|
Home > Archive > IIS ASP > April 2006 > ASP.NET 2.0 Login Control not working on Apple Mac OS X Version 10
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
ASP.NET 2.0 Login Control not working on Apple Mac OS X Version 10
|
|
| Atul Chaturvedi 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| If we use ASP.NET 2.0 Login Control, we are unable to click on Login and
Reset Buttons on Safari running on Apple Mac OS X Version 10.3.2 .
How can i resolve the problem.
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
|
"Atul Chaturvedi" <Atul Chaturvedi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
message news:206B4177-533A-4409-BCC7-070F83C8735E@microsoft.com...
> If we use ASP.NET 2.0 Login Control, we are unable to click on Login and
> Reset Buttons on Safari running on Apple Mac OS X Version 10.3.2 .
> How can i resolve the problem.
Wait for it... Wait for it.... ;P
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
|
Anthony Jones wrote:
> "Atul Chaturvedi" <Atul Chaturvedi@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in
> message news:206B4177-533A-4409-BCC7-070F83C8735E@microsoft.com...
>
> Wait for it... Wait for it.... ;P
Wait for what?
--
Mike (This newsgroup is for classic asp. Dotnet is a different
technology. Try posting your question in
microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet) Brind
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
|
"Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1144422189.995424.254720@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
>
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Wait for what?
>
This:-
>Mike (This newsgroup is for classic asp. Dotnet is a different
> technology. Try posting your question in
> microsoft.public.dotnet.framework.aspnet) Brind
>
Although I was expecting Bob to beat you to it.
| |
|
|
"Anthony Jones" <Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote in message
news:udBFkxlWGHA.324@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1144422189.995424.254720@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> and
>
> This:-
>
>
> Although I was expecting Bob to beat you to it.
what is Safari, is that Mac's web server?
If so, how bad is it?
>
>
>
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| Slim wrote:
> what is Safari, is that Mac's web server?
It's a web browser.
> If so, how bad is it?
Better than IE6.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
|
|
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:uHwC4CmWGHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
> Slim wrote:
>
> It's a web browser.
>
>
>
> Better than IE6.
dont beieve it,
they said that about Netscape. Konquer
Netscape 6 and 7 and Fire fox,
But IE still leads the market
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
> Use of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| On Sat, 8 Apr 2006 00:41:10 +0800, "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote:
in <etQSsImWGHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
>
>"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
>news:uHwC4CmWGHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
>dont beieve it,
>
>they said that about Netscape. Konquer
>Netscape 6 and 7 and Fire fox,
>
>But IE still leads the market
Maybe in saturation but certainly not when you consider other factors
such as standards compliance, security, and footprint.
---
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights.
Stefan Berglund
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| Slim wrote:
>
> dont beieve it,
>
> they said that about Netscape. Konquer
> netscape 6 and 7 and Fire fox,
>
> But IE still leads the market
A lot of people eat at McDonald's, too. What's your point?
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
| Tim Slattery 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote:
>they said that about Netscape. Konquer
>Netscape 6 and 7 and Fire fox,
>
>But IE still leads the market
Because of inertia. Firefox is better.
--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(DTS)
Slattery_T@bls.gov
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
|
Slim wrote:
> "Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:uHwC4CmWGHA.3760@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
>
> dont beieve it,
>
> they said that about Netscape. Konquer
> netscape 6 and 7 and Fire fox,
>
> But IE still leads the market
The only thing worse than IE6 is IE5.
--
Mike Brind
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
|
"Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
news:bghd325aok39r5ngm2pdmpm838cpu3foe3@
4ax.com...
> "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> Because of inertia. Firefox is better.
>
> --
> Tim Slattery
> MS MVP(DTS)
> Slattery_T@bls.gov
Firefox is better in the same way that a screwdriver is better than a
hammer. It all depends on what you want to do.
Firefox is making progress simply because it isn't IE.
How many general websites has anyone here visited that screws up because the
developer the other end hadn't taken IE into account? Compare that with the
number of websites that don't quite work right in firefox because the
developer assumed IE.
From the consumers point of view Firefox is only better then IE because it
is cool to use Firefox. If you want to make sure you can get things done IE
is a better choice.
Now what about the massive intranet use of web technologies (IMO an absolute
catastrophe for the UI that has held us back for an entire decade). Which
browser do you choose for the desktop?
I would like to choose Firefox cos it's cool but IE allows considerably
greater flexibility in UI design, has IMO a better event model, gives a
larger (ableit non-standard) set of methods and properties on the DOM and
(not to be underestimated) has good documentation. Firefox documentation is
still very embryonic and that for me is a major flaw. (Just try going the
the Mozilla or firefox home page and navigating to the DOM documentation)
I like where Firefox is going but it isn't quite there yet and I'm afraid
but the time it gets there IE 7 will steal it's thunder and I suspect won't
play ball with the standards we'd all like to.
In what scenario's is Firefox better than IE? I'm sure there must be some.
I've seen this before ... hmm... oh yes OS/2 was better than Windows 3.1 ;)
now where did I leave my zimmer frame?
Anthony.
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 21:40:29 +0100, "Anthony Jones"
<Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote:
in <uunaDOoWGHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
>How many general websites has anyone here visited that screws up because the
>developer the other end hadn't taken IE into account? Compare that with the
>number of websites that don't quite work right in firefox because the
>developer assumed IE.
Don't know and don't care because I don't consider IE a factor any
longer. If you do then that would be you choice as it is mine. My site
is averaging 1-1.5 million pages served/month and I no longer concern
myself with the standards ignornant IE. I could care less and so could
my clients.
>From the consumers point of view Firefox is only better then IE because it
>is cool to use Firefox. If you want to make sure you can get things done IE
>is a better choice.
Ha ha ha. How naive you seem to be for a professional!
>Now what about the massive intranet use of web technologies (IMO an absolute
>catastrophe for the UI that has held us back for an entire decade). Which
>browser do you choose for the desktop?
Anything but a browser that ignores standards. And eventually I'll
convince the world before m$ will. :-)
>I would like to choose Firefox cos it's cool but IE allows considerably
>greater flexibility in UI design, has IMO a better event model, gives a
>larger (ableit non-standard) set of methods and properties on the DOM and
>(not to be underestimated) has good documentation. Firefox documentation is
>still very embryonic and that for me is a major flaw. (Just try going the
>the Mozilla or firefox home page and navigating to the DOM documentation)
>
>I like where Firefox is going but it isn't quite there yet and I'm afraid
>but the time it gets there IE 7 will steal it's thunder and I suspect won't
>play ball with the standards we'd all like to.
Not likely! Not here. Maybe for all your naive idiots but never for
sophisticated users.
>In what scenario's is Firefox better than IE? I'm sure there must be some.
I can't think of a single reason for using that antiquated piece of
c**p. Please!
>I've seen this before ... hmm... oh yes OS/2 was better than Windows 3.1 ;)
>now where did I leave my zimmer frame?
And this argument has what to do with standards compliance?
>Anthony.
So sorry.
---
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights.
Stefan Berglund
| |
| Bob Lehmann 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| > A lot of people eat at McDonald's, too. What's your point?
I think he's trying to say that IE makes you fat, and smell bad. :> )
Bob Lehmann
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:eA2tuHnWGHA.2080@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Slim wrote:
>
> A lot of people eat at McDonald's, too. What's your point?
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
Use
> of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
>
| |
| Bob Lehmann 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| Wow! What a steaming pile of doo that response that was!
Bob Lehmann
"Anthony Jones" <Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote in message
news:uunaDOoWGHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Tim Slattery" <Slattery_T@bls.gov> wrote in message
> news:bghd325aok39r5ngm2pdmpm838cpu3foe3@
4ax.com...
>
>
> Firefox is better in the same way that a screwdriver is better than a
> hammer. It all depends on what you want to do.
>
> Firefox is making progress simply because it isn't IE.
>
> How many general websites has anyone here visited that screws up because
the
> developer the other end hadn't taken IE into account? Compare that with
the
> number of websites that don't quite work right in firefox because the
> developer assumed IE.
>
> From the consumers point of view Firefox is only better then IE because it
> is cool to use Firefox. If you want to make sure you can get things done
IE
> is a better choice.
>
> Now what about the massive intranet use of web technologies (IMO an
absolute
> catastrophe for the UI that has held us back for an entire decade). Which
> browser do you choose for the desktop?
>
> I would like to choose Firefox cos it's cool but IE allows considerably
> greater flexibility in UI design, has IMO a better event model, gives a
> larger (ableit non-standard) set of methods and properties on the DOM and
> (not to be underestimated) has good documentation. Firefox documentation
is
> still very embryonic and that for me is a major flaw. (Just try going the
> the Mozilla or firefox home page and navigating to the DOM documentation)
>
> I like where Firefox is going but it isn't quite there yet and I'm afraid
> but the time it gets there IE 7 will steal it's thunder and I suspect
won't
> play ball with the standards we'd all like to.
>
> In what scenario's is Firefox better than IE? I'm sure there must be
some.
>
> I've seen this before ... hmm... oh yes OS/2 was better than Windows 3.1
;)
> now where did I leave my zimmer frame?
>
> Anthony.
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.koolaid@for.me> wrote in message
news:9h0e32pllcpfj001ffp7f7c9f6b0ja5f23@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 21:40:29 +0100, "Anthony Jones"
> <Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote:
> in <uunaDOoWGHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
>
When IE came on the market, netscape had a monology, and web sites were
designed to be viewed on Netscape, still IE was able to overcome all this
and become the market leader.
there will always be a small group of people that wont us it for ideological
reasons
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Don't know and don't care because I don't consider IE a factor any
> longer. If you do then that would be you choice as it is mine. My site
> is averaging 1-1.5 million pages served/month and I no longer concern
> myself with the standards ignornant IE. I could care less and so could
> my clients.
>
>
> Ha ha ha. How naive you seem to be for a professional!
>
>
> Anything but a browser that ignores standards. And eventually I'll
> convince the world before m$ will. :-)
>
>
> Not likely! Not here. Maybe for all your naive idiots but never for
> sophisticated users.
>
>
> I can't think of a single reason for using that antiquated piece of
> c**p. Please!
>
>
> And this argument has what to do with standards compliance?
>
>
>
> So sorry.
>
> ---
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no
> conferred rights.
>
> Stefan Berglund
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
|
"Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.koolaid@for.me> wrote in message
news:9h0e32pllcpfj001ffp7f7c9f6b0ja5f23@
4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 Apr 2006 21:40:29 +0100, "Anthony Jones"
> <Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote:
> in <uunaDOoWGHA.1900@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl>
>
the[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Don't know and don't care because I don't consider IE a factor any
> longer. If you do then that would be you choice as it is mine. My site
> is averaging 1-1.5 million pages served/month and I no longer concern
> myself with the standards ignornant IE. I could care less and so could
> my clients.
>
Excellent! I'm really pleased for you and your clients. I honestly wish
the rest of the world will follow your and their example.
it[vbcol=seagreen]
IE[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Ha ha ha. How naive you seem to be for a professional!
>
Care to elaborate. This is after all a place for the naive to come and
learn. So please edify me? I what way is this naive?
absolute[vbcol=seagreen]
Which[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Anything but a browser that ignores standards. And eventually I'll
> convince the world before m$ will. :-)
Uh, good luck with that. Quite a task to take on by yourself.
>
is[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
won't[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Not likely! Not here. Maybe for all your naive idiots but never for
> sophisticated users.
>
What's not likely?
What's the definition of a 'sophistiicated' user?
some.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I can't think of a single reason for using that antiquated piece of
> c**p. Please!
>
;)[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> And this argument has what to do with standards compliance?
>
It's relevant because back then there were similar conversations that went
along the lines of:-
A: In what scenario's is Windows better than OS/2? I'm sure there must be
some
S: can't think of a single reason for using that antiquated piece of c**p.
Please!
>
>
> So sorry.
>
> ---
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no
conferred rights.
>
> Stefan Berglund
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:erkAT0qWGHA.4324@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Wow! What a steaming pile of doo that response that was!
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
Oh really?? Got any specific comments of your own or are you just jumping
on Stefan's bandwagon?
| |
| Bob Lehmann 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| I thought my comment *was* specific.
Since everything you had to say was pretty much just pulled out of your XXX,
I believe all the bases are covered.
Unless, of course, you can to point us to the source of all your insight.
Like this gem -
it is cool to use Firefox.
Or this -[vbcol=seagreen]
Bob Lehmann
"Anthony Jones" <Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote in message
news:OnNUqLwWGHA.3972@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
> news:erkAT0qWGHA.4324@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> Oh really?? Got any specific comments of your own or are you just jumping
> on Stefan's bandwagon?
>
>
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| Anthony Jones wrote:
> Firefox is making progress simply because it isn't IE.
This makes no sense at all. What do you mean by "progress"? Market
acceptance? Feature adoption?
> From the consumers point of view Firefox is only better then
> IE because it is cool to use Firefox. If you want to make sure
> you can get things done IE is a better choice.
I'll be sure to use that line the next time I have to cleanse someone's
system of malware/adware installed because they made the mistake of browsing
with IE while internet novices.
> Firefox documentation is still very embryonic and that for
> me is a major flaw. (Just try going the the Mozilla or
> firefox home page and navigating to the DOM documentation)
OK. Let's see how hard that is.
1. Go to http://www.mozilla.com/
2. Click on top menu link: Developers
3. Read second sentence, which reads: "If you’re a Web developer,
check out the Mozilla Developer Center...", and follow the link
4. Click on DOM link
Yeah. That was tough.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| "Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:uiM2DHzWGHA.3864@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> I thought my comment *was* specific.
>
> Since everything you had to say was pretty much just pulled out of your
XXX,
> I believe all the bases are covered.
>
> Unless, of course, you can to point us to the source of all your insight.
>
Perhaps you are right, my opinion may be just the foolish ramblings of
grumpy old man.
> Like this gem -
> it is cool to use Firefox.
I see your point, that is a quite cynical. Dave points to good reason why
the consumer might switch to Firefox. That said do you think Firefox is
just cooler than IE? Why do many people who say the prefer a Mac end up
buying a PC?
> Or this -
>
Yep that isn't really true as is either. However, implementing drag and
drop for example is more difficult in Firefox than in IE.
I guess much of my frustration stems from the difficulty in discovering what
FF can do.
IMO (I know that doesn't seem to count for much) a tool is only as good as
it's documentation.
FF needs a single point of documentation that matches this from MSDN in
terms navigability, level of detail and examples:-
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/...rence_entry.asp
> Bob Lehmann
>
>
> "Anthony Jones" <Ant@yadayadayada.com> wrote in message
> news:OnNUqLwWGHA.3972@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
jumping[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-11, 9:52 am |
| "Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:123fqemc2t1c65@corp.supernews.com...
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>
> This makes no sense at all. What do you mean by "progress"? Market
> acceptance? Feature adoption?
>
Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant acceptance.
>
>
>
> I'll be sure to use that line the next time I have to cleanse someone's
> system of malware/adware installed because they made the mistake of
browsing
> with IE while internet novices.
>
I don't see that happening a lot. However, it is a good reason to use
Firefox since this sort of thing is less likely with Firefox. Is that
because Firefox is just more secure or because it is attacked less? Are
other browsers less secure than Firefox or are they more secure for the same
reason (that is, they are not IE)?
I have seen people trying to use sites (mainly niche and intranets) that
depend on things that only IE does. OTH I don't see much of the reverse.
Rights or wrongs of this doesn't matter the user just wants it to work.
>
>
>
> OK. Let's see how hard that is.
>
> 1. Go to http://www.mozilla.com/
> 2. Click on top menu link: Developers
> 3. Read second sentence, which reads: "If you’re a Web developer,
> check out the Mozilla Developer Center...", and follow the link
> 4. Click on DOM link
>
> Yeah. That was tough.
>
Ok lets say I'm interested in what Firefox can and can't do. In particular I
need to learn about manipulating the DOM etc as well its HTML and CSS
implementation.
So I install Firefox it and start it up.
Bookmarks -> Firefox and Mozilla -> The Mozilla Website
seems a good place to start learning. Takes me to:-
http://www.mozilla.org/ (note not .com)
hmm.. Developers tab is an obvious choice.
Now there's a side bar with Projects, Coding, Testing, Nightly Builds etc.
The body text talks about getting in touch with the Developers, getting the
source, a bunch of tools that doesn't seem relevant to me. By this time I
may well conclude that I'm in the wrong place and that by 'developer'
Mozilla means people who help develop the product.
Still a little perseverance and there is a Web developers link so I follow
that.
To learn about HTML I've got a choice. The W3C spec that's fine if you want
to be implementing HTML and is good for the 'gospel' on what should happen.
It's not very friendly to a web developer used to accessing info as in MSDN.
The other choice is Netscapes reference from 1998 but is that the same as
Firefox? If it is how am I supposed to know that?
For CSS westciv stuff is pretty good actually.
But I'm also interested in the DOM. If I scroll down far enough I'll find
it. All the while there is this side bar telling me about code, nightly
builds and stuff.
http://developer.mozilla.org/ Is better but strangely there doesn't seem to
be a way to navigate to it from www.mozilla.org perhaps because
developer.mozilla.org is still Beta.
The overall impression is of fragmented documentation where Web developers
don't seem to be as important as the developers of the product. IMO, there
is still some way to go to get a resource that the average web application
developer (especially intranet developers who often dictate the browser)
would be comfortable using.
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
Use
> of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| Anthony Jones wrote:
> Sorry for the ambiguity. I meant acceptance.
There are plenty of browsers that are not IE. Why haven't THEY gotten the
kind of usage Firefox has?
As I see it, Firefox is popular with developers because of its commitment to
standards conformance (which it inherits from the Gecko Engine) and its
extensibility (how did I ever get along without LiveHTTPHeaders or
WebDeveloper?). It is popular with consumers because it is convenient and
intuitive to use, it is extensible, and their developer friends are pushing
it on them.
Note that none of those reasons are "because it isn't IE". They are WAYS
Firefox isn't IE.
>
> I don't see that happening a lot.
I don't see it happen AT ALL with Firefox. AdWare was an IE-only feature.
> Is that because Firefox is just more secure or because
> it is attacked less?
Probably both.
> Are other browsers less secure than Firefox or are they
> more secure for the same reason (that is, they are not
> IE)?
That's a very large topic. Lynx is a very secure browser -- probably more so
than anything. But it's text-only. The browser is always balancing features
with security.
In general, I would guess that other browsers benefit in security what they
share with Firefox -- they are not part of the OS. And Microsoft is the only
company I know of that is hesitant to break web applications in order to fix
a security hole in their browser. That is probably the biggest problem with
IE.
> I have seen people trying to use sites (mainly niche and
> intranets) that depend on things that only IE does. OTH
> I don't see much of the reverse.
Funny. Well over a year ago we adopted a standards-based approach that can
be summed up like this: Code to W3C recommendations and provide less
feature-rich alternatives to non-conforming browsers. I'm sure we're in the
minority. But our users will actually notice a difference when they upgrade
to IE7.
> Bookmarks -> Firefox and Mozilla -> The Mozilla Website
> seems a good place to start learning. Takes me to:-
> http://www.mozilla.org/ (note not .com)
> hmm.. Developers tab is an obvious choice.
Even more obvious? The giant "Firefox has moved" in the middle of the page.
Can't help to ignore it.
> The W3C spec that's fine if you want to be implementing HTML
> and is good for the 'gospel' on what should happen. It's not
> very friendly to a web developer used to accessing info as
> in MSDN.
Web documentation is indeed a Microsoft strong suit. My recommendation? Look
at the "Standards Information" section of the MSDN documentation when
considering a feature.
> The overall impression is of fragmented documentation where
> Web developers don't seem to be as important as the
> developers of the product.
That IS, after all, the point of the Mozilla Foundation. Their product is
the Gecko Engine, not Firefox.
> IMO, there is still some way to go to get a resource that
> the average web application developer (especially intranet
> developers who often dictate the browser) would be
> comfortable using.
I am wholly in agreement with this statement.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
|
|
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:123p89o5vbm83dc@corp.supernews.com...
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>
> There are plenty of browsers that are not IE. Why haven't THEY gotten the
> kind of usage Firefox has?
>
it hasn't, there will always be a few people that want to use something
different, but as far as I can see still less than 10% of users use fire
fox, and out of them I suggest that they still have IE also
> As I see it, Firefox is popular with developers because of its commitment
> to standards conformance (which it inherits from the Gecko Engine) and its
> extensibility
whast standards?
IE has the majority of the market, there for what it does is the standard
(how did I ever get along without LiveHTTPHeaders or
> WebDeveloper?). It is popular with consumers because it is convenient and
> intuitive to use, it is extensible, and their developer friends are
> pushing it on them.
but it is not popular with consumers less than 10% use it
>
> Note that none of those reasons are "because it isn't IE". They are WAYS
> Firefox isn't IE.
>
>
>
>
> I don't see it happen AT ALL with Firefox. AdWare was an IE-only feature.
>
>
>
>
> Probably both.
>
>
>
>
> That's a very large topic. Lynx is a very secure browser -- probably more
> so than anything. But it's text-only. The browser is always balancing
> features with security.
>
> In general, I would guess that other browsers benefit in security what
> they share with Firefox -- they are not part of the OS. And Microsoft is
> the only company I know of that is hesitant to break web applications in
> order to fix a security hole in their browser. That is probably the
> biggest problem with IE.
>
>
>
>
> Funny. Well over a year ago we adopted a standards-based approach that can
> be summed up like this: Code to W3C recommendations and provide less
> feature-rich alternatives to non-conforming browsers. I'm sure we're in
> the minority. But our users will actually notice a difference when they
> upgrade to IE7.
>
>
>
>
> Even more obvious? The giant "Firefox has moved" in the middle of the
> page. Can't help to ignore it.
>
>
>
>
> Web documentation is indeed a Microsoft strong suit. My recommendation?
> Look at the "Standards Information" section of the MSDN documentation when
> considering a feature.
>
>
>
>
> That IS, after all, the point of the Mozilla Foundation. Their product is
> the Gecko Engine, not Firefox.
>
>
>
> I am wholly in agreement with this statement.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
> Use of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
| |
|
|
| Anthony Jones 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
|
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:123p89o5vbm83dc@corp.supernews.com...
> Anthony Jones wrote:
>
> There are plenty of browsers that are not IE. Why haven't THEY gotten the
> kind of usage Firefox has?
>
> As I see it, Firefox is popular with developers because of its commitment
to
> standards conformance (which it inherits from the Gecko Engine) and its
> extensibility (how did I ever get along without LiveHTTPHeaders or
> WebDeveloper?). It is popular with consumers because it is convenient and
> intuitive to use, it is extensible, and their developer friends are
pushing
> it on them.
>
> Note that none of those reasons are "because it isn't IE". They are WAYS
> Firefox isn't IE.
>
hmm.. I dunno that's very thin line you're drawing. Firefox isn't IE versus
WAYS Firefox isn't IE.
>
>
>
> I don't see it happen AT ALL with Firefox. AdWare was an IE-only feature.
>
Point taken.
>
>
>
> Probably both.
>
>
>
>
> That's a very large topic. Lynx is a very secure browser -- probably more
so
> than anything. But it's text-only. The browser is always balancing
features
> with security.
>
> In general, I would guess that other browsers benefit in security what
they
> share with Firefox -- they are not part of the OS. And Microsoft is the
only
> company I know of that is hesitant to break web applications in order to
fix
> a security hole in their browser. That is probably the biggest problem
with
> IE.
>
True. That's part of the culture. Witness the hoops MS is prepared to jump
through when releasing a new OS not to break applications which rely on
holes and undocumented quirks that they realy ought not be using.
>
>
>
> Funny. Well over a year ago we adopted a standards-based approach that can
> be summed up like this: Code to W3C recommendations and provide less
> feature-rich alternatives to non-conforming browsers. I'm sure we're in
the
> minority. But our users will actually notice a difference when they
upgrade
> to IE7.
>
I'm not a big fan of standards. They tend to be slow to change. Even
mozilla are quite happy to include additional features which are not covered
by the standard. Why?
>
>
>
> Even more obvious? The giant "Firefox has moved" in the middle of the
page.
> Can't help to ignore it.
>
Well you see since I was navigating from within firefox using a builtin
bookmark, having a great big Firefox logo wasn't a great surprise. I was
also aware that the home page wasn't going to imeadiately be about
developers I was definitely going to have to navigate from there somehow.
The navigation bars and side bars have become well established affordances
which we use to navigate from somewhere we don't need to be to somewhere we
do WITHOUT having to read the body. My eye was drawn imeadiately to the
word 'developers' since that was relevant so I clicked it. From there on in
I was doomed to the labyrinth. 
>
>
>
> Web documentation is indeed a Microsoft strong suit. My recommendation?
Look
> at the "Standards Information" section of the MSDN documentation when
> considering a feature.
>
Good idea.
>
>
>
> That IS, after all, the point of the Mozilla Foundation. Their product is
> the Gecko Engine, not Firefox.
>
>
>
> I am wholly in agreement with this statement.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
Use
> of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
>
| |
| Bob Lehmann 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| >> and out of them I suggest that they still have IE also
That's because it's an integral and necessary part of the Windows OS -
*wink*, *wink*.
Bob Lehmann
"Slim" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:urHqbMjXGHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:123p89o5vbm83dc@corp.supernews.com...
the[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> it hasn't, there will always be a few people that want to use something
> different, but as far as I can see still less than 10% of users use fire
> fox, and out of them I suggest that they still have IE also
>
>
commitment[vbcol=seagreen]
its[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> whast standards?
>
> IE has the majority of the market, there for what it does is the standard
>
>
> (how did I ever get along without LiveHTTPHeaders or
and[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> but it is not popular with consumers less than 10% use it
>
>
feature.[vbcol=seagreen]
more[vbcol=seagreen]
can[vbcol=seagreen]
when[vbcol=seagreen]
is[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| Anthony Jones wrote:
>
> hmm.. I dunno that's very thin line you're drawing. Firefox
> isn't IE versus WAYS Firefox isn't IE.
I don't think it's a thin line at all. It is especially appropriate here
because it directly rebuts your "simply because it isn't" assertion.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
|
|
|
|
"Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:%237uwh9oXGHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
>
> That's because it's an integral and necessary part of the Windows OS -
> *wink*, *wink*.
I will rephrase and say many would still;use IE for browsing the web
>
> Bob Lehmann
>
> "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote in message
> news:urHqbMjXGHA.3448@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> the
> commitment
> its
> and
> feature.
> more
> can
> when
> is
>
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| Xref: TK2MSFTNGP01.phx.gbl microsoft.public.inetserver.asp.general:304177
Slim wrote:
>
> I think you do,
You are wrong.
> IE is the standard is what we all use and program for
Incorrect.
>
> Still the standard is IE , is it not?
If you had bothered to answer my question, you would understand why it is
not.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
| Bob Lehmann 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| >> IE is the standard is what we all use and program for
Well, no, we don't *all* do that.
Actually, what smart people do, is markup / program for actual HTML / DOM
recommendations / standards and then tweak for IE.
At the very least, we won't be screwed when MS gets around to releasing IE7,
which purportedly *is* compliant, and, in an unusal backwards-compatibility
move, won't support MS's past aberrations of HTML and the DOM.
So, good luck with all of your re-writes which support the most "popular",
"standard" browser.
Bob Lehmann
"Slim" <me@here.com> wrote in message
news:O0Pr4yJYGHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> "Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
> news:OACY$5jXGHA.5012@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>
> I think you do,
>
>
>
>
> they are not the standard but are they?
>
> IE is the standard is what we all use and program for
>
>
every[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Still the standard is IE , is it not?
>
>
it[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Les than 10% would suggest it is unpopular
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:1242ffurli5ea8a@corp.supernews.com...
> Slim wrote:
>
> You are wrong.
>
>
>
>
> Incorrect.
>
Correct
it may not be the www3 standard, bit it is THE standard
>
>
>
> If you had bothered to answer my question, you would understand why it is
> not.
they are rerfereing to A standard
But not THE standard
A Standard = "Something, such as a practice or a product, that is widely
recognized or employed, especially because of its excellence. "
Dictionary.com
The IE standards are widely used
some people are left handed, but most are right handed
Right handed is the standard
But of causer you know all this, you just cant come to admitting it
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
> Use of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
| |
|
|
"Bob Lehmann" <nospam@dontbotherme.zzz> wrote in message
news:%23e9nAqMYGHA.4144@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>
> Well, no, we don't *all* do that.
>
my error I should of said the majority
> Actually, what smart people do, is markup / program for actual HTML / DOM
> recommendations / standards and then tweak for IE.
No that would not be so smart
What you should do is mark-up for the most popular and then tweak for the
less popular like Firefox.
Or dont worry about the small percentage that use firefox and put your
efforsts into catering for the majority
If i could put it this way
About 90% of people use IE and 10% use others, but lets be nice and say 10%
use firefox
e = effort
e * ie = .9
e* ff = .1
>
> At the very least, we won't be screwed when MS gets around to releasing
> IE7,
> which purportedly *is* compliant, and, in an unusal
> backwards-compatibility
> move, won't support MS's past aberrations of HTML and the DOM.
>
> So, good luck with all of your re-writes which support the most "popular",
> "standard" browser.
>
I already have IE7
and i have only had 2 problems looking though all my web sites, both minor
> Bob Lehmann
>
>
> "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote in message
> news:O0Pr4yJYGHA.4652@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
> every
> it
>
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| Slim wrote:
> they are rerfereing to A standard
>
> But not THE standard
The only thing that matters here is public standards. Consider the genesis
of this discussion, my observation that:
"Firefox is popular with developers because of its
commitment to standards conformance (which it
inherits from the Gecko Engine)"
You asked what that meant, and have resisted being told ever since. If you
want to make some obtuse "point" about de facto standards, you are welcome
to do so. It does not change the fact that browser conformance to public
standards benefits all of us. Microsoft has already ceded that point, as
reflected in IE7.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
|
|
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:1244p3qhvo4vp23@corp.supernews.com...
> Slim wrote:
>
> The only thing that matters here is public standards.
Says who?
i dont, the important think is the standad that is used
Consider the genesis
> of this discussion, my observation that:
>
> "Firefox is popular with developers because of its
> commitment to standards conformance (which it
> inherits from the Gecko Engine)"
>
It is less popular than IE
> You asked what that meant, and have resisted being told ever since. If you
> want to make some obtuse "point" about de facto standards, you are welcome
> to do so. It does not change the fact that browser conformance to public
> standards benefits all of us. Microsoft has already ceded that point, as
> reflected in IE7.
>
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
> Use of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
| |
| Stefan Berglund 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:37:08 +0800, "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote:
in <ekphMETYGHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>
>If i could put it this way
>About 90% of people use IE and 10% use others, but lets be nice and say 10%
>use firefox
>
>e = effort
>e * ie = .9
>e* ff = .1
>
>I already have IE7
>
>and i have only had 2 problems looking though all my web sites, both minor
Let me guess. Uh security and uhh security?
---
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no conferred rights.
Stefan Berglund
| |
|
|
"Stefan Berglund" <sorry.no.koolaid@for.me> wrote in message
news:2g5542tob8jaenh563hrd1gb9s3kh23mbj@
4ax.com...
> On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:37:08 +0800, "Slim" <me@here.com> wrote:
> in <ekphMETYGHA.2376@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl>
>
>
> Let me guess. Uh security and uhh security?
No one CSS difference, I haven't got to the bottom of yet
and the fact that the search pane witch use for my own search pages is
disabled by default
>
> ---
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, no guarantees, and no
> conferred rights.
>
> Stefan Berglund
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| That's a specious argument. That suggests that all surfers are aware
of the choice. They are not, in my experience. In fact, among those
that I know who are aware of and have downloaded Firefox, it is the
most popular browser.
--
Mike Brind
Slim wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> It is less popular than IE
>
>
| |
|
|
"Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145218839.446651.40870@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That's a specious argument. That suggests that all surfers are aware
> of the choice. They are not, in my experience. In fact, among those
> that I know who are aware of and have downloaded Firefox, it is the
> most popular browser.
All due respect, in your experience is hear say, not fact
>
> --
> Mike Brind
>
> Slim wrote:
>
>
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| No - my experience is *fact*. It is something I have observed. If I
heard someone else talking about a third party's experience, that would
be *hearsay*.
--
Mike Brind
Slim wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145218839.446651.40870@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> All due respect, in your experience is hear say, not fact
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145259475.510394.41550@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> No - my experience is *fact*. It is something I have observed. If I
> heard someone else talking about a third party's experience, that would
> be *hearsay*.
Its jear say to me.
What you observe, is not necessary the full story or fact
on my servers fire fox is about 4% of hits, I may be wrong, but i thinbk it
will be dowbhill from here for Firefox as it has been with many others.
lets not forget that netscape had a majority, yet IE was able to overtake
take it
>
> --
> Mike Brind
>
> Slim wrote:
>
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
| Your logic is astounding.
--
Mike Brind
Slim wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> "Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145259475.510394.41550@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> Its jear say to me.
>
> What you observe, is not necessary the full story or fact
>
> on my servers fire fox is about 4% of hits, I may be wrong, but i thinbk it
> will be dowbhill from here for Firefox as it has been with many others.
> lets not forget that netscape had a majority, yet IE was able to overtake
> take it
>
| |
|
|
"Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145292570.298705.25730@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Your logic is astounding.
>
thank you
As we can see in this article Firebox share has already started to falter,
due according to the article to its security flaws
http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors...cle.php/3520661
thecounter also shows that it has dropped slightly from last year
It does not seem like people are sticking with it, considering the are
getting new users trying it out they are still going backwards
> --
> Mike Brind
>
>
> Slim wrote:
>
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-27, 7:51 am |
|
Slim wrote:
> "Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145292570.298705.25730@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> thank you
>
> As we can see in this article Firebox share has already started to falter,
> due according to the article to its security flaws
> http://www.clickz.com/stats/sectors...cle.php/3520661
>
> thecounter also shows that it has dropped slightly from last year
>
> It does not seem like people are sticking with it, considering the are
> getting new users trying it out they are still going backwards
That article is nearly a year old, and only looked at a 6 month
period!!
Have a look at this:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
then go to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/, and vote for which browser
you think is "better". Oh, and have a look at the results.
And that's my last contribution to this thread.
--
Mike Brind
| |
|
|
"Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145295332.595878.269390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Slim wrote:
>
> That article is nearly a year old, and only looked at a 6 month
> period!!
>
> Have a look at this:
> http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
did you have a look? it shows that firefox is starting to falter and that
the figures are skewed
Why so high Firefox figures?
W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies.
These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the
average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it
comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.
These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic.
Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at
least 80% of the users.
Anyway, our data, collected over a five year period, clearly shows the long
and medium-term trends.
> then go to http://marketshare.hitslink.com/, and vote for which browser
> you think is "better". Oh, and have a look at the results.
>
Net polls mean nothing, really you can do better than that cant you?
> And that's my last contribution to this thread.
>
I think we know why, you scoured the web and the best you could do was show
skewed figures and a net poll
> --
> Mike Brind
>
| |
| Dave Anderson 2006-04-27, 7:52 am |
| Slim wrote:
> did you have a look? it shows that firefox is starting to
> falter and that the figures are skewed...
None of us care if you fear developing against standards. If it makes you
happy, continue to write your backward code.
--
Dave Anderson
Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message. Use
of this email address implies consent to these terms.
| |
| Mike Brind 2006-04-27, 7:52 am |
|
Slim wrote:
> "Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1145295332.595878.269390@t31g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> did you have a look? it shows that firefox is starting to falter and that
> the figures are skewed
>
> Why so high Firefox figures?
>
> W3Schools is a website for people with an interest for web technologies.
> These people are more interested in using alternative browsers than the
> average user. The average user tends to use Internet Explorer, since it
> comes preinstalled with Windows. Most do not seek out other browsers.
>
> These facts indicate that the browser figures below are not 100% realistic.
> Other web sites have statistics showing that Internet Explorer is used by at
> least 80% of the users.
>
> Anyway, our data, collected over a five year period, clearly shows the long
> and medium-term trends.
>
>
>
>
> Net polls mean nothing, really you can do better than that cant you?
>
>
>
> I think we know why, you scoured the web and the best you could do was show
> skewed figures and a net poll
>
You utterly failed to see the point, or you deliberately ignored it.
If I didn't know better, I could be forgiven for thinking that this,
together with your unique definitions of plain English words in this
thread as a whole is nothing more than a flame.
--
Mike Brind
| |
|
|
"Dave Anderson" <GTSPXOESSGOQ@spammotel.com> wrote in message
news:O94viF$YGHA.3392@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> Slim wrote:
>
> None of us care if you fear developing against standards. If it makes you
> happy, continue to write your backward code.
>
what backward code?
I think your getting upset about the falter use of Firefox and the security
flaws that have been exposed
I program firstly for the Internet standard, and that standard is IE.
>
>
> --
> Dave Anderson
>
> Unsolicited commercial email will be read at a cost of $500 per message.
> Use of this email address implies consent to these terms.
>
| |
|
|
"Mike Brind" <paxtonend@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1145480068.044023.188620@e56g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
>
> Slim wrote:
>
> You utterly failed to see the point, or you deliberately ignored it.
> If I didn't know better, I could be forgiven for thinking that this,
> together with your unique definitions of plain English words in this
> thread as a whole is nothing more than a flame.
>
I thought you had finnished with this thread?
The point is.
Firefox is not popular,
its market share is faltering
IE is the satandard
and you failed to read your refs before posting
> --
> Mike Brind
>
|
|
|
|
|