page to show that IE sux

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Rafal 'Raf256' Maj, May 14, 2004.

  1. Hi,
    is there some good page that shos how IE sux - i.e. examples of

    1) :hover
    2) .png with transprency
    3) bugs in CSS box model

    etc... ?


    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    GG-1175498 ____| ]____,
    Rafal 'Raf256' Maj X-( * )
    Rafal(at)Raf256(dot)com ,"----------"
    Rafal 'Raf256' Maj, May 14, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <> wrote:
    > is there some good page that shos how IE sux


    No, monkey ... =)

    IE is actually a pretty good browser - I use it, and Firefox.

    What people mean when they say that IE sux is that their proprietary
    image formats or tags or multimedia work differently in IE than in their
    other browsers. That may not be a problem with IE's functioning.

    For example, is anyone really mourning the loss of NN4?

    The key to the browser wars is keeping your pages standards-compliant
    with a liquid design. If browser quirkiness kills your page, maybe the
    page needs soem work ...

    The Doormouse

    --
    The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
    The Doormouse, May 14, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. news:Xns94E94F498ED69doormouseattnet@68.12.19.6

    > What people mean when they say that IE sux is that their proprietary
    > image formats or tags or multimedia work differently in IE than in their
    > other browsers. That may not be a problem with IE's functioning.
    >


    Not exacly, as I write before - IE is not compilant with CSS, and with
    other official, wide-used standards as PNG.

    --
    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~l-.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
    GG-1175498 ____| ]____,
    Rafal 'Raf256' Maj X-( * )
    Rafal(at)Raf256(dot)com ,"----------"
    Rafal 'Raf256' Maj, May 14, 2004
    #3
  4. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    SpaceGirl Guest

    "The Doormouse" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94E94F498ED69doormouseattnet@68.12.19.6...
    > "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <> wrote:
    > > is there some good page that shos how IE sux

    >
    > No, monkey ... =)
    >
    > IE is actually a pretty good browser - I use it, and Firefox.
    >
    > What people mean when they say that IE sux is that their proprietary
    > image formats or tags or multimedia work differently in IE than in their
    > other browsers. That may not be a problem with IE's functioning.
    >
    > For example, is anyone really mourning the loss of NN4?
    >
    > The key to the browser wars is keeping your pages standards-compliant
    > with a liquid design. If browser quirkiness kills your page, maybe the
    > page needs soem work ...
    >
    > The Doormouse
    >
    > --
    > The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.


    IE also doesn't render XHTML. Or rather, it renders XHTML as if it were
    HTML. It also totally trashes correctly written XML, so you have to write
    fixes specifically to get it to work in IE. All other modern browsers quite
    happily handle XHTML and XML without any messing around... seems to me that
    Netscape (at least, Mozilla) and IE have swapped places. Mozilla is a *far*
    superior browser as far as standards are concerned.
    SpaceGirl, May 14, 2004
    #4
  5. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "SpaceGirl" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > > For example, is anyone really mourning the loss of NN4?


    Sadly, some still use NN4: 1.1% at my site.

    > IE also doesn't render XHTML. Or rather, it renders XHTML as if it were

    HTML.

    Which for me is good enough.

    > seems to me that Netscape (at least, Mozilla) and IE have swapped places.

    Mozilla is a *far*
    > superior browser as far as standards are concerned.


    Further fundamental IE improvements ended with the appearance of IE6, and
    since the replacement for IE6 is not expected till sometime in 2006, the
    Opera, Gecko, and KHTML browsers will continue to extend their lead for
    several more years. Also, Microsoft's stated position is that it will only
    support standards better if their customers demand it, and most customers
    don't notice IE's deficiencies ... unless they have switched, in case they
    are no longer Microsoft's customers.

    There are some things that IE does do better: e.g., Mozilla chokes on
    page-break-before:always; , but IE6 handles it well.
    C A Upsdell, May 14, 2004
    #5
  6. "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <> wrote:

    > Not exacly, as I write before - IE is not compilant with CSS, and with
    > other official, wide-used standards as PNG.


    IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not (nor
    will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.

    I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.

    The Doormouse

    --
    The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
    The Doormouse, May 15, 2004
    #6
  7. The Doormouse <> wrote:

    > IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not
    > (nor will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.
    >
    > I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.


    The CSS quirks that IE has do not affect my implementations to date. This
    does not mean that the differences are not very serious. It does mean
    that the 800-pound browser gorilla has my complete attention should I be
    forced to choose.

    I can afford to, and will, ignore PNG.

    (C'mon Firefox! Make me a believer!!)

    The Doormouse

    --
    The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
    The Doormouse, May 15, 2004
    #7
  8. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    Nik Coughin Guest

    The Doormouse wrote:
    > "Rafal 'Raf256' Maj" <> wrote:
    >
    >> Not exacly, as I write before - IE is not compilant with CSS, and
    >> with other official, wide-used standards as PNG.

    >
    > IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not
    > (nor will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.
    >
    > I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.
    >
    > The Doormouse


    I think you'd be surprised at how widely-used PNG actually is. Also, PNG
    would be *much* more widely-used if properly supported by IE. PNG allows
    transparency (including alpha-transparency, not currently supported by IE at
    all except through the use of a proprietary filter) with true color images
    and also supports the saving of true color images in a lossless format --
    one which allows for considerably smaller images than that of a JPEG saved
    in lossless format. 256 color PNG files are more often than not smaller
    than the same file saved as a GIF.
    Nik Coughin, May 15, 2004
    #8
  9. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <Xns94E9DDAB9CDF6doormouseattnet@68.12.19.6>,
    says...
    > (C'mon Firefox! Make me a believer!!)


    <poof!> You are a beaver!

    Oh believer.... never mind....


    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, May 15, 2004
    #9
  10. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    Whitecrest Guest

    In article <vhhpc.5417$>, nrkn!no-spam!
    @woosh.co.nz says...
    > I think you'd be surprised at how widely-used PNG actually is. Also, PNG
    > would be *much* more widely-used if properly supported by IE.


    Woulda, shoulda, coulda doesn't change the facts though.

    --
    Whitecrest Entertainment
    www.whitecrestent.com
    Whitecrest, May 15, 2004
    #10
  11. Toby A Inkster, May 15, 2004
    #11
  12. Whitecrest <> wrote:
    > <poof!> You are a beaver!


    =D

    The Doormouse

    --
    The Doormouse cannot be reached by e-mail without her permission.
    The Doormouse, May 15, 2004
    #12
  13. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    C A Upsdell Guest

    "The Doormouse" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns94E9DDAB9CDF6doormouseattnet@68.12.19.6...
    > The Doormouse <> wrote:
    >
    > > IE works just fine with the level of CSS that I use. Also, PNG is not
    > > (nor will ever be) a widely-used graphical standard.
    > >
    > > I forgot that PNG even existed until you mentioned it.

    >
    > The CSS quirks that IE has do not affect my implementations to date. This
    > does not mean that the differences are not very serious. It does mean
    > that the 800-pound browser gorilla has my complete attention should I be
    > forced to choose.
    >
    > I can afford to, and will, ignore PNG.


    Why? In most cases you can use PNG instead of GIF and create smaller image
    files, and therefore faster load times: and there is no browser
    compatibility problem in these cases.
    C A Upsdell, May 15, 2004
    #13
  14. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    Adrienne Guest

    Gazing into my crystal ball I observed Toby A Inkster
    <> writing in news:pan.2004.05.15.10.16.02.612536
    @goddamn.co.uk:

    > Rafal 'Raf256' Maj wrote:
    >
    >> is there some good page that shos how IE sux - i.e. examples of
    >>
    >> 1) :hover
    >> 2) .png with transprency 3) bugs in CSS box model

    >
    > Seems no-one's answered your original question yet...
    > http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
    >


    Also http://www.literarymoose.info/=/css.xhtml

    --
    Adrienne Boswell
    Please respond to the group so others can share
    http://www.arbpen.com
    Adrienne, May 15, 2004
    #14
  15. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    Neal Guest

    On Sat, 15 May 2004 15:57:09 GMT, C A Upsdell
    <cupsdell0311XXX@-@> wrote:

    > In most cases you can use PNG instead of GIF and create smaller image
    > files, and therefore faster load times: and there is no browser
    > compatibility problem in these cases.


    In most cases, you can.

    Me, I bought a computer which contained, free of any obvious extra charge,
    a simple graphics program which creates gifs but not pngs. If the average
    user can locate a free png creator, there's a greater likelihood it will
    catch on. When I look at my cache in Opera, I find maybe 1-2% of images
    are png. I cannot accept that it is "catching on" - that will only happen
    if the format is made as familiar to the public as gif has been.
    Neal, May 15, 2004
    #15
  16. Rafal 'Raf256' Maj

    MoonJihad Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    [snip]
    > Seems no-one's answered your original question yet...
    > http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html


    Funny how I used the exact same trick this morning :)

    http://moonjihad.lns.kicks-ass.net/temp-shit/mjpn/index.xhtml

    Change xhtml to html if you want to see it with IE. It uses PNG-24 and
    the background-attachment trick, as well as selectors which are not
    supported by IE(div#content > h2:first-child, for example). It also uses
    the CSS3 opacity property and :hover on non-link elements, none of which
    are supported by any version of IE.

    This doesn't really show that IE sucks but mostly that it's old :
    http://blogs.lns.kicks-ass.net/moonjihad/dynamic/agecheck.pl

    -MoonJihad
    MoonJihad, May 16, 2004
    #16
  17. Neal wrote:

    > Me, I bought a computer which contained, free of any obvious extra
    > charge, a simple graphics program which creates gifs but not pngs. If
    > the average user can locate a free png creator, there's a greater
    > likelihood it will catch on.


    the Gimp is a free image manipulation package with features on par with
    Paint Shop Pro. it is available on Windows and most flavors of Unix.

    libpng is a free, open-source implementation of the PNG format. any
    program that incorporates that library (which i think is under the LGPL)
    has the capability of reading and writing PNG images.

    PHP, the popular server-side language can be linked against libGD, which
    uses libpng. it also links to ImageMagick, which also supports PNG
    images. both libraries can be used to generate PNG images on the fly.

    Macromedia's Fireworks (part of their very popular web development
    studio and available independently) uses PNG as its native file format
    and supports the export of web PNG images. (its native file format uses
    extensions to PNG that do not change decoded images, but are much larger
    to store the additional image editing data that the software needs to
    keep track of, such as histories, snapshots, etc.)

    PNG itslef is a royalty-free, patent-free, open standard that anyone is
    perfectly free to develop software for. there is a lot of free and
    non-free software that i'm not aware of. open-source, proprietary,
    whatever. Photoshop has supported PNG images for quite some time.

    Internet Explorer's decoder is the only implementation i know of that
    doesn't support PNG alpha channels in its latest release. all other
    decoders and encoders i've seen and used support the PNG file format in
    its entirety.

    --
    -- Charles Banas
    Charles Banas, May 16, 2004
    #17
    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. Matt

    TO show or NOT to show

    Matt, May 2, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    368
  2. Disco Octopus

    to show image or to show flash

    Disco Octopus, May 13, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    2,399
    Toby A Inkster
    May 14, 2004
  3. David Dorward

    Re: page to show that IE sux

    David Dorward, May 14, 2004, in forum: HTML
    Replies:
    23
    Views:
    829
    Whitecrest
    May 17, 2004
  4. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    565
    Evertjan.
    Sep 30, 2005
  5. Replies:
    1
    Views:
    162
    Evertjan.
    Sep 30, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page