taking away my redhat/win2k dual boot boxes? Giving me the choice between XP and mac <= 9.0?
Mar 15, 2002, 1:37 PM
New User (3 posts)
Mar 15, 2002, 1:37 PM
Post #51 of 54
Views: 7505
Mar 16, 2002, 6:02 AM
Enthusiast (885 posts)
Mar 16, 2002, 6:02 AM
Post #53 of 54
Views: 7788
Quote:
Jeepers, good luck! Mozilla is definitily worth a look, though. Some real hard work gone into that and it looks rock solid. I've been following it for the last few months since .9.6 and it looks great.Have they fixed the problems with rendering DHTML?
Scrollbars (sliding back/forth) are a known bug in NN6x that may or may not get fixed in time for Mozilla 1.0/ Netscape 6.5. It happens because the content that is invisible (clipped) extends offscreen right, and NN6 has some really bad bugs with clipping and overflow.
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=104593
http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21762
Lag time on displaying layer content/movement is more than just a nuisance. The lapse is quite noticeable.
Mar 16, 2002, 9:25 PM
Veteran (3034 posts)
Mar 16, 2002, 9:25 PM
Post #54 of 54
Views: 7106
Just thought I would put in my two cents here.
People talk about different browsers and having to code for specific browsers. It has always been the rule to code and validate your pages according to an HTML standard and identify that within the DOCTYPE.
When you validate your coding it should be according to an HTML standard and not according to what browser it will be viewed in. Thus your coding should work in all browsers.
When you use things such as javascript and things not necessary HTML than you should provide alternative pages for those that do not wish to enable javascript for example.
I agree that the web is a mess and full of very bad coding due to many of the wysiwyg editors, but also because people don't validate their coding according to any standard.
W3 validation has become a bad source for validating coding over the past couple of years, because it's doesn't catch some basic errors. And many other online validation programs are not correct in their validation either.
If you want an accurate and inexpensive validation program I highly suggest HTML power tools by tali.com. It is a very accurate set of validation tools. And you can validate according to the standard you wish to code with.
It's very easy to make your site viewable in all browsers is you just stick to HTML standards. And use the good ole KISS method (keep it simple stupid) :)
Unoffical DBMan FAQ
http://creativecomputingweb.com/dbman/index.shtml/
People talk about different browsers and having to code for specific browsers. It has always been the rule to code and validate your pages according to an HTML standard and identify that within the DOCTYPE.
When you validate your coding it should be according to an HTML standard and not according to what browser it will be viewed in. Thus your coding should work in all browsers.
When you use things such as javascript and things not necessary HTML than you should provide alternative pages for those that do not wish to enable javascript for example.
I agree that the web is a mess and full of very bad coding due to many of the wysiwyg editors, but also because people don't validate their coding according to any standard.
W3 validation has become a bad source for validating coding over the past couple of years, because it's doesn't catch some basic errors. And many other online validation programs are not correct in their validation either.
If you want an accurate and inexpensive validation program I highly suggest HTML power tools by tali.com. It is a very accurate set of validation tools. And you can validate according to the standard you wish to code with.
It's very easy to make your site viewable in all browsers is you just stick to HTML standards. And use the good ole KISS method (keep it simple stupid) :)
Unoffical DBMan FAQ
http://creativecomputingweb.com/dbman/index.shtml/