Re: where can i get IE for os x?

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Bruce Grubb, Apr 25, 2006.

  1. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article
    > > <>,
    > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > In article <>,
    > > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > In article
    > > > > <>,
    > > > > dorayme <> wrote:
    > > > >
    > > > > > In article <QUf1g.8657$>,
    > > > > > Phil Wheeler <> wrote:
    > > > > >

    > (I snipped so much I have lost the quote count...)
    >
    > > > dorayme wrote:

    >
    > > > You are still missing the point. You need to get the point before
    > > > your hello bit can be effective. I will repeat the point:
    > > >
    > > > Most people use IE in spite of it not being the best.

    > >
    > > Irrelevant and questionable at best. Also the trends suggest that IE is on
    > > the decline with Gecko-Based Browsers taking the lion's share of the 11%
    > > marketshare IE has lost.

    >
    > How can this be irrelevant to the question of a website maker
    > wanting to ensure that the majority of his viewers have as best
    > an experience as they can in IE.


    If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems. We are having
    this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
    for??" thread.

    Some relevant points from that thread:

    ----

    In article <>,
    "Andy Dingley" <> wrote:

    Bill wrote:
    > Here's the kicker, should I be designing the default page for IE 6 or
    > something else?


    Just don't do that at all. Design for the standard, not for this week's
    fashionable browser bugs. There's one standard, it's objective.
    Browser bugs always outnumber you, you'll never get on top of them.

    ----

    In article <e2ar2u$kjb$1$>,
    David Dorward <> wrote:

    The general concensus (and my experience) seems to be that it is easier to
    write for Firefox (or possibly Opera, Safari or Konqueror) then make
    adjustments to deal with other browsers.

    ---

    The main thing to remember about HTML is it is not about look and layout
    NEVER has been NEVER will be. It is about identifying the parts of a
    document; ie what is a list, what is a header, what is a link, so on and so
    forth.


    > I think I have your measure now,
    > Bruce, you will reply with something irrelevant like that no one
    > can have a good experience with IE.


    IE was the browser I used on the Mac for years because Netscape 2.0
    corrupted the b-tree like crazy and Netscape 3.0+ were bloated
    monstrosities. I also so used ICab to see if the web site was using poor
    HTML.


    > You will keep on missing the
    > point about the wiseness of a website maker to minimise the
    > damage.


    WHAT YOU THINK THE STANDARD IS FOR???? SHEESH.

    > > > In fact, IE is very naughty about standards.

    > >
    > > Actually I have yet to see any real example of a truly HTML 4.01 compliant
    > > (and not just something that can 'trick' a validator) page that does
    > > something totally idiotic under IE.

    >
    > Willing to put up some money in some escrow account for a bet on
    > this?


    Back in the "who uses virtual pc for testing webpages" thread in alt.html
    and comp.infosystems.www.authoring some years back the only examples
    people could provide fell into several categories:

    1) Browser detection crap (javascript, java, etc)

    2) Minor display hiccups (HTML is NOT a page layout format people)

    3) NONstandard (ie broswer specific) garbage like conditional comments.

    4) Purposely constructed scripts designed to cause problems.

    In short the ONLY examples anyone at that time could come up with was
    nonstandard crap.

    > > > But most good website makers
    > > > want folk to see their sites and so need to find out how their
    > > > sites behave in IE so that they can put in counter measures.

    > >
    > > Write to the standard, end of problem.

    >
    > It is not the end of the problem.


    Yes it is. It only by using nonstandard stuff, trying to use HTML in a way
    it was NEVER designed for, or not doing KISS that you get into trouble.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Grubb <> wrote:

    > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.


    This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    ever see this after what has been said.

    >We are having
    > this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
    > for??" thread.
    >


    You seem quite confused. This is alt.html.

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    > > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >
    > This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    > ever see this after what has been said.
    >
    > >We are having
    > > this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
    > > for??" thread.
    > >

    >
    > You seem quite confused. This is alt.html.


    No! Now I am confused! I made a mistake. You are posting all over
    the show, even to alt.html. Would you please stop confusing me?
    Why don't you do a bit of trimming to cater for poor ordinary
    folk like me.

    My remarks are still true about IE. You are confusing the order
    in which a website maker should do things. The discussion at
    alt.html is mainly about that. You seem to take the absurd
    position that all one needs to worry about is The Standards (W3C
    presumably).

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 25, 2006
    #3
  4. Bruce Grubb

    Dave Hinz Guest

    On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:38:11 +1000, dorayme <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    >> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.


    > This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    > ever see this after what has been said.


    Here, let me try. IE can render standard HTML adequately. Other
    browsers also will render standard HTML adequately. If you code to the
    specific rendering errors that IE has, you will be writing broken HTML
    which will be broken on any browser that isn't broken.

    You have to go out of your way to limit your audience to IE. Why not do
    it the easy way, which also gives you the most portability?
     
    Dave Hinz, Apr 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >
    > > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >
    > This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    > ever see this after what has been said.
    >
    > >We are having
    > > this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
    > > for??" thread.
    > >

    >
    > You seem quite confused. This is alt.html.


    I just added that to the newgroup list Oh Wise one. SHEESH.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 25, 2006
    #5
  6. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 15:38:11 +1000, dorayme <>
    > wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >
    > > This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    > > ever see this after what has been said.

    >
    > Here, let me try. IE can render standard HTML adequately. Other
    > browsers also will render standard HTML adequately. If you code to the
    > specific rendering errors that IE has, you will be writing broken HTML
    > which will be broken on any browser that isn't broken.
    >
    > You have to go out of your way to limit your audience to IE. Why not do
    > it the easy way, which also gives you the most portability?


    Exactly the point. And besides you have to be doing some really obscure
    stuff for IE to have serious problems. Going for the standard is the way
    to go because as previous articles have pointed out HTMLing for version
    x.0.1 of browser y can have problems if x.0.2 fixes the bug you just HTMLed
    to.

    The only sane thing is to HTML to the standard and keep away from as much
    'gee wizardry' as you can and go KISS. While the
    <http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html> page shows some fun
    bugs in IE you have to ask yourself 'In *realistic* web page design how
    often will I really run into this?' Well if you are going KISS very little.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 25, 2006
    #6
  7. Bruce Grubb

    Dave Hinz Guest

    On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:43:06 -0600, Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    >
    >> Here, let me try. IE can render standard HTML adequately. Other
    >> browsers also will render standard HTML adequately. If you code to the
    >> specific rendering errors that IE has, you will be writing broken HTML
    >> which will be broken on any browser that isn't broken.


    > Exactly the point. And besides you have to be doing some really obscure
    > stuff for IE to have serious problems. Going for the standard is the way
    > to go because as previous articles have pointed out HTMLing for version
    > x.0.1 of browser y can have problems if x.0.2 fixes the bug you just HTMLed
    > to.


    Exactly. Long ago, people learned that you don't break the good part to
    fit the bad, you fix the bad one to work with the good one. Applies in
    mechanical assemblies as much as it applies to electronic
    communications.

    > The only sane thing is to HTML to the standard and keep away from as much
    > 'gee wizardry' as you can and go KISS. While the
    ><http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html> page shows some fun
    > bugs in IE


    Heh. I wonder if Microsoft pays attention to that page. They should.
    Talk about someone doing your homework for you and handing you a
    repeatable testable problem statement.
     
    Dave Hinz, Apr 25, 2006
    #7
  8. Bruce Grubb

    Neredbojias Guest

    To further the education of mankind, Bruce Grubb <>
    vouchsafed:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    >> In article <>,
    >> Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    >>
    >> > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >>
    >> This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    >> ever see this after what has been said.
    >>
    >> >We are having
    >> > this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
    >> > for??" thread.
    >> >

    >>
    >> You seem quite confused. This is alt.html.

    >
    > I just added that to the newgroup list Oh Wise one. SHEESH.


    Haha, she thinks she's a Martian, too!

    --
    Neredbojias
    Infinity has its limits.
     
    Neredbojias, Apr 25, 2006
    #8
  9. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:43:06 -0600, Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > > In article <>,
    > > Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> Here, let me try. IE can render standard HTML adequately. Other
    > >> browsers also will render standard HTML adequately. If you code to the
    > >> specific rendering errors that IE has, you will be writing broken HTML
    > >> which will be broken on any browser that isn't broken.

    >
    > > Exactly the point. And besides you have to be doing some really obscure
    > > stuff for IE to have serious problems. Going for the standard is the way
    > > to go because as previous articles have pointed out HTMLing for version
    > > x.0.1 of browser y can have problems if x.0.2 fixes the bug you just HTMLed
    > > to.

    >
    > Exactly. Long ago, people learned that you don't break the good part to
    > fit the bad, you fix the bad one to work with the good one. Applies in
    > mechanical assemblies as much as it applies to electronic
    > communications.
    >
    > > The only sane thing is to HTML to the standard and keep away from as much
    > > 'gee wizardry' as you can and go KISS. While the
    > ><http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html> page shows some fun
    > > bugs in IE

    >
    > Heh. I wonder if Microsoft pays attention to that page. They should.
    > Talk about someone doing your homework for you and handing you a
    > repeatable testable problem statement.


    Mac users use to have this joke:

    Q: How many Microsoft programers does it take to change a light bulb?

    A: None. They declare darkness the new standard.

    (which explains why most Windows users and programmers have been in the
    dark for the last 15 years :))

    This quote from December 29, 2005 article
    <http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/browsers_aacehieihi_gd/>
    about the end of IE for the MacOS suma up the problems:

    "We haven't innovated in the browser for almost a decade." (Dare Obsasanjo:

    A Jan 2006 article

    <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060102-5880.html> was just as
    critical. More over it shows that for some PC FoxFire NOT IE will be the
    default browser.

    Worse yet a full 2 months before that Firefox had 14 percent market share
    in the US and was rapid at the 1/5 market share in Canada. In Japan IE is
    at 70% and dropping like a stone.

    Face it unless you are totally blind (or *believe* darkness IS the new
    standard) writing to IE is just plain stupid.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 25, 2006
    #9
  10. Bruce Grubb

    Mimic Guest

    Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >
    > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.


    hehehe, so naive

    --
    Mimic

    "I'd rather reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven".

    [email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
    Help Stop Spam - www.hidemyemail.net

    "I have come to realise that, only in death, will I find true perfection."
     
    Mimic, Apr 25, 2006
    #10
  11. Bruce Grubb

    Dave Hinz Guest

    On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:13:44 +0100, Mimic <> wrote:
    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >>
    >> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >
    > hehehe, so naive


    Perhaps, but still, you don't break a good part so it fits a bad part.
     
    Dave Hinz, Apr 25, 2006
    #11
  12. Bruce Grubb

    Paul Watt Guest

    "Bruce Grubb" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    >
    >> On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 11:43:06 -0600, Bruce Grubb <>
    >> wrote:
    >> > In article <>,
    >> > Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> Here, let me try. IE can render standard HTML adequately. Other
    >> >> browsers also will render standard HTML adequately. If you code to
    >> >> the
    >> >> specific rendering errors that IE has, you will be writing broken HTML
    >> >> which will be broken on any browser that isn't broken.

    >>
    >> > Exactly the point. And besides you have to be doing some really
    >> > obscure
    >> > stuff for IE to have serious problems. Going for the standard is the
    >> > way
    >> > to go because as previous articles have pointed out HTMLing for version
    >> > x.0.1 of browser y can have problems if x.0.2 fixes the bug you just
    >> > HTMLed
    >> > to.

    >>
    >> Exactly. Long ago, people learned that you don't break the good part to
    >> fit the bad, you fix the bad one to work with the good one. Applies in
    >> mechanical assemblies as much as it applies to electronic
    >> communications.
    >>
    >> > The only sane thing is to HTML to the standard and keep away from as
    >> > much
    >> > 'gee wizardry' as you can and go KISS. While the
    >> ><http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html> page shows some fun
    >> > bugs in IE

    >>
    >> Heh. I wonder if Microsoft pays attention to that page. They should.
    >> Talk about someone doing your homework for you and handing you a
    >> repeatable testable problem statement.

    >
    > Mac users use to have this joke:
    >
    > Q: How many Microsoft programers does it take to change a light bulb?
    >
    > A: None. They declare darkness the new standard.
    >
    > (which explains why most Windows users and programmers have been in the
    > dark for the last 15 years :))
    >
    > This quote from December 29, 2005 article
    > <http://www.emailbattles.com/archive/battles/browsers_aacehieihi_gd/>
    > about the end of IE for the MacOS suma up the problems:
    >
    > "We haven't innovated in the browser for almost a decade." (Dare
    > Obsasanjo:
    >
    > A Jan 2006 article
    >
    > <http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060102-5880.html> was just as
    > critical. More over it shows that for some PC FoxFire NOT IE will be the
    > default browser.
    >
    > Worse yet a full 2 months before that Firefox had 14 percent market share
    > in the US and was rapid at the 1/5 market share in Canada. In Japan IE is
    > at 70% and dropping like a stone.
    >
    > Face it unless you are totally blind (or *believe* darkness IS the new
    > standard) writing to IE is just plain stupid.


    Write for standards, hack for IE. best of both worlds
     
    Paul Watt, Apr 25, 2006
    #12
  13. Bruce Grubb

    Mimic Guest

    Dave Hinz wrote:
    > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:13:44 +0100, Mimic <> wrote:
    >> Bruce Grubb wrote:
    >>> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >> hehehe, so naive

    >
    > Perhaps, but still, you don't break a good part so it fits a bad part.
    >


    that wasnt the point

    --
    Mimic

    "I'd rather reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven".

    [email: ZGF0YWZsZXhAY2FubmFiaXNtYWlsLmNvbQ==]
    Help Stop Spam - www.hidemyemail.net

    "I have come to realise that, only in death, will I find true perfection."
     
    Mimic, Apr 26, 2006
    #13
  14. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Dave Hinz <> wrote:

    > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:13:44 +0100, Mimic <> wrote:
    > > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > >>
    > >> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    > >
    > > hehehe, so naive

    >
    > Perhaps, but still, you don't break a good part so it fits a bad part.


    Would you and Bruce Grubb please refrain from offering these
    simple-minded nostrums?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 26, 2006
    #14
  15. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>, Mimic <> wrote:

    > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > >
    > > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    >
    > hehehe, so naive


    It not a question of being naive but the fact the standard is there for a
    reason. If IE is doing something stupid with standard HTML then Microsoft
    should be called on the carpet for it.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #15
  16. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article <>,
    > Dave Hinz <> wrote:
    >
    > > On Tue, 25 Apr 2006 22:13:44 +0100, Mimic <> wrote:
    > > > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > > >>
    > > >> If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.
    > > >
    > > > hehehe, so naive

    > >
    > > Perhaps, but still, you don't break a good part so it fits a bad part.

    >
    > Would you and Bruce Grubb please refrain from offering these
    > simple-minded nostrums?


    But the solution to HTML problems IS simple. Write to the standard and
    KISS.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #16
  17. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article <>,
    "Paul Watt" <> wrote:

    > "Bruce Grubb" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > Face it unless you are totally blind (or *believe* darkness IS the new
    > > standard) writing to IE is just plain stupid.

    >
    > Write for standards, hack for IE. best of both worlds


    If you have to 'hack' the HTML to get IE to behave correctly then odds are
    you are not writing to the standard.

    It is better to write to the standards and KISS.

    The biggest problem IMHO is the fact too many people use WYSIWYG web
    designing programs or word processors which barf out HTML guacamole. The
    fact something like Amaya exist shows that you can write a program that
    produces compliant HTML.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #17
  18. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Grubb <> wrote:

    > In article <>, Mimic <> wrote:
    >
    > > Bruce Grubb wrote:
    > > >
    > > > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    > >
    > > hehehe, so naive

    >
    > It not a question of being naive but the fact the standard is there for a
    > reason. If IE is doing something stupid with standard HTML then Microsoft
    > should be called on the carpet for it.


    There is something wrong Bruce with your attention to this
    matter. No one is disputing that IE has bad faults. Or that it
    would be nice for someone to carpet MS (you really are an
    innocent through and through!)

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 26, 2006
    #18
  19. Bruce Grubb

    Bruce Grubb Guest

    In article
    <>,
    dorayme <> wrote:

    > In article
    > <>,
    > dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <>,
    > > Bruce Grubb <> wrote:
    > >
    > > > If you write to the standard then IE should have no problems.

    > >
    > > This is, once again, not correct. I do not know that you will
    > > ever see this after what has been said.
    > >
    > > >We are having
    > > > this same little talk over at alt.html in the "Which browser to write
    > > > for??" thread.
    > > >

    > >
    > > You seem quite confused. This is alt.html.

    >
    > No! Now I am confused!


    Seems you get confused easily.

    > My remarks are still true about IE. You are confusing the order
    > in which a website maker should do things. The discussion at
    > alt.html is mainly about that. You seem to take the absurd
    > position that all one needs to worry about is The Standards (W3C
    > presumably).


    Ideally that is all someone should worry about because HTMLing to bugs is
    always going to give you grief. HTML to the standard will in the long run
    have far less problems.
     
    Bruce Grubb, Apr 26, 2006
    #19
  20. Bruce Grubb

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Bruce Grubb <> wrote:

    > > Would you and Bruce Grubb please refrain from offering these
    > > simple-minded nostrums?

    >
    > But the solution to HTML problems IS simple. Write to the standard and
    > KISS.


    Do you think that repeating this unargued idea will make it true?

    --
    dorayme
     
    dorayme, Apr 26, 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. craig dicker
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    377
    Peter Rilling
    Jul 10, 2005
  2. Sammy
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    1,210
    Richard Tobin
    May 6, 2005
  3. John Dalberg
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    787
  4. Guy
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    190
    Dr John Stockton
    Dec 5, 2003
  5. TheBelangerFamily
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    120
    TheBelangerFamily
    Mar 21, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page