IE 5.6 XHTML/CSS2.0

[Bernhard Sturm]

Hi group
This question is not directly related to a HTML issues, but covers UA
compatibility.
I have a user using IE 5.6, and she is complaining about sites that are
not rendered perfectly on her browser. I could hardly find information
about IE5.6. Does anybody here know if it was a beta version to IE6.0
(think it was included in Whistler (beta of WinME), and just for beta
testing only?

One site in question is: http://mri.scnatweb.ch (it's not XHTML valid!)

Cheers
Bernhard

 

[Toby Inkster]

I have a user using IE 5.6

There never was a 5.6.

On Windows there was 5.0, 5.01, 5.02, 5.5 and 6.0. On Mac, the highest
version number is 5.23 IIRC. And as I remember, Microsoft gave up on the
shoddy UNIX versions of Internet Explorer at around 5.0.

 

[Andy Dingley]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Bernhard Sturm

I have a user using IE 5.6, and she is complaining about sites that are
not rendered perfectly on her browser.

Why do you care ? Is she "your user" or is it "your site" ? Either
way I'm inclined to simply tell her that her browser is broken and
it's pretty much up to her to fix it.

What's wrong with the rendering anyway ? Terminal or cosmetic ?
Something based on 5.5 is likely to be a bit rough on CSS anyway - box
model screwup ?

I'd take a look at the site with IE 5.5, try and make it "workable"
for "most" 5.5 users, then tell her the rest is her problem and that
if she wants to use dodgy M$oft versions (&deity; forbid that they're
running under WinME), then she'll be needing a long spoon.

I could hardly find information about IE5.6.

Wouldn't be the first time that M$oft's beta programs or MSDN have let
"non-existent" version numbers out into the wild. I was running "NT 5"
for some time that looked just the same as NT 4, but had the DCOM
upgrades that went into 2000 -- yet such a thing "never existed" (I
got it legitimately through MSDN, when I upgraded SQL Server).

One site in question is: http://mri.scnatweb.ch (it's not XHTML valid!)

What happens if you fix the validity ? Looks like it's not much more
than ampersand encoding in URLs - shouldn't take much to do. You could
even take a static copy, fix it, and have her try it with her browser.
Although I doubt if this simple and very common validity nit-pick is
really going to hurt rendering.

 

[Oli Filth]

Bernhard Sturm wrote:




There never was a 5.6.

According to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/winprog/winprog/using_the_windows_headers.asp
there was...

 

[Luigi Donatello Asero]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Bernhard Sturm


Why do you care ? Is she "your user" or is it "your site" ? Either
way I'm inclined to simply tell her that her browser is broken and
it's pretty much up to her to fix it.

May-be she meant that when she resized the window a lot she could not see
the whole page without scrolling the page horizontally
That´s the problem which I have now with the page
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/de/ferienwohnungen-italien.html
tested with IE 6.0.
Of course it depends on how much I want to resize it.
I can resize it to a certain extent without having any problems.
By contrast I can resize the page
https://www.scaiecat-spa-gigi.com/sv/boendeiitalien.php
to a larger extent still seeing the whole page.

 

[dorayme]

Organization: Newsfeeds.com http://www.newsfeeds.com 100,000+ UNCENSORED
Newsgroups.
Newsgroups: alt.html
Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2005 09:58:34 +0100
Subject: IE 5.6 XHTML/CSS2.0


Hi group
This question is not directly related to a HTML issues, but covers UA
compatibility.
I have a user using IE 5.6, and she is complaining about sites that are
not rendered perfectly on her browser. I could hardly find information
about IE5.6. Does anybody here know if it was a beta version to IE6.0
(think it was included in Whistler (beta of WinME), and just for beta
testing only?

One site in question is: http://mri.scnatweb.ch (it's not XHTML valid!)

Cheers
Bernhard

might be referring to IE 5.1.6 (a mac version IE that I use)? Though a quick
glance at the mentioned site on mine, it works fine... ?

dorayme

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

might be referring to IE 5.1.6 (a mac version IE that I use)? Though a quick
glance at the mentioned site on mine, it works fine... ?

thanks a lot. that could be the case. She didn't mention the OS she is
using. I know that there was a 5.6 version of IE (even a 5.7), but they
were all released as 'preview' betas for IE 6.0, so I do not bother too
much about it ;-)

thanks a lot for taking your time to test it under mac.

bernhard

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

On Windows there was 5.0, 5.01, 5.02, 5.5 and 6.0. On Mac, the highest
version number is 5.23 IIRC. And as I remember, Microsoft gave up on the
shoddy UNIX versions of Internet Explorer at around 5.0.

there was a IE5.6 and a IE5.7 as well. but AFAIK they came together with
a beta release of whistler (WinME). So nothing to be taken serious.

but thanks anyway for your comments.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

Why do you care ? Is she "your user" or is it "your site" ? Either
way I'm inclined to simply tell her that her browser is broken and
it's pretty much up to her to fix it.

It's a site we designed, and she is on the customer side. So I had to
take it seriously. But I agree completely with you, just couldn't tell
her in that way ;-)

I'd take a look at the site with IE 5.5, try and make it "workable"
for "most" 5.5 users, then tell her the rest is her problem and that
if she wants to use dodgy M$oft versions (&deity; forbid that they're
running under WinME), then she'll be needing a long spoon.

Yes the site was actually tested with IE5.5, and no major flaws were
found (I don't consider a broken box-model to be a major flaw as long
content is accessible). I have told her, that she has to upgrade
(sidegrade) to firefox, if she wants to get rid of the annoyances she
encounters with her 'IE5.6'.

What happens if you fix the validity ? Looks like it's not much more
than ampersand encoding in URLs - shouldn't take much to do. You could
even take a static copy, fix it, and have her try it with her browser.
Although I doubt if this simple and very common validity nit-pick is
really going to hurt rendering.

you are right. I could do this. But I doubt it's worth the extra mile.
The & problems are related to the CMS I am using (mambo), and this
is still quite an issue to get solved (there are many
components/modules/bots not using the & entity for URL parameters...)

thanks for your comments
bernhard

 

[Andy Dingley]

According to
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/winprog/winprog/using_the_windows_headers.asp
there was...

The Black Helicopters will be over your house shortly.

 

[Bernhard Sturm]

It was somewhere outside Barstow when Oli Filth <[email protected]>
wrote:




The Black Helicopters will be over your house shortly.

why is that? ;-)
because we know something others don't know? huuu.. and we have detected
a leak within microsofts own website, which proofs that they were indeed
trying to spread alien browser versions?