e.layerX problem on Macintosh browsers

Discussion in 'Javascript' started by Mathieu Maes, Oct 24, 2008.

  1. Mathieu Maes

    Mathieu Maes Guest

    I have developed a page with javascript which has a filmstrip look-
    alike bar and a slideshow:
    http://celtecbe.apache02.hostbasket.com/pdw/media.php?id=268

    It uses a "onmousemove" event, which controls the strip's scrolling
    according the mouse position.

    This strip seems to work just fine on IE 6, IE 7, Opera, Firefox and
    Safari for Windows. However, it's not working properly on Macintosh
    platform browsers (Tested on Safari and Firefox).

    I'm especially astonished that the OS platform is interfering with
    this, meaning that it works perfectly in FF on windows, but not on
    Mac.

    Since I don't own a macintosh, it's really difficult to solve this
    problem. Some help is greatly appreciated.



    Kind regards,
    Mathew
     
    Mathieu Maes, Oct 24, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mathieu Maes wrote:
    > I have developed a page with javascript which has a filmstrip look-
    > alike bar and a slideshow:


    There is no "javascript".

    > http://celtecbe.apache02.hostbasket.com/pdw/media.php?id=268
    >
    > It uses a "onmousemove" event, which controls the strip's scrolling
    > according the mouse position.


    That's a `mousemove' event; `onmousemove' is the name of this event's
    handler attribute.

    > This strip seems to work just fine on IE 6, IE 7, Opera, Firefox and
    > Safari for Windows. However, it's not working properly on Macintosh
    > platform browsers (Tested on Safari and Firefox).
    > [...]
    > Since I don't own a macintosh, it's really difficult to solve this
    > problem. Some help is greatly appreciated.


    Your markup is far from being Valid in the first place. Don't use XHTML if
    you don't know what you are doing.

    <http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://celtecbe.apache02.hostbasket.com/pdw/media.php?id=268&ss=1;verbose=1>


    HTH

    PointedEars
    --
    realism: HTML 4.01 Strict
    evangelism: XHTML 1.0 Strict
    madness: XHTML 1.1 as application/xhtml+xml
    -- Bjoern Hoehrmann
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 24, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mathieu Maes

    Mathieu Maes Guest

    > There is no "javascript".
    >


    > That's a `mousemove' event; `onmousemove' is the name of this event's
    > handler attribute.
    >


    >
    > Your markup is far from being Valid in the first place.  Don't use XHTML if
    > you don't know what you are doing.


    Thanks for those far from ontopic (but valid) remarks.
     
    Mathieu Maes, Oct 25, 2008
    #3
  4. Mathieu Maes wrote:
    >> There is no "javascript".
    >> [...]
    >> That's a `mousemove' event; `onmousemove' is the name of this event's
    >> handler attribute.
    >> [...]
    >> Your markup is far from being Valid in the first place. Don't use XHTML if
    >> you don't know what you are doing.

    >
    > Thanks for those far from ontopic (but valid) remarks.


    Those remarks are all very on-topic.

    1. You are dealing with several ECMAScript implementations which behavior
    differs from one another despite their similarities.

    2. There is a difference between event, event handler, and event listener.

    3. You cannot expect a DOM-related script to work properly from within or
    on invalid markup.

    Now either get yourself informed and learn to quote, or go away, please.


    PointedEars
    --
    var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
    ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 26, 2008
    #4
  5. Can't help re Mac, but you may find this useful. W3C has defined a
    nice, clean opacity treatment. Just set element.style.opacity to a
    value between 0 and 1.

    -------------------------------------------------

    // set the opacity for different browsers
    // Konqueror had, then lost, opacity capability
    function setOpacity( opacity, id ) {
    /* Stuff like this is vital to know and takes forever to ferret
    out.
    Thanks, brainerror. */

    if ( opacity < 0 ) opacity = 0;
    if ( opacity > 1 ) opacity = 1;

    object = document.getElementById( id )

    if ( object && object.style ) {
    var style_ = object.style;

    style_.opacity = opacity;// most modern browsers
    style_.MozOpacity = opacity; // original Mozilla
    style_.KhtmlOpacity = opacity; // older Konqueror, Safari
    style_.filter = "alpha(opacity=" + (100*opacity) + ")"; //
    guess who
    }

    } // end of setOpacity()
     
    Martin Rinehart, Oct 26, 2008
    #5
  6. Mathieu Maes

    David Mark Guest

    On Oct 24, 7:15 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    > I have developed a page with javascript which has a filmstrip look-
    > alike bar and a slideshow:http://celtecbe.apache02.hostbasket.com/pdw/media.php?id=268
    >
    > It uses a "onmousemove" event, which controls the strip's scrolling
    > according the mouse position.
    >
    > This strip seems to work just fine on IE 6, IE 7, Opera, Firefox and
    > Safari for Windows. However, it's not working properly on Macintosh
    > platform browsers (Tested on Safari and Firefox).
    >
    > I'm especially astonished that the OS platform is interfering with


    The OS platform is not interfering. You have done something wrong and
    it just happened to work in the five Windows browsers tested.

    > this, meaning that it works perfectly in FF on windows, but not on
    > Mac.


    You should elaborate on that.
     
    David Mark, Oct 27, 2008
    #6
  7. Mathieu Maes

    Mathieu Maes Guest

    I managed to implement a workaround in the previously given address.

    I used event.pageX instead of event.layerX. pageX seems to work just
    fine if I simply extract the left margin from the returned value.
    However, this is not a solution. I've been getting this
    "script" (whatever you wish to call it) to work on a centered page,
    where the pageX value can't be used for this purpose.

    An example:
    http://www.kalamu.be/nl/portfolio/bedrijfscommunicatie

    Anyone here who could help me find a workaround ? Since I don't own a
    mac (yes yes, boohoo, shame on me) it's very hard for me to do tests.

    Kind regards,
    Mathew
     
    Mathieu Maes, Oct 27, 2008
    #7
  8. In comp.lang.javascript message <>, Sun,
    26 Oct 2008 11:41:15, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    posted:
    >Mathieu Maes wrote:


    >Now either get yourself informed and learn to quote, or go away, please.


    Mathieu : Ignore the rudeness of the psychologically abnormal. He is
    not representative of the rest of us, with one obvious possible
    exception.

    --
    (c) John Stockton, Surrey, UK. ?@merlyn.demon.co.uk Turnpike v6.05 MIME.
    Web <URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
    Proper <= 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
    Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with ">" or "> " (SonOfRFC1036)
     
    Dr J R Stockton, Oct 27, 2008
    #8
  9. Mathieu Maes wrote:
    > I managed to implement a workaround in the previously given address.
    >
    > I used event.pageX instead of event.layerX. pageX seems to work just
    > fine if I simply extract the left margin from the returned value.


    No surprise here. The layer* properties originate from the (borken)
    Netscape 4 DOM, and are therefore deprecated nowadays.

    > However, this is not a solution. I've been getting this
    > "script" (whatever you wish to call it) to work on a centered page,
    > where the pageX value can't be used for this purpose.


    You can use the offset* properties with iteration/recursion to determine the
    left top coordinate of the target element relative to the viewport (like the
    page* properties). You will have to consider computed paddings, borders,
    and margins, in that order.

    > [...]
    > Anyone here who could help me find a workaround ? Since I don't own a
    > mac (yes yes, boohoo, shame on me) it's very hard for me to do tests.


    Not owning a Mac is not a problem (JFTR: I don't); not having access to one
    and doing Web development anyway is.

    However, I am still not convinced the chief cause of your problems is the
    different operating system.


    PointedEars
    --
    Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 27, 2008
    #9
  10. Mathieu Maes

    Mathieu Maes Guest


    > > I'm especially astonished that the OS platform is interfering with

    >
    > The OS platform is not interfering.  You have done something wrong and
    > it just happened to work in the five Windows browsers tested.
    >
    > > this, meaning that it works perfectly in FF on windows, but not on
    > > Mac.

    >
    > You should elaborate on that.


    The above script works fine on Firefox for windows, but not on Firefox
    for mac. I meant to say that strangely enough there's a difference in
    behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
    far as I know).


    I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made
    any difference ?
    http://celtecbe.apache02.hostbasket.com/pdw/media.php?id=289
     
    Mathieu Maes, Oct 28, 2008
    #10
  11. [attribution lines restored]

    Mathieu Maes wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    >> Mathieu Maes wrote:
    >>> I'm especially astonished that the OS platform is interfering with

    >> The OS platform is not interfering. You have done something wrong and
    >> it just happened to work in the five Windows browsers tested.
    >>
    >>> this, meaning that it works perfectly in FF on windows, but not on
    >>> Mac.

    >> You should elaborate on that.

    >
    > The above script works fine on Firefox for windows, but not on Firefox
    > for mac. I meant to say that strangely enough there's a difference in
    > behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as far
    > as I know).


    Possibility: Firefox version numbers differ.

    > I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made
    > any difference ?
    > http://celtecbe.apache02.hostbasket.com/pdw/media.php?id=289


    Works fine in Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US;
    rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092414 Firefox/3.0.3.


    Please read the FAQ Notes on how to quote properly:

    <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html>


    PointedEars
    --
    Prototype.js was written by people who don't know javascript for people
    who don't know javascript. People who don't know javascript are not
    the best source of advice on designing systems that use javascript.
    -- Richard Cornford, cljs, <f806at$ail$1$>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 28, 2008
    #11
  12. Mathieu Maes

    David Mark Guest

    On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    > > > I'm especially astonished that the OS platform is interfering with

    >
    > > The OS platform is not interfering.  You have done something wrong and
    > > it just happened to work in the five Windows browsers tested.

    >
    > > > this, meaning that it works perfectly in FF on windows, but not on
    > > > Mac.

    >
    > > You should elaborate on that.

    >
    > The above script works fine on Firefox for windows, but not on Firefox


    That is not an elaboration.

    > for mac. I meant to say that strangely enough there's a difference in


    What is the difference?

    > behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
    > far as I know).


    There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
    FF Mac has more bugs as well.

    >
    > I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made


    Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
    open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.
     
    David Mark, Oct 28, 2008
    #12
  13. David Mark wrote:
    > On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    >> behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
    >> far as I know).

    >
    > There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
    > FF Mac has more bugs as well.


    Care to elaborate on that?

    >> I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made

    >
    > Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
    > open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.


    To be fair, it was something similar to XHTML in the first place, so the
    emphasis would be on "valid" now, which is in itself a Good Thing.

    But yes, XHTML should not be used unless required, even though IE/MSHTML
    will only show that dialog (hmm, you got the general meaning now ;-)) if it
    is served as Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml and the like. (As for me,
    acceptable requirements for using XHTML and serving it as text/html anyway
    include XML-based server-side template engines.)


    PointedEars
    --
    Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
    (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
    will want to steal it.)
    -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 28, 2008
    #13
  14. Mathieu Maes

    David Mark Guest

    On Oct 28, 4:47 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    > > On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    > >> behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
    > >> far as I know).

    >
    > > There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
    > > FF Mac has more bugs as well.

    >
    > Care to elaborate on that?


    On bugs in FF Mac? Start with the rendering woes. Scrollbars can
    bleed through absolutely positioned elements for one. Flash movies
    have similar problems. Clearly the Windows version is a higher
    priority for them (or they just can't code a Mac application.)

    >
    > >> I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made

    >
    > > Why?  Are you serving it as XHTML?  If so, you do know that IE will
    > > open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.

    >
    > To be fair, it was something similar to XHTML in the first place, so the


    That doesn't make it right. Whenever I see this on the Web, I take it
    as a sign that the developers' only proficiency is using the
    clipboard.

    > emphasis would be on "valid" now, which is in itself a Good Thing.


    Valid XHTML that will ultimately be error corrected to HTML is
    useless.

    >
    > But yes, XHTML should not be used unless required, even though IE/MSHTML
    > will only show that dialog (hmm, you got the general meaning now ;-)) if it


    You are such a pinhead.
     
    David Mark, Oct 28, 2008
    #14
  15. David Mark wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> David Mark wrote:
    >>> On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    >>>> behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
    >>>> far as I know).
    >>> There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
    >>> FF Mac has more bugs as well.

    >> Care to elaborate on that?

    >
    > On bugs in FF Mac? Start with the rendering woes. Scrollbars can
    > bleed through absolutely positioned elements for one. Flash movies
    > have similar problems. [...]


    Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.

    >>>> I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made
    >>> Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
    >>> open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.

    >> To be fair, it was something similar to XHTML in the first place, so the

    >
    > That doesn't make it right. Whenever I see this on the Web, I take it
    > as a sign that the developers' only proficiency is using the
    > clipboard.


    Do you understand what "To be fair, ... But yes, ..." means? I guess
    anybody else did.

    >> emphasis would be on "valid" now, which is in itself a Good Thing.

    >
    > Valid XHTML that will ultimately be error corrected to HTML is
    > useless.


    That depends. And you don't know how it is being served in this case to
    begin with.

    >> But yes, XHTML should not be used unless required, even though IE/MSHTML
    >> will only show that dialog (hmm, you got the general meaning now ;-)) if it

    >
    > You are such a pinhead.


    Your smiley detector is borken.


    PointedEars
    --
    var bugRiddenCrashPronePieceOfJunk = (
    navigator.userAgent.indexOf('MSIE 5') != -1
    && navigator.userAgent.indexOf('Mac') != -1
    ) // Plone, register_function.js:16
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 29, 2008
    #15
  16. Mathieu Maes

    David Mark Guest

    On Oct 28, 9:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <>
    wrote:
    > David Mark wrote:
    > > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > >> David Mark wrote:
    > >>> On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    > >>>> behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
    > >>>> far as I know).
    > >>> There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
    > >>> FF Mac has more bugs as well.
    > >> Care to elaborate on that?

    >
    > > On bugs in FF Mac?  Start with the rendering woes.  Scrollbars can
    > > bleed through absolutely positioned elements for one.  Flash movies
    > > have similar problems.  [...]

    >
    > Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.


    Other than those sorts of things, apps cross over to Mac pretty well
    in FF. I spent years without a Mac and now that I have one, I am
    pleased to see that most of my stuff runs perfectly on FF Mac, as well
    as Safari. I will never buy a PC again, that is for sure. I hate
    that guy.

    >
    > >>>> I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made
    > >>> Why?  Are you serving it as XHTML?  If so, you do know that IE will
    > >>> open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.
    > >> To be fair, it was something similar to XHTML in the first place, so the

    >
    > > That doesn't make it right.  Whenever I see this on the Web, I take it
    > > as a sign that the developers' only proficiency is using the
    > > clipboard.

    >
    > Do you understand what "To be fair, ...  But yes, ..." means?  I guess
    > anybody else did.


    Yes, yes, yes.

    >
    > >> emphasis would be on "valid" now, which is in itself a Good Thing.

    >
    > > Valid XHTML that will ultimately be error corrected to HTML is
    > > useless.

    >
    > That depends.  And you don't know how it is being served in this case to
    > begin with.


    LOL. Would you care to place a wager on it?

    >
    > >> But yes, XHTML should not be used unless required, even though IE/MSHTML
    > >> will only show that dialog (hmm, you got the general meaning now ;-)) if it

    >
    > > You are such a pinhead.

    >
    > Your smiley detector is borken.


    Are you incapable of expressing yourself in prose? :(

    And BTW, you reversed yourself on the whole "user action" argument
    here. Leave it alone.
     
    David Mark, Oct 29, 2008
    #16
  17. Mathieu Maes

    Mathieu Maes Guest

    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > You can use the offset* properties with iteration/recursion to determine the
    > left top coordinate of the target element relative to the viewport (like the
    > page* properties). You will have to consider computed paddings, borders,
    > and margins, in that order.


    I've seen a library reconstructing the screen* properties using the
    offset* properties. Having to process all the relevant properties as
    mentioned seems to be rather a lot of code for a relatively simple
    goal. If no alternatives exist, I'll probably look into this method
    though...

    > Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
    > open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.


    Why not use it ? It seems to work just fine to me.
    I won't go into detail about this, but in my experience I found it to
    be much easier to work with. Maybe I just like my work to be more
    "stricter and cleaner" ?

    Can you provide any relevant documentation that supports your
    arguments ?

    > Works fine in Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US;
    > rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092414 Firefox/3.0.3.


    Good to hear. I've got my hands on a MiniMac for now, and I can
    confirm it works in FF 3.0.3. Still no luck with Safari (version
    3.1.2) though.

    > Please read the FAQ Notes on how to quote properly:
    > <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html>


    Read it, don't know what I'm doing wrong... using Google Groups.
     
    Mathieu Maes, Oct 29, 2008
    #17
  18. Mathieu Maes

    David Mark Guest

    On Oct 29, 10:57 am, Mathieu Maes <> wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    > > You can use the offset* properties with iteration/recursion to determine the
    > > left top coordinate of the target element relative to the viewport (like the
    > > page* properties).  You will have to consider computed paddings, borders,
    > > and margins, in that order.

    >
    > I've seen a library reconstructing the screen* properties using the
    > offset* properties. Having to process all the relevant properties as
    > mentioned seems to be rather a lot of code for a relatively simple
    > goal. If no alternatives exist, I'll probably look into this method
    > though...
    >
    > > Why?  Are you serving it as XHTML?  If so, you do know that IE will
    > > open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.

    >
    > Why not use it ? It seems to work just fine to me.


    That is because you are serving it as text/html. In other words, it
    is not treated as XHTML by any known browser, so for virtually all
    intents and purposes, you are not using XHTML.

    > I won't go into detail about this, but in my experience I found it to
    > be much easier to work with. Maybe I just like my work to be more
    > "stricter and cleaner" ?


    No need to go into detail about your experiences with XHTML when you
    are not using it. The idea that your work is "stricter and cleaner"
    because you use a markup language that has to be error corrected by
    every browser is ridiculous.

    >
    > Can you provide any relevant documentation that supports your
    > arguments ?


    Try searching the group for "XHTML" and "useless." Google can likely
    help as well. For one, most scripts written for an HTML DOM will not
    work when presented with an XHTML DOM. In other words, your design
    has an identity crisis.

    >
    > > Works fine in Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US;
    > > rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092414 Firefox/3.0.3.

    >
    > Good to hear. I've got my hands on a MiniMac for now, and I can
    > confirm it works in FF 3.0.3. Still no luck with Safari (version
    > 3.1.2) though.
    >
    > > Please read the FAQ Notes on how to quote properly:
    > > <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html>

    >
    > Read it, don't know what I'm doing wrong... using Google Groups.


    At least you admit it. Now figure out what you are doing.
     
    David Mark, Oct 29, 2008
    #18
  19. Mathieu Maes wrote:
    > Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
    >> Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
    >> open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.


    I did not write that.

    > Why not use it ? It seems to work just fine to me.


    Yes, it only seems to be so.

    > I won't go into detail about this, but in my experience I found it to
    > be much easier to work with. Maybe I just like my work to be more
    > "stricter and cleaner" ?


    Or maybe you just didn't know what you are doing (as if that wasn't obvious
    since you had no Valid markup in the first place) because yours is a classic
    wannabe's argument. Serving XHTML 1.0 as text/html is not stricter or
    cleaner in any sense in the end than serving Valid HTML 4.01 in the first
    place. There are benefits in doing the former on the Web, but they are
    certainly not located client-side.

    > Can you provide any relevant documentation that supports your
    > arguments ?


    I, among others, have done that repeatedly already. STFW.

    >> Works fine in Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X 10.4; en-US;
    >> rv:1.9.0.3) Gecko/2008092414 Firefox/3.0.3.

    >
    > Good to hear. I've got my hands on a MiniMac for now, and I can
    > confirm it works in FF 3.0.3. Still no luck with Safari (version
    > 3.1.2) though.


    I can test it tomorrow.

    >> Please read the FAQ Notes on how to quote properly:
    >> <http://jibbering.com/faq/faq_notes/clj_posts.html>

    >
    > Read it, don't know what I'm doing wrong... using Google Groups.


    Looks like at least partially you do know because you did not repeat the
    mistake of removing the attribution here. You should read it again to find
    out the rest; sorry, this just isn't Usenet 101.


    PointedEars
    --
    Use any version of Microsoft Frontpage to create your site.
    (This won't prevent people from viewing your source, but no one
    will want to steal it.)
    -- from <http://www.vortex-webdesign.com/help/hidesource.htm>
     
    Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn, Oct 29, 2008
    #19
    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. Bob Skutnick
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    575
  2. Max Metral
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    1,276
    =?Utf-8?B?YnR5bGVyOTc=?=
    Feb 9, 2005
  3. =?Utf-8?B?U2FjaGEgVmlldXgtUm95?=

    Is CrystalReport Compatible with browsers on the Macintosh

    =?Utf-8?B?U2FjaGEgVmlldXgtUm95?=, Jun 9, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    384
    =?Utf-8?B?U2FjaGEgVmlldXgtUm95?=
    Jun 9, 2005
  4. Vinu
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    513
    Steve W. Jackson
    Dec 15, 2004
  5. El Kabong

    Browsers, browsers! Quo vadis?

    El Kabong, May 11, 2007, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    942
    dorayme
    May 13, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page