Compatibility

Discussion in 'HTML' started by nobody, Nov 18, 2003.

  1. nobody

    nobody Guest

    Hey,

    What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
    tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
    these browsers?

    Cheers
    nobody, Nov 18, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. nobody wrote:
    > Hey,
    >
    > What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should
    > be tested for compatibility etc?


    Not sure if there is an emphatic answer to that one. I use recent versions
    of:

    o Mozilla
    o Opera
    o Internet Explorer
    o Lynx

    Some sites should propably also check out ok in:

    o Netscape 4.nn
    o earlier versions of IE

    > And is there a good site that
    > provides all these browsers?


    Once again, not sure about *all*, but this will give you a good start:

    http://browsers.evolt.org


    --
    William Tasso - http://WilliamTasso.com
    William Tasso, Nov 18, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <3fb9cfd2$>, says...
    > What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
    > tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
    > these browsers?


    You will get about a million different answers here. (and EVERY singe
    one of them is probably right)

    Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
    sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
    plain Jane unexciting_ stuff), and you can show off your w3c sticker,
    but you run thew risk of it not working right because NONE of the
    browsers comply to w3s standards. So your code may be perfect, but it
    is broken in several browsers.

    Do a little investigation and see what your potential customers get
    turned on by. Look at your competition and see what they do, figure out
    why they do it.

    For commercial projects you are usually pretty safe if it works in IE
    and some flavor of Mozilla. These are what 95%+ of your customers will
    show up with. If what you are offering caters to the blind, or to the
    cell phone crowd then you will have to take linx, the readers, and a few
    other things into consideration. We tend to believe that this is a bit
    overkill for most (not all) sites. (yes Iso, we are cold blooded
    discriminators)

    We don't believe that the web should be "One size fits all". Others
    disagree. I guess your answer depends on if you believe your site needs
    to be "one size fits all or not".

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 18, 2003
    #3
  4. nobody

    Safalra Guest

    "nobody" <> wrote in message news:<3fb9cfd2$>...
    > What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
    > tested for compatibility etc?


    If you've access to Windows, then obviously check IE, which hasn't
    changed much in a long time so the latest version will do. If you've
    access to a Mac try IE5, which has some issues with CSS that didn't
    affect the Windows version.

    Mozilla (on which many other browsers are based including recent
    versions of Netscape).

    Netscape 4 (if you're using CSS - you can check if you need to hide it
    from Netscape 4 with the media="all" trick).

    Some kind of text-only browser (e.g. Lynx) so you can check for
    accessibility issues.

    > And is there a good site that provides all these browsers?


    http://browsers.evolt.org/

    --- Stephen Morley ---
    http://www.safalra.com
    Safalra, Nov 18, 2003
    #4
  5. Barry Pearson, Nov 18, 2003
    #5
  6. Whitecrest wrote:
    > Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
    > sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
    > plain Jane unexciting_ stuff),


    You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
    years ago.


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Nov 18, 2003
    #6
  7. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    Whitecrest, Nov 18, 2003
    #7
  8. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <bpd1j8$1jps72$-berlin.de>, say-no-to-
    says...
    > > Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
    > > sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
    > > plain Jane unexciting_ stuff),

    > You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
    > years ago.


    Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy.
    So I think it is YOU that are out of touch trying to hold the Web back
    because you don't understand the more complex things.

    Don't be afraid of the new stuff.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 18, 2003
    #8
  9. nobody

    m Guest

    nobody wrote:
    > Hey,
    >
    > What are some common browsers and versions at the minimum that should be
    > tested for compatibility etc? And is there a good site that provides all
    > these browsers?


    delorie.com has a number of viewers that are avery convenient,
    including a Lynx viewer and abackward compatibility viewer, among
    other tools.

    I found this site because I had downloaded the Checky extension
    to Mozilla (also runs for Firebird and (IIRC) Opera). This extension
    has quick links to many tools that will help check your markup.

    --
    Cheers, m at http://www.mbstevens.com/
    m, Nov 18, 2003
    #9
  10. Whitecrest wrote:
    > In article <PBnub.169$>,
    > says...
    >
    >> Here are the rules used by the BBC for browser support & testing:
    >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/webdev/AppE.Browser_Support_Standards.htm
    >> I can't judge how good they are.

    >
    > interesting, their site does not follow their rules (or guidelines).
    > Of course it was a draft, and they did use the work "supposed to"
    > rather than "will".


    Chuckle! That has already been pointed out on uk.net.web.authoring ! They
    haven't even got a DOCTYPE, so they can't validate it.

    --
    Barry Pearson
    http://www.Barry.Pearson.name/photography/
    http://www.BirdsAndAnimals.info/
    http://www.ChildSupportAnalysis.co.uk/
    Barry Pearson, Nov 18, 2003
    #10
  11. Whitecrest wrote:
    > In article <bpd1j8$1jps72$-berlin.de>, say-no-to-
    > says...
    >
    >>>Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
    >>>sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
    >>>plain Jane unexciting_ stuff),

    >>
    >>You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
    >>years ago.

    >
    >
    > Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy.


    Sure, dishing out tag soup is a career, too!


    > So I think it is YOU that are out of touch trying to hold the Web back
    > because you don't understand the more complex things.


    LOL! I didn't know that Web Services, RSS etc. work best in a
    non-standard way.

    And perhaps you should also inform Wired, ESPN, Macromedia, ALA, CNET
    News etc. that their move to CSS laoyuts and structured HTML is holding
    the Web back - hell, in the case of ESPN and their half-assed attempts
    I'd even agree with you.


    Matthias
    Matthias Gutfeldt, Nov 18, 2003
    #11
  12. nobody

    Steve Pugh Guest

    "Barry Pearson" <> wrote:
    >Whitecrest wrote:
    >> In article <PBnub.169$>,
    >> says...
    >>
    >>> Here are the rules used by the BBC for browser support & testing:
    >>> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/webdev/AppE.Browser_Support_Standards.htm
    >>> I can't judge how good they are.

    >>
    >> interesting, their site does not follow their rules (or guidelines).
    >> Of course it was a draft, and they did use the work "supposed to"
    >> rather than "will".

    >
    >Chuckle! That has already been pointed out on uk.net.web.authoring ! They
    >haven't even got a DOCTYPE, so they can't validate it.


    Oh, the stories I could tell...
    .... but I can't thanks to an NDA.

    Steve

    --
    "My theories appal you, my heresies outrage you,
    I never answer letters and you don't like my tie." - The Doctor

    Steve Pugh <> <http://steve.pugh.net/>
    Steve Pugh, Nov 18, 2003
    #12
  13. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <4Xqub.386$>,
    says...
    > >> Here are the rules used by the BBC for browser support & testing:
    > >> http://www.bbc.co.uk/guidelines/webdev/AppE.Browser_Support_Standards.htm
    > >> I can't judge how good they are.

    > > interesting, their site does not follow their rules (or guidelines).
    > > Of course it was a draft, and they did use the work "supposed to"
    > > rather than "will".

    > Chuckle! That has already been pointed out on uk.net.web.authoring ! They
    > haven't even got a DOCTYPE, so they can't validate it.


    They point out on their site they don't follow their own rules?
    Interesting marketing concept....

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 18, 2003
    #13
  14. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <bpdek1$1ni0iu$-berlin.de>, say-no-to-
    says...
    > >>>Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
    > >>>sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
    > >>>plain Jane unexciting_ stuff),
    > >>You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
    > >>years ago.

    > > Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy..

    > Sure, dishing out tag soup is a career, too!


    I say, you say, bla bla bla, we have different ideas over how the web
    can be used. You think mine are wrong, I think yours are boring.

    The bottom line is I don't care what you think. (and lets be fair, you
    don't care what I think either) So we shall move ahead rather than
    rehashing old worn out chatter....

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 18, 2003
    #14
  15. Whitecrest wrote:

    > I say, you say, bla bla bla, we have different ideas over how the web
    > can be used. You think mine are wrong, I think yours are boring.


    We (I think, can't speak for anyone else) know how the web *can* be
    used, but we also know that many of the possible uses are a bad idea.
    Why not let everyone use your site when it's just as easy, and people
    without disabilities won't be hurt?
    Leif K-Brooks, Nov 18, 2003
    #15
  16. nobody

    Kevin Scholl Guest

    Whitecrest wrote:

    >>>Some feel you should not code to a browser(s) but should stick w3c
    >>>sanctioned code. Well this is fine and dandy for most simple (generic
    >>>plain Jane unexciting_ stuff),

    >>
    >>You're obviously out of touch. That cliché might have been valid three
    >>years ago.

    >
    >
    > Well that out of touch reality is keeping thousands or developers happy.
    > So I think it is YOU that are out of touch trying to hold the Web back
    > because you don't understand the more complex things.


    I could be wrong, but I think what he was saying is that W3C compliant
    code does not, as you seem to suggest, have to be plain-jane and unexciting.

    > Don't be afraid of the new stuff.



    --

    *** Remove the DELETE from my address to reply ***

    ======================================================
    Kevin Scholl http://www.ksscholl.com/

    ------------------------------------------------------
    Information Architecture, Web Design and Development
    ------------------------------------------------------
    We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of
    the dreams...
    ======================================================
    Kevin Scholl, Nov 18, 2003
    #16
  17. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <CCxub.1175$>,
    says...

    > > I say, you say, bla bla bla, we have different ideas over how the web
    > > can be used. You think mine are wrong, I think yours are boring.

    > We (I think, can't speak for anyone else) know how the web *can* be
    > used, but we also know that many of the possible uses are a bad idea.
    > Why not let everyone use your site when it's just as easy, and people
    > without disabilities won't be hurt?


    See the underlining thing is what you think is bad, I don't.

    What if I have something I want to present to people on the web. And
    there is no way I can present it in the manner that can be accessible to
    all. You seem to be saying that I should not be able to have such a
    site. I believe it is perfectly ok, and in some (the entire
    entertainment industry) cases desirable to have such a site.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 19, 2003
    #17
  18. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > I could be wrong, but I think what he was saying is that W3C compliant
    > code does not, as you seem to suggest, have to be plain-jane and unexciting.


    Show me one that isn't.

    Sadly, since what makes an exciting site is personal choice, you will
    not be able to show me such a site, because we obviously have different
    thoughts on what makes an exciting fun site. But please feel free to
    try, I would be interested in seeing what you or anyone else thinks is a
    good site.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 19, 2003
    #18
  19. nobody

    Eric Bohlman Guest

    Whitecrest <> wrote in
    news::

    > What if I have something I want to present to people on the web. And
    > there is no way I can present it in the manner that can be accessible to
    > all. You seem to be saying that I should not be able to have such a
    > site. I believe it is perfectly ok, and in some (the entire
    > entertainment industry) cases desirable to have such a site.


    You're making a straw-man argument. I have yet to hear anybody assert that
    content that by its inherent nature cannot be made accessible should not be
    on the Web. It's an unfortunate fact of life that certain kinds of content
    aren't accessible to everybody and never will be. But that is something
    quite different from taking content that *could* be accessible and making
    it inaccessible just to save a small amount of effort on your part.
    Eric Bohlman, Nov 19, 2003
    #19
  20. nobody

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <Xns9437D90C8CF3Febohlmanomsdevcom@130.133.1.4>,
    says...
    > > What if I have something I want to present to people on the web. And
    > > there is no way I can present it in the manner that can be accessible to
    > > all. You seem to be saying that I should not be able to have such a
    > > site. I believe it is perfectly ok, and in some (the entire
    > > entertainment industry) cases desirable to have such a site.

    > You're making a straw-man argument....


    The straw man argument is in itself a straw man argument.

    > I have yet to hear anybody assert that
    > content that by its inherent nature cannot be made accessible should not be
    > on the Web.


    Read the forum, you missed the threads.

    > It's an unfortunate fact of life that certain kinds of content
    > aren't accessible to everybody and never will be.


    Exactly what I am saying. But, not only certain kinds of content, but
    certain ways of presenting content will never be accessible. And it
    does not have to be accessible to everyone to be a good site.

    > quite different from taking content that *could* be accessible and making
    > it inaccessible just to save a small amount of effort on your part.


    I believe the level of accessibility is directly related to the content
    and presentation, because I believe presentation matters. Different
    things turn different people on. And a site can be very discriminating
    on it's viewers and still be successful. (See almost any entertainment
    web site)

    If you don't believe presentation matters, then there is no point in
    arguing anything beyond that point because everything else is moot, if
    we can not agree on a base line to start from.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, Nov 19, 2003
    #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. Ashish
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    558
    Eric Cadwell
    Nov 6, 2003
  2. Davo
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,930
  3. Zak

    bitstream compatibility

    Zak, Oct 21, 2003, in forum: VHDL
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    456
  4. Diego Figueroa

    Language compatibility

    Diego Figueroa, Oct 15, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    298
    Cowboy \(Gregory A. Beamer\)
    Oct 15, 2003
  5. charles

    ASP.Net Versions and Compatibility

    charles, Oct 30, 2003, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    381
    charles
    Oct 31, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page