Rant: One more browser to test

[nice.guy.nige]

While the city slept, Tim Streater ([email protected]) feverishly
typed...

[one browser? or many?]

Not Explorer then. I favour Safari.

I vote for Netscape 4.7 ;-)

Cheers,
Nige

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:57:23 GMT
Ben C scribed:

If there was only one browser but that had a clear published
specification that it implemented correctly that wouldn't be so bad. But
with only one browser around there's much less pressure on its vendor
either to publish such a specification or to stick to it. So web
development becomes a frustrating trial-and-error process of throwing
mud at the wall.

I think it still is much that way today, and for that I blame the w3c and
all their "optional" guidelines. However, the browsers impliment certain
things differently as well, not even counting the bugs.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 19:54:42 GMT
Bergamot scribed:

I don't care if there is one rendering engine or 10, as long as they all
give comparable results. Browser bugs can be a PITA sometimes, but
usually it's just IE crap that has to be dealt with differently.

As for only one browser choice, that would suck. People who actually
choose a browser don't usually do it just because of how it renders, but
for what other features it has. For example, I don't like IE, Firefox or
Netscape and cringe at the thought of being stuck with any of them.
Opera and Safari don't have anything special that I particularly want,
either, though I could tolerate them if I had to. On the other hand, I
do like Seamonkey and will happily use it until something better comes
along. Note that "better" is extremely subjective.

What great difference do you find between Seamonkey and Firefox which makes
you so like one and so dislike the other?

 

[Bergamot]

What great difference do you find between Seamonkey and Firefox which makes
you so like one and so dislike the other?

In mozilla's desire for a trimmer browser (Firefox), they got rid of
several features that I use frequently, moving them from quick access
via standard toolbars to either cumbersome/feature-poor (or excessive)
extensions, buried deep in some prefs window, or dropping them
altogether. Cookie manager and tab-level history, for instance.

And Firefox is too mouse-dependent. I find it very clumsy to use.
Seamonkey is just better for me. Firefox sux.

 

[Ben C]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 16:57:23 GMT
Ben C scribed:


I think it still is much that way today, and for that I blame the w3c and
all their "optional" guidelines.

Well, they're trying to steer a path between specifying what browsers
already do and trying to make some sense of it in order to guide the
evolution of the web without trying to change it overnight.

I think it's working. Most major sites seem to get revamped about every
6 months to 2 years, and in the last year or two, many more of them have
started working in Firefox as well as in IE. And the reason is not
Firefox's quirks mode (which is fortunately fairly cursory): if a page
works in Firefox it's quite likely to work OK in any theoretical browser
that implements the specs correctly and also to work OK in Opera and
Konqueror/Safari.

But the specs, although mostly not ambiguous, are rather complicated and
difficult to understand with the result that the browsers don't all get
them right and a lot of web developers don't really understand them
either so go back to doing what they're good at, which is throwing mud
at the wall.

Except for the smart ones of course who read alt.html where everything
is explained with absolute clarity.

 

[dorayme]

I disagree, I think a single browser would be best. And yes, it would
be the de-facto standard which I see as a good thing.

Now that is a mighty queer thing to say for a Republican. You
_must_ be disenchanted with Bush.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:06:21
GMT Ben C scribed:

Well, they're trying to steer a path between specifying what browsers
already do and trying to make some sense of it in order to guide the
evolution of the web without trying to change it overnight.

I think it's working. Most major sites seem to get revamped about
every 6 months to 2 years, and in the last year or two, many more of
them have started working in Firefox as well as in IE. And the reason
is not Firefox's quirks mode (which is fortunately fairly cursory): if
a page works in Firefox it's quite likely to work OK in any
theoretical browser that implements the specs correctly and also to
work OK in Opera and Konqueror/Safari.

But the specs, although mostly not ambiguous, are rather complicated
and difficult to understand with the result that the browsers don't
all get them right and a lot of web developers don't really understand
them either so go back to doing what they're good at, which is
throwing mud at the wall.

Except for the smart ones of course who read alt.html where everything
is explained with absolute clarity.

Yeah...

I admit some progress has been been, but I've also read many css specs
stating this or that is at the discretion of the particular useragent.
Rome may not have been built in a day but I do believe it benefitted from a
strongly-focus, not-too-ambiguous goal. I don't really disagree with you
overall but could wish the w3c was a little more "deterministic" in their
"proposals".

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Thu, 19 Jul 2007 21:03:16
GMT Bergamot scribed:

In mozilla's desire for a trimmer browser (Firefox), they got rid of
several features that I use frequently, moving them from quick access
via standard toolbars to either cumbersome/feature-poor (or excessive)
extensions, buried deep in some prefs window, or dropping them
altogether. Cookie manager and tab-level history, for instance.

Yeah, you're right there. I don't like that, either.

And Firefox is too mouse-dependent. I find it very clumsy to use.
Seamonkey is just better for me. Firefox sux.

Not quite sure I follow those complaints, but maybe I'll give Seamonkey
another try. I used to use it then just abandoned it when I got a new box
about 5-6 months ago since ff seemed caught up to snuff and more popular,
anyway. Still has some aggravatingly enduring bugs though (ff, that is.)

 

[El Kabong]

Quarterdeck?

Absolutely! In a vegetative state, I might've said Quarterback.

Thanks, Blinky.

El

 

[Blinky the Shark]

Absolutely! In a vegetative state, I might've said Quarterback.

I thought of "quarterback" when I was writing "Quarterdeck".

 

[Ed Mullen]

In mozilla's desire for a trimmer browser (Firefox), they got rid of
several features that I use frequently, moving them from quick access
via standard toolbars to either cumbersome/feature-poor (or excessive)
extensions, buried deep in some prefs window, or dropping them
altogether. Cookie manager and tab-level history, for instance.

And Firefox is too mouse-dependent. I find it very clumsy to use.
Seamonkey is just better for me. Firefox sux.

Very nicely said (from one SeaMonkey/Mozilla Suite lover to another).
No, it ain't perfect but I do like it much better. I started using its
predecessor (Netscape) back about 1995. Yes, I do have Firefox and
Thunderbird on my system for testing. No, neither of them measures up.
The only marginal way (for me) that they might excel is in the number
of extensions available for them. That will change as SM begins to
adopt more of the core code from FF and TB. The good thing is that the
SM team is doing that slowly, methodically and very carefully so as not
to break the application while embracing "progress." God bless them.

 

[Bergamot]

maybe I'll give Seamonkey another try.

2.0 has a ways to go before it's ready for prime time.

Try a recent 1.1.x nightly build. 1.1.2 has been working great for me
but I see they're up to 1.1.3 now. I'm downloading it now, myself.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/latest-mozilla1.8

 

[Bergamot]

The only marginal way (for me) that they might excel is in the number
of extensions available for them. That will change as SM begins to
adopt more of the core code from FF and TB.

There are instructions out there someplace on getting Fx extensions
working in Sm, but I haven't had the time to take a closer look. There
aren't that many I really want, anyway. Firebug would be one, though.

The good thing is that the
SM team is doing that slowly,

To me they're *painfully* slow about it.

methodically and very carefully so as not
to break the application while embracing "progress." God bless them.

Tis better to be careful about it, but 2.0 beta (alpha?) isn't near
ready yet. There are a couple serious bugs that are about a year old now
that make it pretty much unusable for me. It saddens me that follow up
isn't what it used to be.

 

[Neredbojias]

Well bust mah britches and call me cheeky, on Fri, 20 Jul 2007 01:06:43 GMT
Bergamot scribed:

2.0 has a ways to go before it's ready for prime time.

Try a recent 1.1.x nightly build. 1.1.2 has been working great for me
but I see they're up to 1.1.3 now. I'm downloading it now, myself.

ftp://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/seamonkey/nightly/latest-mozilla1.8

Got it. Will install and check it out. Right now ff is my main squeeze
but maybe that'll change again.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Not Explorer then. I favour Safari.

No arguments from me there...

 

[Travis Newbury]

There goes the incentive for innovation and improvement, and not just
where rendering is concerned. :-\

Where does the current group mantra of "Build a standards complient
website" fall in with your innovation and improvement concerns?

Maybe my developing in flash is really the early stages of an
innovative shift in web paradigm? It fills the innovation
requirements and there is a ton of both financial and social incentive
to head in that direction...

 

[Bergamot]

Where does the current group mantra of "Build a standards complient
website" fall in with your innovation and improvement concerns?

You snipped the part I wrote about browser choice being more than just
rendering.

Maybe my developing in flash is really the early stages of an
innovative shift in web paradigm?

Gawd, I hope not, at least not until the Flash usability and
accessibility problems are properly addressed.

*User-adjustable type size* is an absolute must before I'd call Flash
even remotely usable for anything other than eye candy or other
entertainments. I don't see that happening any time soon. Do you?

 

[Travis Newbury]

*User-adjustable type size* is an absolute must before I'd call Flash
even remotely usable for anything other than eye candy or other
entertainments. I don't see that happening any time soon. Do you?

Virtually all accessibility issues could be resolved by the makes of
the various browsers and readers. It is not just up to adobe, the
browsers/readers have a stake in this too if it is going to be done.

 

[Travis Newbury]

You snipped the part I wrote about browser choice being more than just
rendering.

No I didn't, it is right there:
"and not just where rendering is concerned."

I was just commenting on difference in innovation between the
developer using standards, and the browser rendering those same
standards.

 

[Travis Newbury]

Now that is a mighty queer thing to say for a Republican. You
_must_ be disenchanted with Bush.

Worse yet, I am pro-choice... Fred Thompson in "08"

<Political bullshit>
Actually what I believe will happen is Hillary will get elected and
between her and the democrat congress they will completely **** up the
country (and in part the world) with their socialistic "give away the
pie so you stay in power" mantra. Then in 2012 conservatives will
start their 20 or 30 year run to put things back together. (And
probably start building the New, New York after the current one is
ravaged by some dirty bomb the terrorists snuck into the country under
the liberals lax security)
<\Political bullshit>

Go hillary....