' started by Rhino, Feb 11, 2006.

  1. Rhino

    Rhino Guest

    What are most commonly used browsers these days, especially in the business
    world?

    I haven't done an applet in a while, especially not one meant to work on
    most popular browsers, so I'm afraid I'm a bit out of touch with what
    browsers applet developers are writing for.

    A few years ago, most people tried to make sure that their applets worked on
    the last couple of versions of IE and the last couple of versions of
    Netscape; occasionally, they would verify that their applets worked on Opera
    or other less popular browsers.

    What is the standard today, i.e. which browsers (and versions of those
    browsers) do applet developers target?

    I'm guessing IE6 (and maybe 5.0?) and Firefox (not sure which versions) and
    maybe Netscape 6.x and 7.x with Opera (which version?) and Safari (which
    version?) if you want to reach the Mac owners.

    By the way, I've never been clear on the relationship between Netscape,
    Firefox and Mozilla. Aren't Netscape and Firefox (and maybe Safari)
    variations on Mozilla? Also, is Netscape still making new versions of its
    browser or is Firefox just a new name for Netscape, which would mean that
    there will be no new versions of Netscape beyond 7.x?

    If someone can fill me in on what browsers most professional applet
    developers would target, I'd be very grateful.

    I really need to figure this out so that I can modify my HTML appropriately
    so that my applet will work on the most current browsers.

    --
    Rhino
     
    Rhino, Feb 11, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rhino

    Guest

    Most all modern browsers now use the Sun JDK for applets. So the
    support is universal. Any OS with the Sun JDK available since about
    1.4x will execute applets just fine. I've deployed very complex applets
    and they work equally well on Windows (IE/Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape) ,
    OSX (Safari/Firefox) and Linux (Firefox). These include applets that
    use Swing rather than (ugh) Awt for the GUI.

    You can even request auto-download of the jre if not installed on most
    platforms/situations.
     
    , Feb 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rhino

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 13:53:19 -0500, "Rhino"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    quoted someone who said :

    >I haven't done an applet in a while, especially not one meant to work on
    >most popular browsers, so I'm afraid I'm a bit out of touch with what
    >browsers applet developers are writing for.


    see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/browser.html

    I use primarily use Opera. It is the fastest, especially to load.

    I detest all the bugs in IE, but I every once in a while check it out
    to make sure I the renderings are not too awful.

    Firefox seems to be the up and comer. It is the one I test second.

    Mozilla gives you lots of control. I finds its UI almost as good as
    Opera's. I test it third.

    Netscape I test fourth. It chews up half your screen with crud I have
    no interest in.

    I get reports from people using text browsers. I do no testing for
    them. Basically all works well if you do almost nothing in HTML and
    everything in your CSS style sheet.

    Blind people are happy that I put ALT tags on all images to tell them
    what it is a picture of. I usually describe the image rather than the
    purpose of the image. e.g.. "strawberry" rather than "recommended".

    I get complaints from people with small screens. Many of my layouts
    do not work for them. I have been squeezing things up and designing
    collapsible layouts that twill intelligently shrink using float:left
    and float:right.

    If you don't want trouble, avoid JavaScript, and unfortunately also
    Java. Validate, validate, validate -- both HTML and CSS. That cleans
    up a lot of false browser rendering failures.

    See http://mindprod.com/jgloss/htmlvalidator.html

    Users complain bitterly about broken links. The life of external links
    might be about 12 months average, half that for links with a ~ in
    them. Xenu helps stay on top. It is an ongoing weeding problem. You
    never get any where near weeding them all. Sun's site is in terrible
    shape that way. see http://mindprod.com/jgloss/xenu.html

    People are pretty good about reporting typos. But they rarely offer
    the replacement for a broken link, or tell you WHERE they found the
    problem. Don't look a gift horse...

    People generally like my site layout. Features I think that contribute
    to that:

    1. extensive cross-referencing.

    2. navigation aids at the top of each page.

    3. menus to quickly jump to sections of a page.

    4. working to keep pages short.

    5. no jittery animations, slithering menus, creeping backgrounds or
    other childish nonsense.

    6. pale green background is the optimal shade for reading. It is
    problematic for image transparency, that is not done properly with
    gradated alpha feathering in to the background. Most images are
    designed to work only on a white background.

    My big worry is colour. My monitor red gun is flaky.. It is bit like
    having computer-induced colour blindness. I wonder if I am selecting
    colours that render for other's like Dalton's shocking red socks.
    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
     
    Roedy Green, Feb 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Rhino

    Guest

    btw/fyi.. Safari was actually born from Konqueror from Linux (ok.. just
    the khtml engine Konqueror is based on)
     
    , Feb 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Rhino

    IchBin Guest

    wrote:
    > btw/fyi.. Safari was actually born from Konqueror from Linux (ok.. just
    > the khtml engine Konqueror is based on)
    >


    Just as an aside. I currently have Mozilla's SeaMonkey 1.5a suite, Deer
    Park 1.9a1, and Opera 9.0. I just bumped into a cool browser the other
    day. Well actually two. It is called the Avant Browser,
    http://www.orcabrowser.com. There is a IE based version (Avant Browser)
    and a Mozilla based version (Dr. Orca). I just dumped the IE based
    version and starting to use the Orca more. I am impressed. I never
    heard if it before.. What is nice is it's UI and options. Still, Opera
    is the fastest that I have seen.

    Here is an article about Orca called "Avant Browser + Firefox = Dr.
    Orca". http://www.digg.com/technology/Avant_Browser_Firefox_=_Dr._Orca

    --

    Thanks in Advance...
    IchBin, Pocono Lake, Pa, USA
    http://weconsultants.servebeer.com/JHackerAppManager
    __________________________________________________________________________

    'If there is one, Knowledge is the "Fountain of Youth"'
    -William E. Taylor, Regular Guy (1952-)
     
    IchBin, Feb 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Rhino

    Rhino Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Most all modern browsers now use the Sun JDK for applets. So the
    > support is universal. Any OS with the Sun JDK available since about
    > 1.4x will execute applets just fine. I've deployed very complex applets
    > and they work equally well on Windows (IE/Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape) ,
    > OSX (Safari/Firefox) and Linux (Firefox). These include applets that
    > use Swing rather than (ugh) Awt for the GUI.
    >
    > You can even request auto-download of the jre if not installed on most
    > platforms/situations.
    >

    Yes, I'm aware of the auto-download of the JRE and think that's a good
    thing.

    Are you still using the OBJECT/EMBED tags the way the HTML converter
    generates? Or are you using strictly the APPLET tag?

    The reason I ask is that I'm having trouble getting my first recent applet
    to work in Firefox. It uses the standard OBJECT/EMBED tags from the HTML
    converter. However, another applet I've seen that uses Java 1.5 features
    works fine in Firefox with just the APPLET tag. I was surprised that worked.
    Do the recent browsers all support the APPLET tag properly now or is it just
    Firefox that does this?

    --
    Rhino
     
    Rhino, Feb 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Rhino

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:41:44 -0500, "Rhino"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    quoted someone who said :

    >. I was surprised that worked.
    >Do the recent browsers all support the APPLET tag properly now or is it just
    >Firefox that does this?


    Everything uses <applet just fine.. The only reason to use that <EMBED
    crap is to get an autodownload of the missing Java instead of getting
    the user to hit a button ask for it.

    Perhaps the way to handle this is to load the same dummy applet with
    <EMBED to get that feature, or use JavaScript to detect missing Java,
    and leave all your code in maintainable <applet form. That is grossly
    bloated syntax as it is.

    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
     
    Roedy Green, Feb 12, 2006
    #7
  8. Rhino

    Daniel Dyer Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:41:32 -0000, Roedy Green
    <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:41:44 -0500, "Rhino"
    > <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    > quoted someone who said :
    >
    >> . I was surprised that worked.
    >> Do the recent browsers all support the APPLET tag properly now or is it
    >> just
    >> Firefox that does this?

    >
    > Everything uses <applet just fine.. The only reason to use that <EMBED
    > crap is to get an autodownload of the missing Java instead of getting
    > the user to hit a button ask for it.
    >
    > Perhaps the way to handle this is to load the same dummy applet with
    > <EMBED to get that feature, or use JavaScript to detect missing Java,
    > and leave all your code in maintainable <applet form. That is grossly
    > bloated syntax as it is.


    <APPLET> and <EMBED> are both problematic. The applet tag is deprecated
    in the HTML and XHTML specs. If you want to use the strict DTDs, you
    can't use the applet tag. I don't think that embed has ever been an
    official tag.

    The recommended approach is to use just <OBJECT> but it is tricky to get
    it to work both in IE and Firefox since there are two different
    approaches, one that works in IE and one that works with Firefox (Opera
    seems to accept either). The solution, if you want a page that passes
    validation, involves nesting one object tag inside another and taking
    advantage of IE's conditional comments. I have done this with the Java
    1.1 applet on this page (http://fsa.footballpredictions.net) so that it
    will work with both the Sun and Microsoft VMs. Take a look at the source
    to see what I mean. As far as I am aware, this works on most (all?)
    recent browsers. I have tested with IE, Firefox and Opera on Windows and
    Firefox and Opera on Linux.

    As for applet tag support, you might want to look at the options in the
    Sun Java plug-in control panel. You can turn the support for the tag on
    and off in there.

    Dan.

    --
    Daniel Dyer
    http://www.dandyer.co.uk
     
    Daniel Dyer, Feb 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Rhino

    Rhino Guest

    "Roedy Green" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:41:44 -0500, "Rhino"
    > <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    > quoted someone who said :
    >
    >>. I was surprised that worked.
    >>Do the recent browsers all support the APPLET tag properly now or is it
    >>just
    >>Firefox that does this?

    >
    > Everything uses <applet just fine..


    I see you're right. I just took out all of the <EMBED> and <OBJECT> html and
    left only the <APPLET>tag from a test version of my HTML. Then I tested it
    in Firefox 1.5.0, Opera 7.54 and IE6 (SP2) and each worked perfectly, much
    to my surprise. Obviously, browser support for applets has gotten a lot
    better since I last did a serious applet!

    Do you happen to know which releases of each of the major browsers first
    handled <APPLET> correctly? The reason I ask is that my applet displays my
    resume and I want potential employers to be able to look at that resume with
    minimum effort. Some of them may be running very old browsers for all I know
    and may be reluctant to upgrade if they are non-technical folks, like HR
    types.

    At the very least, I'd like to be able to write a comment in the HTML that
    says something like this:
    "The applet should display successfully in all of the following browsers:
    Internet Explorer (5.0 and later); Firefox (1.0 and later); Netscape (6.0
    and later); Opera (7.5 and later), Safari (4.0 and later)." Naturally, the
    exact browser names and version numbers in that example are probably not
    right: how do I find out what version of each browser _DOES_ support
    <APPLET> correctly?

    >The only reason to use that <EMBED
    > crap is to get an autodownload of the missing Java instead of getting
    > the user to hit a button ask for it.
    >
    > Perhaps the way to handle this is to load the same dummy applet with
    > <EMBED to get that feature, or use JavaScript to detect missing Java,
    > and leave all your code in maintainable <applet form. That is grossly
    > bloated syntax as it is.
    >

    Sorry, I'm not clear on what you're proposing. I'd love to get rid of
    <EMBED> and <OBJECT> tags - they _ARE_ horribly bloated code - but I'm not
    sure what your alternative is. I'm not wild about using JavaScript because
    it is so browser/version specific but I'll use it if necessary. I don't mind
    creating a dummy applet on the page if you tell me what HTML it will need. I
    also don't mind adding a link so that users can install a JRE on their page
    _if_ I can make the install process utterly effortless for them.
    Non-technical people are easily intimidated and if someone decides not to
    look at my applet because they got intimidated by even a simple install,
    that would be a shame for me.

    Do you have a full example that illustrates what you are proposing? Failing
    that, can you point me to such an example?

    --
    Rhino
     
    Rhino, Feb 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Rhino

    Rhino Guest

    "Daniel Dyer" <> wrote in message
    news:eek:...
    > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 16:41:32 -0000, Roedy Green
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 08:41:44 -0500, "Rhino"
    >> <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    >> quoted someone who said :
    >>
    >>> . I was surprised that worked.
    >>> Do the recent browsers all support the APPLET tag properly now or is it
    >>> just
    >>> Firefox that does this?

    >>
    >> Everything uses <applet just fine.. The only reason to use that <EMBED
    >> crap is to get an autodownload of the missing Java instead of getting
    >> the user to hit a button ask for it.
    >>
    >> Perhaps the way to handle this is to load the same dummy applet with
    >> <EMBED to get that feature, or use JavaScript to detect missing Java,
    >> and leave all your code in maintainable <applet form. That is grossly
    >> bloated syntax as it is.

    >
    > <APPLET> and <EMBED> are both problematic. The applet tag is deprecated
    > in the HTML and XHTML specs. If you want to use the strict DTDs, you
    > can't use the applet tag. I don't think that embed has ever been an
    > official tag.
    >
    > The recommended approach is to use just <OBJECT> but it is tricky to get
    > it to work both in IE and Firefox since there are two different
    > approaches, one that works in IE and one that works with Firefox (Opera
    > seems to accept either). The solution, if you want a page that passes
    > validation, involves nesting one object tag inside another and taking
    > advantage of IE's conditional comments. I have done this with the Java
    > 1.1 applet on this page (http://fsa.footballpredictions.net) so that it
    > will work with both the Sun and Microsoft VMs. Take a look at the source
    > to see what I mean. As far as I am aware, this works on most (all?)
    > recent browsers. I have tested with IE, Firefox and Opera on Windows and
    > Firefox and Opera on Linux.
    >

    Do I understand correctly that the HTML used for your football applet only
    works for applets that are using Java 1.1 or earlier? If so, what do you
    suggest for someone who wants their applet to incorporate Java 1.5 features
    and run on as many browsers as possible? I am trying to reach people who may
    not have updated their browsers in years and may be unwilling or unable to
    upgrade them so automating the download/installation of the current plugin
    would be a big plus for me.

    > As for applet tag support, you might want to look at the options in the
    > Sun Java plug-in control panel. You can turn the support for the tag on
    > and off in there.
    >

    That doesn't work for me, at least with respect to Mozilla and Netscape. At
    the moment, the "Mozilla and Netscape" checkbox is off but when I turn it
    on, I get this warning: Unable to change Browser Settings. Please check that
    Mozilla or Netscape is properly installed on the system and/or that you have
    sufficient permissions to change system settings." When I OK the message,
    the checkbox is still checked but when I close and reopen the Java control
    panel, I find that the checkbox is unchecked again. I've posted to several
    places about this in the last few days and gotten no useful suggestions on
    how to fix it.

    Despite the setting of the checkbox though, my applet works fine in IE6,
    Opera 7.54, and Firefox 1.5.0.1 if the HTML has only an <applet> tag.
    However, if I use the old <EMBED>/<OBJECT>/<APPLET> nonsense from the HTML
    converter, Firefox doesn't display the applet: it claims it needs a plugin,
    fails to find it with an automatic search, and fails to see a manually
    installed plugin when I provide one.

    I've posted to several places about this in the last few days and gotten no
    useful suggestions on how to fix it. I'm truly sick of messing around with
    this but I can't figure it out and I can't find anyone else who can explain
    it to me.

    Roedy almost had me sold on using <APPLET> alone since it works on all three
    of my recent browsers but now you say that <APPLET> is not the right thing
    to use because <APPLET> is deprecated in the HTML and XHTML specs. I'm not
    sure if I should care about that....

    Frankly, I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to scrap the applet
    altogether since there doesn't seem to be any way to make it visible to a
    large variety of browsers of different vintages without requiring the user
    to get very involved in installing/configuring components.

    I was briefly tempted to try Java WebStart but that looked even more
    involved and was not something I'd want to throw at a non-technical person.

    Is there ANY reasonable solution here or should I scrap my applet?

    --
    Rhino
     
    Rhino, Feb 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Rhino

    Daniel Dyer Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 22:39:42 -0000, Rhino
    <> wrote:

    >
    > "Daniel Dyer" <> wrote in message
    > news:eek:...
    >> <APPLET> and <EMBED> are both problematic. The applet tag is deprecated
    >> in the HTML and XHTML specs. If you want to use the strict DTDs, you
    >> can't use the applet tag. I don't think that embed has ever been an
    >> official tag.
    >>
    >> The recommended approach is to use just <OBJECT> but it is tricky to get
    >> it to work both in IE and Firefox since there are two different
    >> approaches, one that works in IE and one that works with Firefox (Opera
    >> seems to accept either). The solution, if you want a page that passes
    >> validation, involves nesting one object tag inside another and taking
    >> advantage of IE's conditional comments. I have done this with the Java
    >> 1.1 applet on this page (http://fsa.footballpredictions.net) so that it
    >> will work with both the Sun and Microsoft VMs. Take a look at the
    >> source
    >> to see what I mean. As far as I am aware, this works on most (all?)
    >> recent browsers. I have tested with IE, Firefox and Opera on Windows
    >> and
    >> Firefox and Opera on Linux.
    >>

    > Do I understand correctly that the HTML used for your football applet
    > only
    > works for applets that are using Java 1.1 or earlier? If so, what do you
    > suggest for someone who wants their applet to incorporate Java 1.5
    > features
    > and run on as many browsers as possible? I am trying to reach people who
    > may
    > not have updated their browsers in years and may be unwilling or unable
    > to
    > upgrade them so automating the download/installation of the current
    > plugin
    > would be a big plus for me.


    My point was mainly about avoiding invalid/non-standard HTML. My page
    validates as XHTML strict and still seems to work with all the main
    browsers. I don't know if it works for Java 5 applets. I would guess
    that the approach is the same (with the nested <object> tags and
    conditional comments), but you'd have to try it. You may have to change
    the classid attribute. If I remember correctly, the
    08B0E5C0-4FCB-11CF-AAA5-00401C608501 value specifies to use the old
    1.1-era Microsoft JVM. I think it will even use that if the Sun VM is
    installed (I can't check now, I'm on Linux), which is no problem for me
    since the MS VM is much quicker with the AWT stuff anyway.

    If you change the classid in the inner object tag to whatever is required
    for 1.5 (some big long hex string that you should be able to find on the
    web), it will hopefully work.

    > Roedy almost had me sold on using <APPLET> alone since it works on all
    > three
    > of my recent browsers but now you say that <APPLET> is not the right
    > thing
    > to use because <APPLET> is deprecated in the HTML and XHTML specs. I'm
    > not
    > sure if I should care about that....


    You can use the applet tag with the loose DTD, and then your page will
    pass the W3C validator checks. Or you can just ignore validation
    altogether, but then it's your responsibility to make sure the page views
    OK in all the browsers. However, since this is a resume page, maybe it's
    best to have everything standards-compliant, it shows attention to detail
    and a professional approach.

    > Frankly, I'm getting to the point where I'm ready to scrap the applet
    > altogether since there doesn't seem to be any way to make it visible to a
    > large variety of browsers of different vintages without requiring the
    > user
    > to get very involved in installing/configuring components.


    Another alternative is to go the 1.1-era, AWT-only route, but writing that
    sort of code makes you feel dirty.

    > I was briefly tempted to try Java WebStart but that looked even more
    > involved and was not something I'd want to throw at a non-technical
    > person.
    >
    > Is there ANY reasonable solution here or should I scrap my applet?


    Try the approach with the nested object tags before you give up
    completely. There should be some way to get it to work, at least on the
    recent versions of the main browsers. Things like Netscape 4 probably
    won't work.

    As a fall-back you could link to a non-applet version of your resume for
    browsers that don't support the required Java version.

    Good luck,

    Dan.

    --
    Daniel Dyer
    http://www.dandyer.co.uk
     
    Daniel Dyer, Feb 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Rhino

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 18:07:07 -0000, "Daniel Dyer"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    quoted someone who said :

    >As for applet tag support, you might want to look at the options in the
    >Sun Java plug-in control panel. You can turn the support for the tag on
    >and off in there.

    **** em. Someone should be tortured and shot for this, or at least
    assassinated. Where is Bush and the Homeland security people when you
    need them. This is clearly a commie plot.

    <APPLET was too wordy to start with. There was no excuse for
    deprecating it and replacing it with non-working unreadable going-on
    for-pages-to-accomplish-almost-nothing CRAP. <OBJECT is bureaucrat's
    ****-you suicide letter.

    I just say scew'em. I am going to continue using Applet. It is wrong
    to kowtow to such idiocy.



    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
     
    Roedy Green, Feb 13, 2006
    #12
  13. Rhino

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:20:52 -0000, "Daniel Dyer"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    quoted someone who said :

    >If you change the classid in the inner object tag to whatever is required
    >for 1.5 (some big long hex string that you should be able to find on the
    >web), it will hopefully work.

    that class-id thing is so stupid as if Java did not rate a keyword of
    its own after all this time. Let' fly by night plugins goof around
    with things like that.

    Someone is working very hard to discourage Java and this in one of
    their salvos. Imagine 5K of this crap on every page just to invoke the
    CurrCon Applet to display each price in international variable
    currency.

    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
     
    Roedy Green, Feb 13, 2006
    #13
  14. Rhino

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 13:26:23 -0500, "Rhino"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    quoted someone who said :

    >Do you happen to know which releases of each of the major browsers first
    >handled <APPLET> correctly?


    I don't ever recall it not working, other that the problem with the
    old 1.1 MS JVM trying run 1.2+ code.

    I would be a silly business decision to drop support for <APPLET. I
    for one will badmouth any browser that does so.

    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
     
    Roedy Green, Feb 13, 2006
    #14
  15. Rhino

    Nigel Wade Guest

    Rhino wrote:

    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Most all modern browsers now use the Sun JDK for applets. So the
    >> support is universal. Any OS with the Sun JDK available since about
    >> 1.4x will execute applets just fine. I've deployed very complex applets
    >> and they work equally well on Windows (IE/Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape) ,
    >> OSX (Safari/Firefox) and Linux (Firefox). These include applets that
    >> use Swing rather than (ugh) Awt for the GUI.
    >>
    >> You can even request auto-download of the jre if not installed on most
    >> platforms/situations.
    >>

    > Yes, I'm aware of the auto-download of the JRE and think that's a good
    > thing.
    >
    > Are you still using the OBJECT/EMBED tags the way the HTML converter
    > generates? Or are you using strictly the APPLET tag?
    >
    > The reason I ask is that I'm having trouble getting my first recent applet
    > to work in Firefox. It uses the standard OBJECT/EMBED tags from the HTML
    > converter. However, another applet I've seen that uses Java 1.5 features
    > works fine in Firefox with just the APPLET tag. I was surprised that worked.
    > Do the recent browsers all support the APPLET tag properly now or is it just
    > Firefox that does this?


    AFAIK all the main browsers support the APPLET tag. The problem with the APPLET
    tag is that the W3C has deprecated it in favour of the abomination which is the
    OBJECT tag.

    The OBJECT tag is supported by all recent browsers, but each one in a different
    way. So instead of having a single piece of HTML using the APPLET tag which
    works in all browsers you now need browser specific HTML and possibly embedded
    Javascript in order to have working, compliant HTML (i.e. not deprecated). Nice
    one, W3C (were they coerced into this by Microsoft, by any chance - it has a
    distinct aroma of their business practise about it?).

    --
    Nigel Wade, System Administrator, Space Plasma Physics Group,
    University of Leicester, Leicester, LE1 7RH, UK
    E-mail :
    Phone : +44 (0)116 2523548, Fax : +44 (0)116 2523555
     
    Nigel Wade, Feb 13, 2006
    #15
  16. Rhino

    Mickey Segal Guest

    "Roedy Green" <> wrote in
    message news:...
    > I am going to continue using Applet. It is wrong
    > to kowtow to such idiocy.


    We take the same approach that Roedy does. The <APPLET tag is the most
    portable form of coding for an applet. It is also the most polite, not
    insisting on making the users change their JRE. If lots of developers
    continue to use the <APPLET tag any new browser version that ignores the tag
    will be recognized as having been designed by incompetents.
     
    Mickey Segal, Feb 13, 2006
    #16
  17. Rhino

    Daniel Dyer Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:36:25 -0000, Roedy Green
    <> wrote:

    > On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 23:20:52 -0000, "Daniel Dyer"
    > <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    > quoted someone who said :
    >
    >> If you change the classid in the inner object tag to whatever is
    >> required
    >> for 1.5 (some big long hex string that you should be able to find on the
    >> web), it will hopefully work.

    > that class-id thing is so stupid as if Java did not rate a keyword of
    > its own after all this time. Let' fly by night plugins goof around
    > with things like that.
    >
    > Someone is working very hard to discourage Java and this in one of
    > their salvos. Imagine 5K of this crap on every page just to invoke the
    > CurrCon Applet to display each price in international variable
    > currency.


    It's possible to use the object tag without the big long hex string. The
    version that has classid="java:com.mydomain.mypackage.MyApplet.class"
    works fine with recent versions of Firefox and Opera with Sun's VM. Apart
    from the addition of the 'type="application/x-java-applet"' attribute,
    it's no more verbose than the applet tag. In this case the object tag
    seems like a perfectly reasonable replacement for applet since it is not
    specific to one content type and can be used for as-yet-uninvented
    plug-ins.

    The problem comes, as always, when the browser makers have different ways
    of doing things. In this case it appears to be IE that is behaving
    differently. It's then that you start having to jump through hoops.

    Dan.

    --
    Daniel Dyer
    http://www.dandyer.co.uk
     
    Daniel Dyer, Feb 13, 2006
    #17
  18. Rhino

    Daniel Dyer Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 09:33:48 -0000, Roedy Green
    <> wrote:

    > <APPLET was too wordy to start with. There was no excuse for
    > deprecating it and replacing it with non-working unreadable going-on
    > for-pages-to-accomplish-almost-nothing CRAP. <OBJECT is bureaucrat's
    > ****-you suicide letter.


    If, as was intended, there is just a single instance of the object tag,
    with an appropriate content type identifier, I don't see the problem, it's
    only very slightly more verbose. As I mentioned in my other reply, it's
    the mess of incompatible browsers that is causing the problem rather than
    anything inherently wrong with the object tag itself.

    > I just say scew'em. I am going to continue using Applet. It is wrong
    > to kowtow to such idiocy.


    That is fine as long as you are happy to stick to versions of HTML/XHTML
    that include the tag, and include an appropriate DOCTYPE declaration. If
    you want to use later/stricter versions the only way you can do that is to
    abandon any attempt to make valid pages, in which case you are at the
    mercy of the browser's rendering engine, which has no obligation to render
    your invalid pages correctly. For this reason I would prefer to incur the
    extra effort of kowtowing to the idiocy rather than breaking the implicit
    contract between the page author and the browser vendor that says "if my
    pages are valid it's your responsibility to display them correctly". Of
    course, if there is no way to achieve your aims without contravening the
    spec. then that's what you have to do, but it should be a last resort.

    Dan.

    --
    Daniel Dyer
    http://www.dandyer.co.uk
     
    Daniel Dyer, Feb 13, 2006
    #18
  19. Rhino

    Daniel Dyer Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 13:40:59 -0000, Mickey Segal
    <> wrote:

    > "Roedy Green" <> wrote in
    > message news:...
    >> I am going to continue using Applet. It is wrong
    >> to kowtow to such idiocy.

    >
    > We take the same approach that Roedy does. The <APPLET tag is the most
    > portable form of coding for an applet. It is also the most polite, not
    > insisting on making the users change their JRE. If lots of developers
    > continue to use the <APPLET tag any new browser version that ignores the
    > tag
    > will be recognized as having been designed by incompetents.
    >


    That's fine, but if you want to do that make sure, for that page at least,
    you declare a DOCTYPE for a version of the HTML/XHTML spec that has the
    tag (i.e. the loose DTD), otherwise you're just contributing to the mess
    perpetuated by Microsoft and their ambivalent approach to standards. If
    your page validates you have met your obligation as the page author. Any
    problems rendering it are then somebody elses fault.

    Dan.

    --
    Daniel Dyer
    http://www.dandyer.co.uk
     
    Daniel Dyer, Feb 13, 2006
    #19
  20. Rhino

    Roedy Green Guest

    On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 19:52:01 -0000, "Daniel Dyer"
    <> wrote, quoted or indirectly
    quoted someone who said :

    >If, as was intended, there is just a single instance of the object tag,
    >with an appropriate content type identifier, I don't see the problem, it's
    >only very slightly more verbose.

    Come now. Have you ever looked at the utterly unmaintainable output
    of t he HTMLconverter when you turn on compatibilty with several
    browsers?

    You can't proofread it. You can't even read it. It a deliberate
    attempt to derail Applets.

    It is a stop gap measure deal with arbitrary plugins, not something
    built into browsers almost from the beginning.

    In my most charitable mood I would the problem is lazy buggers who
    design syntax trying to make it easy for the machine (and parser
    writers) rather than those who write in the language. Even Applet
    tags are deliberately inconvenient.

    Param should have looked like this

    <PARAM a="b" c="d" />

    --
    Canadian Mind Products, Roedy Green.
    http://mindprod.com Java custom programming, consulting and coaching.
     
    Roedy Green, Feb 14, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Rob R. Ainscough
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    497
    intrader
    Jun 25, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?TWFuc28=?=

    Multiple browsers support and themes

    =?Utf-8?B?TWFuc28=?=, Mar 22, 2006, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    371
    =?Utf-8?B?TWFuc28=?=
    Mar 22, 2006
  3. SPG
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    395
    Mickey Segal
    Aug 25, 2004
  4. El Kabong

    Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis?

    El Kabong, May 11, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    906
    dorayme
    May 13, 2007
  5. Nasser M. Abbasi
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    612
    Roedy Green
    Jan 10, 2013
Loading...

Share This Page