why does this work in FF but not IE

[salvia-shaman]

http://www.starkraze.com/index.php
Is ok in Firefox, but messed up in IE.
Sad thing is the player is made by MS and seem not comatable with IE also made by MS.
I guess 2 wrongs definitely dont make a right.
Is this the message MS is sending us?

Fact is I can prolly break out a pirated version of XP and use a modified version of IE and i bet it works perfect. Bill gates sucks, he cant even copy other peoples work the right way anymore.

[Jessii]

I don't know but I can tell you that png images aren't transparent in IE, so you might want to either stick the javascript fix in there for IE 6 or use gifs.

[salvia-shaman]

can you point me to the image script, that was also needed, but i was just going to swich images.
Its not my site but a clients, I have just been fixing things and programming modifying his user profile section and adding SEO to it.

[Jessii]

Ok the javascript fix is: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/

I've also noticed that the page is slightly too wide, even for a 1024 px wide screen resolution, so I would make it 1020 px wide if that's what you're trying to achieve without a horizontal scroll bar. As far as the media player problems go, I think you should make a flash player so that it actually displays. IE has issues with displaying embedded media and I think that had something to do with MS losing some lawsuit about that.

[salvia-shaman]

thanks for the link, i did go alittle crazy with my 22" wide screen.
keep forgetting that not many have such large screens. I pitty thos who have 800x640 wiewing the site.

[That-Is-Bull]

At 11/26/07 06:25 PM, Jessii wrote: Ok the javascript fix is: http://homepage.ntlworld.com/bobosola/

I've also noticed that the page is slightly too wide, even for a 1024 px wide screen resolution, so I would make it 1020 px wide if that's what you're trying to achieve without a horizontal scroll bar.

People always seem to forget that vertical scrollbars are wider than 4px. I usually do 990px, just to be safe.

[Jessii]

At 11/26/07 08:19 PM, That-Is-Bull wrote: People always seem to forget that vertical scrollbars are wider than 4px. I usually do 990px, just to be safe.

Yeah, I usually do mine for 800 px wide screen resolutions at 782 px wide or somewhere around there.

[sspecter]

IE suck a lot. they don't even have the decency of fully supporting PNG (Which is a W3C pattern)

[CronoMan]

At 11/27/07 02:50 AM, sspecter wrote: IE suck a lot. they don't even have the decency of fully supporting PNG (Which is a W3C pattern)

IE7 supports PNG. Actually IE has support for more w3c-stuff than FF has, but how they interprete the information is pretty different from FF and Opera

[sspecter]

IE7 supports PNG. Actually IE has support for more w3c-stuff than FF has, but how they interprete the information is pretty different from FF and Opera

You couldn't be more wrong.

PNG for example has transparency (as part of the pattern), which IE don't support.

As another example, MathML has almost full support in FF, but IE has no support of it at all!

Want yet another example? XHTML, as specified by W3C, is a scrict language, meaning ANY mistake made in it should crash the page rendering. IE completely ignores it, rendering XHTML as if it was HTML, allowing any mistakes in the code. (and because of that promoting bad practices in XHTML, that will not work in anywhere besides IE) (in the same way, IE allow errors in general XML without crashing)

People like you think IE has more support to W3C than Gecko (Opera, FF, Mozilla, etc) because IE usually can render pages than FF. It is a mistake, however: all the pages IE render right and FF don't are because the pages are not W3C compliant. But IE accept it because it accept things (codes, practices, etc) outside the pattern (effectively breaking the pattern). As the others will not follow the bad practices of IE, people think Gecko is screwed and IE is better, what is exactly what MS want to happen.

Want yet more examples???

- SGV is partially supported in FF but not supported in IE
- IE stupidly run web files ignoring file extensions (meaning you can call a link that run a malicious VB script in a file called "runme.jpg")

Here are a few more comparicons between IE and FF support of W3C patterns.

[sspecter]

You can test the PNG transparency support
HERE.

See in your IE how many tests do it pass (FF 2 only fail in M1 test)

[elbekko]

FF2 can render all of those perfectly ;)

Also, Opera isn't based on Gecko.

IE7 supports PNG partially, using the same image rendering engine as Vista uses. Too bad it still has horrible, horrible flaws.

Oh, and no, IE doesn't follow W3 standards. Even most of CSS2 is still broken in IE7.

[CronoMan]

At 11/27/07 08:22 AM, sspecter wrote:

IE7 supports PNG. Actually IE has support for more w3c-stuff than FF has, but how they interprete the information is pretty different from FF and Opera

You couldn't be more wrong.

Yes I could, I could say that PI is in the vicinity of 3.14

PNG for example has transparency (as part of the pattern), which IE don't support.

I don't like to repeat this, but IE7 has support for transparent 32-bit PNG's
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/04 /26/412263.aspx

IE6 can load transparent PNG's (and BMP32 I might add) by using a DirectX filter

As another example, MathML has almost full support in FF, but IE has no support of it at all!

Want yet another example? XHTML, as specified by W3C, is a scrict language, meaning ANY mistake made in it should crash the page rendering. IE completely ignores it, rendering XHTML as if it was HTML, allowing any mistakes in the code. (and because of that promoting bad practices in XHTML, that will not work in anywhere besides IE) (in the same way, IE allow errors in general XML without crashing)

1. A web browser should never crash (which both IE and FF do kind of all the time)
2. This especially means that a page SHOULD load even though there are errors in the code (which most pages have anyway as you say)

If HTML was as strict as C++, there wouldn't be much websites out there, would there...

People like you think IE has more support to W3C than Gecko (Opera, FF, Mozilla, etc) because IE usually can render pages than FF. It is a mistake, however: all the pages IE render right and FF don't are because the pages are not W3C compliant. But IE accept it because it accept things (codes, practices, etc) outside the pattern (effectively breaking the pattern). As the others will not follow the bad practices of IE, people think Gecko is screwed and IE is better, what is exactly what MS want to happen.

w3c should understand that even though they say they control this, they don't. You think w3c came up with HTML, XHTML, CSS and better yet JavaScript? No they didn't. What they did come up with though, was XML.
HTML was in fact designed and implemented before w3c existed, and HTML 2.0 was the first draft to be treated as a web-standard in 1996. Actually, HTML wasn't "recommended" by the w3c before 1997 (3.2) CSS is infact alot older than you think, and has existed since the very beginning of SGML in the 1970's. Javascript was first designed by Netscape, and even though it's not java, it's called javascript because it was implemented at the same time Netscape decided to implement Java (like applets) into their browser.
As you see; w3c hasn't come up with anything actually... well they did come up with XML but very few actually enjoy it. Try the XML readers and writers that are defined by w3c-standard in C# and Java, and you'll see that the w3c aren't remarkably intelligent. Actually you're better off writing your own reader and writer because the w3c ones are so stupid you'll be stunned.
Further; I would see the one actually having control over a standard would be the "leading brand" just like "kellog's" define what my expectations are for corn flakes. w3c continously ignores any requests and suggestions made by microsoft, even though MS has been in the web-browser business the longest.
I can see one problem with MS IE though, and it's that they might be a bit too nice to erronous code; they make alot of exceptions to rules etc so that you don't have to "have full control" in order to make a webpage - which is kind of stupid.
Point being; you should not take w3c too seriously as seems to be the standard around here.
w3c may be controlling the standards, but by my opionion it's kind of retarded that they are. Why don't you put the people actually creating the browsers to do that? I have no idea.
Also : IE came up with a pretty cool and handy thingy called IFrame. This was first implemented in.. IE4 or something like that. After a while, all browsers had this, but w3c refused to include it in the standards (notice; all browsers had it) of course they refused this because MS came up with it. So you were told "don't use iframe, it's not in the standards" etc which was downright bullshit. Thank you w3c for being so fucking wise and allknowing

Want yet more examples???

- SGV is partially supported in FF but not supported in IE

You're right, SVG is not supported, but so fucking what?
Where, besides wikipedia, do you find SVG material? There are alot of other vector formats as well,
including wmf, cdr, ai, emf, epf, ps, pdf, and let's not forget swf, some which both IE and FF supports.
We have loads of vector formats, why stick with another one just because it's mentioned in w3c?
It's not like we're lacking vector formats to chose from

- IE stupidly run web files ignoring file extensions (meaning you can call a link that run a malicious VB script in a file called "runme.jpg")

You know, FF also "ignores" file extensions, this has to do with what the web server tells the client.
On my web server, I can say that .txt should be handled as application/win32 if I want to, and both IE and FF will suggest that I download this file and run from location. It has to do with how browsers use MIME-types that are sent through a header called "Content-type", and as defined by the w3c; this means this is the filetype - fuck the extension.

Here are a few more comparicons between IE and FF support of W3C patterns.

here are more

I don't see why many treat w3c as their god or something, when imo they're a bunch of primates playing with pencils. And it's this "w3c-compliant"-shit that throws me the most... I mean like 5% of web-content is "w3c-compliant" and even these don't always display correctly in all browsers
I never use the validation tool unless I'm trying to find a missing </div> or </table>. Of course I don't need to do this anymore since I have a proper IDE for coding in.

Oh, and the obsoleteing done by w3c is highly annoying - don't use "width", "bgcolor", "<font" etc as these are considered "obsolete", what you should do instead is use <div> or <span>... I mean.. why? what fucking difference does it make?

And do I need to point out the numerous obvious errors w3c has made in the definition of their standards and how they sometimes conflict existing concepts and other standards?
CSS "class"? Isn't that a stupid selection of name?
And why is the javascript events so amazingly stupid?
onmouseclick, left mousebutton = 0? so you never know whether you pressed left or both, or all three at the same time?
And the XMLReader just avoids any good programming practices.. XmlReader.Create? What are constructors for? The XML namespace in Java and C# is just a mess. It's so obvious that it's not designed by the people behind the framework, and probably someone that doesn't have much practice in either one
Id and Name for HTML elements... confusing? Of course it is; Id means "Identifier", but as it is ALSO used in CSS for some reason and crosslinked to Javascript (getElementById, and the notorious getElementsById) which just confuses and irritates and make writing javascript illogical

So please don't be brainwashed, don't put all your conidence in w3c, as it might not help you develop anything, just giving you restraints

anyways, there are very few things IE now doesn't support, and there are some things IE supports, but FF doesn't.
There is especially one thing IE does that I especially enjoy; every object goes by the same rules; you can set the "width"-parameter of a link, which you can't in FF. What difference does it make? Well, you'll be able to easier implement menu's, as you can get them to be the same size, without having to have a div beneath and javascript
IE also allows any property to be set on a HTML object, which you can retrieve from a script. Do you have any idea how practical that is?

;)

[elbekko]

I managed to read through that goddamn retarded post up to this:

Oh, and the obsoleteing done by w3c is highly annoying - don't use "width", "bgcolor", "<font" etc as these are considered "obsolete", what you should do instead is use <div> or <span>... I mean.. why? what fucking difference does it make?

XHTML (and that is where this is "obsolete" (look up the right word, it's "deprecated")) is markup. Not styling. Markup provides containers which you can style. These containers are div and span tags mostly.
The fucking difference it makes is accessibility, easyness of styling, semantic markup, ...
Make it hard for yourself and others, fine. But if you do so, keep it local and get the fuck off the internet.

[sspecter]

CronoMan

Reading your post we can clearly see you are completelly biassed. In your whole arcicle you are just questioning W3C's credibility to justify IE not complying them (even when you said that IE follow it more than FF, which is a huge and groundless lie). The fact is that WWW NEED patterns so developers build tools for it and the technologies talk to each other. W3C is simply the autority of it. There is no excuse for ignoring the patterns or changing it.

It is humongously stupid suggesting a global public pattern should be in the hands of a lone private multicorporation. The reasons are obvious: technologies would be forced and other companies woundn't stand a chance to compete. Technologies like Java (in web), Flash, GIF etc would have a serious threat as MS couls at any time drop web support to any of them.

Let me ask a question? Did you posted any suggestion or complaining to the W3C??? How can you hate them so much if you don't even contribute to it?

Obviously you don't know that is XHTML, nor why it was conceived. XHTML was a need because HTML was too loose (because all browsers allowed errors one way or another) and so implementing browsers to other devices (read portable) became a huge pain, partially because it lacked resources to run smart web browsers, partially because it became a huge job to implement it (the best browsers are all legacy-based. Making a brand new ones too difficult). Also, making non-pattern stuffs run just like IE is no easy deal, as IE is not open-source. XHTML pages solve that, as it is strict and don't allow mistakes or deviances, so it is extremely easier making a XHTML renderer than a HTML one.

Also, you seen to be mixing HTML with XHTML. No one is saying to make HTML a strict language. If it was this case, W3C would make a HTML 2.0 specification, not a XHTML one.

Your "Microsoft rocks W3C sucks" arguments seem to forget the whole point about patterns. Imagine if there was no HTML specification at all?

About W3C creating or not things, it doen't matter anything you said. W3C is the autority in defining the patterns that should be used in World Wide Web, not necessarily developping it. And making new technologies do not justify breaking the existing patterns. JavaScript, for example, was created because the current pattern at the time didn't allowed dynamic web pages. But imagine if MS resolved creating a concorrent IEScript, and throw alway all support for Javascript so people don't use it? It is plain wrong and only do bad to the whole web. MS do in fact similar stuff: they mix the pattern with proprietary or non-pattern stuff, so developers that do a web browser 100% pattern compliant end with many pages not running in it. Who is to blame?

Also, w3c was there long before MS even saw potential in WWW and buyed the already existant IE from Mosaic.

You're right, SVG is not supported, but so fucking what?

If it were, you wouldn't need to pay your Adobe Flash to make your neat animations. Flash success show there is a huge need for SVG, as Flash is proprietary and not cheap.

Where, besides wikipedia, do you find SVG material?

You are thinking backwards. Why do you think people will build programs and tools for it if it is not yet supported by the browsers???

It is the same as MathML: There IS a need in showing mathematical expressions in web pages, mathML IS supported by FF, but people don't implement it ONLY because IE don't render it.

It is very stupid a lone multinational company dictating the whole Web patterns.

I never use the validation tool unless I'm trying to find a missing </div> or </table>. Of course I don't need to do this anymore since I have a proper IDE for coding in.

I guess you are not a web developer, and just a kid playing with Frontpage. In Web development, things don't work this way, as if you ignore the non-IE part you are losing a good part of the web. (And is very funny as you talk like you are some specialist in the field)

About the PNG, DID you used the PNG transparency test I provided??? IE do show transparency in PNG, but (untill recently, at least) the transparency support was very bad, and only showed it when it was 0% alpha (meaning any other alpha would be shown as opaque). (not sure if they fixed that, someonewith IE7 test it in the link I provided)

So please don't be brainwashed, don't put all your conidence in w3c, as it might not help you develop anything, just giving you restraints

"So please don't be brainwashed, don't put all your confidence in Microsoft, as it might make you code suck in other browsers."

Fixed.

There is especially one thing IE does that I especially enjoy; every object goes by the same rules; you can set the "width"-parameter of a link, which you can't in FF. What difference does it make? Well, you'll be able to easier implement menu's, as you can get them to be the same size, without having to have a div beneath and javascript

You can easily do it with CSS (even inline, inside the tag) or tables. There is no really much sense in making a "link width" if the width should have the font/image width.

IE also allows any property to be set on a HTML object, which you can retrieve from a script. Do you have any idea how practical that is?

Not really. Say 1 thing you can do with it and you cant with the usual, all-browsers compatible, Javascript variables?

[sspecter]

By elbekko's post, I also noticed CronoMan don't even understand the purpose of CSS. Oh, well... *deep breath*

Try to put it in your head: HTML in NOT a do-everything web language. It's main purpose is just to make text-and-image based interlinked documents.

HOW things are shown (style) isn't and never was the purpose of HTML. It would even be a problem to do so, as HTML is a SGML language (language to hold information) and hardly can be used to describe dynamic stuff (as it is not a programming language).

To define the style, you have CSS (which is, unfortunately, not fully supported). To define dynamic behaviours, you have Javascript.

Why, can you ask... Do this test: Make a 5-10 pages big website, in the way you said you do (putting styles directly as HTML). Then try to change it's style. What will happen is that you will have to change EACH page, EACH button, EACH text, EACH table, ..., one by one, all by hand.

When you do it, then you will understand the need why style parameters shouldn't be placed as tag parameters and be defined as CSS instead.

[CronoMan]

Ok, now I need to clear up a few things
It doesn't actually matter if you believe I'm a newbie-kid or not, I don't care.
But for your information, I am a programmer by education and profession, whereas you do this plainly of interest in the subject. There is a subtle difference between you and me, even though you might think that I'm "wrong", if you look into the subject, I've spent alot more time thinking about this than you have. I do this for a living, I do ASP.NET, PHP, C#, C++, Java, Database design and whatnot; I know how these things work - in detail. You might think that you have it all figured out because someone you really look up to told you, but in time you might find out you're wrong. Unless you're religious about this field
Now, try to use some critical thinking instead of just accepting how it is - the point is : IT CAN BE BETTER, ALOT SMARTER. Nothing is going to get any "better" if w3c continues like this with ideas that hardly have any thought behind it at all. I find it strange that I'm almost the only one that actually is critical about w3c, and critical to why people constantly says that IE is so incredibly bad.
Don't get me wrong, I don't use IE anymore, I've switched over to FF because of numerous annoyances and bugs when debugging javascripts and CSS.

And please don't try to lecture me on HTML, XHTML and CSS. I know exactly what they are, and I sure hope it's not necessary for me to explain it here.

Now fucking please; don't bash on me for your religious beliefs in this field. You appearantly have blind confidence in mozilla and w3c. FF IS BEST NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY - CSS IS PERFECT - XML IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

Let me give you some examples :
IE7 as surpassed firefox in means of security (especially on vista)
CSS is a good idea, with bad planning. Like I've said earlier, why is ".fds" called a "class"? It should be obvious why this is stupid. # -> Id? Isn't that lame? What if you for some reason need more than one? Why can't > be used twice? for instance #sometable > tr > td? Wouldn't that be handy and logical if that worked?
Javascript is probably the one with the most bullshit. Alot of people think that this is "perfect" - even though it has alot of stupidities involved - "classes" are handled like functions? And in addition there are alot of constraints, for instance you can't put a class in an array for some reason. Events can be best defined as "poorly planned, poorly executed", Name/Id ? Name is supposed to be considered deprecated, so they've done the old "switcharoo", Name no longer needs to be identical, but Id does. WTF that's awful CSS interopability, wouldn't you think?
I don't know how much you've dealt with numbers, but you've have to come across this one :
Math.round can't specify decimals, so you have to multiply a number by 10*decimals and then divide it back after rounding. Poor planning?
XML - what is it for? Yes I know what it's supposed to be for, but why do we need that, and why does it constantly get shoved down our throats? In most cases, all you need is an INI file, which is easier to read, easier to write, it demands almost no CPU or memory etc. Why do you need a standard for something that is unique from application to application?

So please come with something constructive instead of doing personal attacks as that is in no way appropriate. You might think that you're the smartest guy in the universe and that you have everything thought out; problem is - you don't. Trust me on this, you don't know everything, you never will.

And please don't lecture me on html and css, as I've sat through more than enough of those during my bachelor degree

[elbekko]

XML is an abstract base design for its derivatives like XHTML, RSS, Atom, MathML, ...

FF is far from perfect, but IE is even further.

Oh, and since when does language syntax have to make sense to *you*?
They probably named it classes in CSS because they can inherit, and it was invented in the time it was fancy to use OOP. What's wrong with a dot identifying a class name? What's wrong with # identifying an ID? Nothing, that's what. It's the language's syntax, and you'll have to live with it.

Yes, JavaScript sucks ass. But it's still a powerful tool in web development, and there's no reason why IE can't properly support it.

[CronoMan]

At 11/29/07 04:12 AM, elbekko wrote: XML is an abstract base design for its derivatives like XHTML, RSS, Atom, MathML, ...

RSS is not a derivative, it is xml in it's plainest form.
XHTML is not a "xml"-derivative, it's a html-derivative with XML-concepts, subtle difference ;)
There are loads of stuff represented in XML that is not in HTML, CDATA for instance. XML also requires there to be a root-node, XHTML does not. (no, body is not a root-node, if it were XML you would be required to have something like <document> that spanned the entire code, after the xml-version tag).
as for Atom and MathML I don't know what that is, but if it's anything I think it is, it's a set of rules with XML syntax, like most things are. Unique for the application that executes them. Using XML in those cases doesn't actually do anything, except pre-define rules for an environment

I've used XML a couple of times, right now I use XML to construct the menus for my websites, of course I could've used something else, but in this case XML was the best choice. One reason : it has a hirearchy. I did use the w3c XML-reader, but I wrote my own writer to save time and frustration (again with the w3c)

FF is far from perfect, but IE is even further.

Depends on what you look at; CSS - I agree, IE also fucks up the color mixing pretty bad, leaving images with a certain color look different (usually brighter) than a background which is supposed to have the same color. FF has alot of issues with javascript (although FF doesn't crash in the dynamic select scenario as I described) but CSS-styles also look different in Opera and FF in some cases, although they usually look pretty similar. I'm not going to go into netscape as that is virtually Firefox with branding.

Oh, and since when does language syntax have to make sense to *you*?
They probably named it classes in CSS because they can inherit, and it was invented in the time it was fancy to use OOP. What's wrong with a dot identifying a class name? What's wrong with # identifying an ID? Nothing, that's what. It's the language's syntax, and you'll have to live with it.

It's not the syntax I have problems with, it's what they name them; like I tried to explain,
"class" is a _very common_ keyword in programming languages (name one modern language that doesn't have it (except javascript ofc)), and to use this to classify it is pretty "inconsiderate". That's why there is one especially goofy exception in HTML and JavaScript - in HTML you'll specify "class='someclass'" while to retrieve or modify this value in JavaScript it has been aliased to className for obvious reasons.

Id - my problem with this is that you have two identifiers (where there only used to be one) both serve the same purpose, although Id is supposed to be the "working one" and name should generally not be used. The real issue here is that Id, as an identifier, should only be used once in a page, but this contradicts its use in CSS, no? So let's say you have a type of table, containing child elements that you want to inherit the rules, and in addition, you have different "classes" of this Id. Now you're in a bit of a mess - if you additionally want to be able to change these properties during run-time, how do you seperate one table from the others? They have to have the same id, because they're all the same base-type - in which case you'll have find a workaround.
These scenarios are caused by a mix of bad planning and bad implementation.

You still fail to see my point?

Yes, JavaScript sucks ass. But it's still a powerful tool in web development, and there's no reason why IE can't properly support it.

Actually, if you read the DOM-structure on w3schools, you'll see that IE has support for more javascript than FF has. Personally, I have a lot less issues with javascript in IE than I have with firefox.
IE is alot nicer that way.
And yes, it is a powerfull tool in web development, but it's so half-assed it's not even funny.
I spend alot of time debugging javascripts, going "wtf". The funny part is that it doesn't seem like anyone in the entire world actually "master" javascript. There are very few pages where you don't see a "Object expected" or similar. Or even syntax errors.

And this obviously points in the direction that Javascript probably isn't the way to go. To make web development easier, someone somewhere should stop and think "hmmm this actually sucks... maybe we should try a new approach". But I guess very few people are interrested in development, "just use what we got and see where it gets us" seems to be the normal approach to most problems. Which could bring me over to JSP and Ant build, but I'll leave that for another topic

[elbekko]

I do fail to see your point about IDs, yes. An ID is a unique identifier, and should never ever be duplicated on one page. There is no reason to either. You can define multiple classes, which is all you need. You can easily generate a unique ID for a table when creating them, even at runtime. Which solves that problem.

XHTML is not a "xml"-derivative, it's a html-derivative with XML-concepts, subtle difference ;)

Actually, not really, no. It's based on XML mainly, is supposed to be served as an XML derivative, is structured like an XML document.
Oh, and it DOES have a root element. Or don't you use <html>? CDATA is present in XHTML, and is the preferred way to prevent XSS.
About RSS: it actually is, it's a different standard with it's own RFC and all that. It just inherits its structure from XML.
Your point about INI files is absolutely invalid, as that is far from what we're discussing here.

About JS: FF has an excellent JS parser, if you can't be bothered to write decent JS, your problem. I've always had problems with making certain things work in IE. Not that I can fix them, the debugger is horrible. Console² in FF <3.

Anything else?

[elbekko]

Oh, and to prove my XHTML point, here is a well-formed XHTML document:

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
<html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
	<head>
		<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8" />
		<title>Untitled Document</title>
	</head>
	<body>
		<p><![CDATA[<i>This is unparsed CDATA info</i>]]></p>
		<p>Hello, this is an XML document</p>
	</body>
</html>

And what gives, it works! As long as it's served correctly, which you should be able to achieve by sending the application/xhtml+xml header or saving it as .xhtml.

[CronoMan]

You totally fail to see my point, I'm not complaining about the syntatical forming of XML documents,
I'm talking about the implementation of HTML document ELEMENTS and some stupid validation rules, and the contradicting terms in javascript and css.
Neither do I enjoy the standard w3c has set for the xml readers and writers, which I fail to see why they have done.
HTML, Javascript and CSS is a mess.
Alot of rules aren't clearly defined either. And contrary to popular belief, FF has at least one thing that is extremely annoying : all elements do not follow the same properties, by which I mean they do not all inherit from the same base class, which means that there are some properties that will be ignored like for instance width on a link. This works fine in IE. Why would you need this?
Menu's. Instead of creating a style for menu-links (background image on hover, background-color) you'll have to have them contained in a div and make javascript, because without it, it just won't be similar, since the menu's will adapt its size based on content no matter what you do)

the node <html> in html isn't necessarily the root node, in XHTML 1.1 transitional, you can have <script> objects outside the document (although I admit, I had forgot about <html> :P )

And to clarify the Id-problem :
Let's say this; to link appearance and a unique identifier is logically retarded - it only serves one purpose and this is to make things more difficult than can be originally achieved if the appearance descriptor is not additionally treated as an identifier.

In any way; point being "standards" have not helped much at all
And furthermore, I would say that a group of different people from different places that actually had a finger in web browsers and development would be more suited than the current residing people it seems.

I've also posted alot of mindless quirks, and w3c continuing to ignore anything that microsoft does, IFrame as I said earlier, was first introduced by IE. w3c did not add it (even though Iframes are extremely handy) it took several years before w3c added it to any standard at all, and by then all browsers supported it, and had done so for a long time
w3c continued to add support for mouseclick events (which IE and mozilla had for a long time) in which they bound the keys like this :
0 - left button
1 - right button
2 - middle button
Microsoft suggested this :
1 - left button
2 - right button
4 - middle button
Did w3c do this? No they didn't, they ran with their original idea which would make it possible to know exactly what has been clicked, since you guess that it's at least always left mouse button

Let's see... Ah, colored scrollbars, not standard. why not? because it's implemented in a microsoft product. And therefore people can't use it, even though it is a nice touch to a website. I've noticed that newgrounds no longer have colored scrollbars, but now they're w3c-compliant. I've never had any problems with this website, but they had to give up a nice touch just so they can get a pat on the back by w3c. I don't think anyone would say that colored scrollbars is a bad thing, would you?

It's awful to see that a "standardization" organization plays favorites, I thought the point was that they weren't supposed to take sides...

[elbekko]

Agreed, some of the validator's errors are total and utter bollocks. I go by the rule: if my browser can parse it as XML, it's good.

The base class thing you are right about, but I've never encountered it to be annoying.

There is absolutely no need to have a width on links. And no, you shouldn't use them to style a menu. A menu is an unordered list.

Your point about IDs is still invalid. Why shouldn't you be able to style a unique element?
I'll give you a perfect example of why it is handy (yes the site has many other flaws, but it is a good example of the usefulness of IDs: http://forums.bf2s.com/index.php
Each navigation link has it's own ID. This makes it easy to, as you can see, make one of them larger, a different colour, ...

the node <html> in html isn't necessarily the root node, in XHTML 1.1 transitional, you can have <script> objects outside the document (although I admit, I had forgot about <html> :P )

Yes. It. Is. What you can and can't do, especially in Transitional documents, isn't a valid argument. What the correct and defined syntax is, is a valid argument.

About the mouse click thing: Middle mouse as 4? Why? If they'd put it as 3, ok. But I can see why they refused it, it's totally illogical. Everything starts counting from 0 by definition in programming anyway.

Coloured scrollbars are bad, because they are part of the browser and not the webpage.

I haven't particularly seen them take sides. It would ofcourse seem that the side following the standards organisation is the one being followed, but that's bollocks.

[CronoMan]

At 11/29/07 08:07 AM, elbekko wrote: Agreed, some of the validator's errors are total and utter bollocks. I go by the rule: if my browser can parse it as XML, it's good.

The base class thing you are right about, but I've never encountered it to be annoying.

There is absolutely no need to have a width on links. And no, you shouldn't use them to style a menu. A menu is an unordered list.

Your point about IDs is still invalid. Why shouldn't you be able to style a unique element?
I'll give you a perfect example of why it is handy (yes the site has many other flaws, but it is a good example of the usefulness of IDs: http://forums.bf2s.com/index.php
Each navigation link has it's own ID. This makes it easy to, as you can see, make one of them larger, a different colour, ...

Isn't that a job for classes?
base element, altering classes?
If not, you're implying that it's a good idea to hard-code appearance definitions from subsets of an item. Let's for instance set up a type of a window

#a-window
{
background-color: red;
border: 1px outset;
}

add a class for different types

#a-window .highlight
{
color: white;
}

#a-window .disabled
{
color: silver;
}

let's say I want several of these windows with programmability.
By defining them as classes, it would mean I would have to copy-paste for each new type of effect I want, instead of letting the classes alter a modified scheme'
And lets say I want several of these windows, and programatically assign classes?

the node <html> in html isn't necessarily the root node, in XHTML 1.1 transitional, you can have <script> objects outside the document (although I admit, I had forgot about <html> :P )

Yes. It. Is. What you can and can't do, especially in Transitional documents, isn't a valid argument. What the correct and defined syntax is, is a valid argument.

ok, I'll give you that one
More reasons to as why like 2% of the internet is w3c compliant, and probably less are strict

About the mouse click thing: Middle mouse as 4? Why? If they'd put it as 3, ok. But I can see why they refused it, it's totally illogical. Everything starts counting from 0 by definition in programming anyway.

In a logical manner, 0 would mean no buttons pressed.
Problem is that without having the data "bit-oriented" it's impossible to see if the user _only_ clicked the right mouse button for instance. If 0 = left, you have to assume that at least the left mouse button is clicked

1+4 = 5 = left + middle button whereas 4 would be only the middle button
0+3=3 =left + middle button
you see the logic?

Coloured scrollbars are bad, because they are part of the browser and not the webpage.

I highly disagree, they are a visual part of a website. And should be modifiable like any other object, input, select etc.

I haven't particularly seen them take sides. It would ofcourse seem that the side following the standards organisation is the one being followed, but that's bollocks.

no, you see Opera has a goal and that is to be 100% w3c, whereas firefox and ie isn't excactly like that. The difference is that Firefox and especially IE add stuff and thereby working on a way to improve (and obviously gain popularity) the overall effectiveness of a website. Richtext-editors were first introduced by firefox if I'm not horribly mistaken. Point is, if everyone just followed the standard like Opera, we wouldn't have WYSIWYG-editors, javascript, and IFrames, it would just be a dull website.
Obiously w3c isn't open to suggestions from the microsoft side, as they have ignored them several times in the past

[elbekko]

A class' job is to style elements that repeat. Say you have 3 things floating right, you give them a class. But if you want ONE particular element to have a different style, you use an ID.

[CronoMan]

At 11/29/07 09:10 AM, elbekko wrote: A class' job is to style elements that repeat. Say you have 3 things floating right, you give them a class. But if you want ONE particular element to have a different style, you use an ID.

That does not compute

[elbekko]

Then upgrade your damn brain.

[sspecter]

Chronoman
But for your information, I am a programmer by education and profession, whereas you do this plainly of interest in the subject. There is a subtle difference between you and me, even though you might think that I'm "wrong", if you look into the subject, I've spent alot more time thinking about this than you have. I do this for a living, I do ASP.NET, PHP, C#, C++, Java, Database design and whatnot; I know how these things work - in detail.

That just make you a very, very, very bad web programmer. Only bashing W3C and saying the patterns would be better in the hands of MS already show that. Yet you said IE follow W3C patterns better than FF (wich is a plain shamefull lie. By the way, did you tested the IE PNG transparency support with the link i provided?????) And for your posts, it seem you want all web technologies condensed in HTML (like CSS or XML) wich is not just plain wrong, it is not even possible.

You also bash MathML and SVG using circular reasoning (It is not worth to support it because no one is using it, but no one will use it while there is no support for it).

By saying dumb and false crap like that it really amuses me you thinking you are a specialized in the field. If you spent so much time figuring it out, I suggest you go kill yourself. Because you spent too much time figuring out stupidity.

I find it strange that I'm almost the only one that actually is critical about w3c, and critical to why people constantly says that IE is so incredibly bad.

You can think everyone is wrong and you are the right one. But it just show how wrong you are.

Don't get me wrong, I don't use IE anymore, I've switched over to FF because of numerous annoyances and bugs when debugging javascripts and CSS.
I've used XML a couple of times, right now I use XML to construct the menus for my websites, of course I could've used something else, but in this case XML was the best choice. One reason : it has a hirearchy. I did use the w3c XML-reader, but I wrote my own writer to save time and frustration (again with the w3c)

Now you are showing how fucking Hipocrite you are. I bet you blammed javacript and CSS for your annoyances...

Now fucking please; don't bash on me for your religious beliefs in this field. You appearantly have blind confidence in mozilla and w3c. FF IS BEST NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY - CSS IS PERFECT - XML IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

You are the one workshipping IE like a religion. By reading all your posts, one can easily see you are actually bashing almost anything web-related to defend IE. Retarded posts like: "It is not IE fault, it is CSS/Firefox/Opera/XML/W3C's fault!"

XML - what is it for? Yes I know what it's supposed to be for, but why do we need that, and why does it constantly get shoved down our throats?

It don't. No one is forced to use it. And you still fail miserably for not noticing why the loosely tags in HTML is a problem, and why allowing embed other specific XML-based markup languages in HTML is good.

Why do you need a standard for something that is unique from application to application?

As a badass skillfull web programmer, I guess you never heard about XSLT, DOM, SAx, etc???

Simply put, XML DON'T Change from aplications. The data and tags inside tag documents may change, but the structure is always the same. And there are already too many tools and libraries to read it.

XML is a universal structure to hold hierarquical data. You can read it even in C++, Python, Java, Javascript, or wathever!

Here we go, I having to teach you again... Shame on you for working with it and not even understanding it. Like all other crap you said, anyway.

So please come with something constructive instead of doing personal attacks as that is in no way appropriate. You might think that you're the smartest guy in the universe and that you have everything thought out; problem is - you don't. Trust me on this, you don't know everything, you never will.

1) You are the one who started with the personal attacks. I just talked negavive about IE and you started flamming me with personal attacks.
2) I don't think I am the smartest guy in the universe. Just that you don't know any crap that you are talking about. And am intelectually offended by your retarded posts.

RSS is not a derivative, it is xml in it's plainest form.

Like always, you talk shit. RSS is XML, but XML is not RSS. So it is a derivative. In the same way HTML and XML are derivative from SGML. Note RSS have more restrictions than XML, in the same way XML and HTML have more restrictions than SGML.

Seriously. I can make a huge list of retarded stuff you said in this thread. I really feel pity of the people who work with you.

[VigilanteNighthawk]

At 11/29/07 08:47 AM, CronoMan wrote:

At 11/29/07 08:07 AM, elbekko wrote:

In a logical manner, 0 would mean no buttons pressed.
Problem is that without having the data "bit-oriented" it's impossible to see if the user _only_ clicked the right mouse button for instance. If 0 = left, you have to assume that at least the left mouse button is clicked

1+4 = 5 = left + middle button whereas 4 would be only the middle button
0+3=3 =left + middle button
you see the logic?

I'll grant you this one. The MS model for detecting mouse clicks is the superior model for the reasons you site. The only issue I have with MS implementing their own model in IE once it was rejected is that it makes it harder to write cross browser code. Perhaps giving programmers the ability to choose models via a javascript object in their code would have been a good compromise.

Coloured scrollbars are bad, because they are part of the browser and not the webpage.

I highly disagree, they are a visual part of a website. And should be modifiable like any other object, input, select etc.

I think the main browser scroll bar should be left alone, but scroll bars that appear as part of page elements should be editable. I'd even go so far as to suggest that various elements of the scroll bar should be allowed to be replaced with images.

I haven't particularly seen them take sides. It would ofcourse seem that the side following the standards organisation is the one being followed, but that's bollocks.

no, you see Opera has a goal and that is to be 100% w3c, whereas firefox and ie isn't excactly like that. The difference is that Firefox and especially IE add stuff and thereby working on a way to improve (and obviously gain popularity) the overall effectiveness of a website. Richtext-editors were first introduced by firefox if I'm not horribly mistaken. Point is, if everyone just followed the standard like Opera, we wouldn't have WYSIWYG-editors, javascript, and IFrames, it would just be a dull website.

No one here is complaining about the fact that browsers implement extra features above and beyond the w3c spec. You are correct that in doing so promote innovation. I don't think you'd find too many people who complain about that.

The real issue is that is that IE is the least compliant in implementing the w3c spec. All browsers have their quirks, but IE is the worst. This means that you have to come up with work arounds or redesign elements to get around IE.

Obiously w3c isn't open to suggestions from the microsoft side, as they have ignored them several times in the past

I can't say why the w3c does what it does, but regardless of the issues between them and MS, the w3c spec is the one that most browsers and web developers recognize. MS does everyone else a disservice by not properly implementing the base spec. I have a feeling that part of this was done for competitve advantage. As it stands, you pretty much have to have a Windows partition if you are a web developer just for testing sites. I've seen very few differences between windows and linux versions of Opera or Firefox, but I don't even trust IE on wine. For me this isn't such an issue as I use win versions of photoshop and flash, but having to have an OS just for the browser is ridiculous.

To make matters worse for web developers, installing IE6 and IE7 on the same box is no simple task. Some of the solutions I've read through so far involved either running VMs or registry hacks. It's actually simpler to run the IE6 and 7 rendering engines for through wine on linux than it is to run the two versions on windows.

[CronoMan]

At 12/13/07 08:08 PM, sspecter wrote:

Chronoman
But for your information, I am a programmer by education and profession, whereas you do this plainly of interest in the subject. There is a subtle difference between you and me, even though you might think that I'm "wrong", if you look into the subject, I've spent alot more time thinking about this than you have. I do this for a living, I do ASP.NET, PHP, C#, C++, Java, Database design and whatnot; I know how these things work - in detail.

That just make you a very, very, very bad web programmer. Only bashing W3C and saying the patterns would be better in the hands of MS already show that. Yet you said IE follow W3C patterns better than FF (wich is a plain shamefull lie. By the way, did you tested the IE PNG transparency support with the link i provided?????) And for your posts, it seem you want all web technologies condensed in HTML (like CSS or XML) wich is not just plain wrong, it is not even possible.

Why do you people cling on to w3c so hard?
No, I just want some reason and logic into what they're doing, it seems like they're guessing their way into the best approach
What you're saying here is utter bullshit, because it should be obious that I didn't say any of that.
And if you somehow have imagined that I did, you are purposely being a dick

You also bash MathML and SVG using circular reasoning (It is not worth to support it because no one is using it, but no one will use it while there is no support for it).

You are making it be circular reasoning; now let's clean up that line you're writing :
maybe if there was a clear demand for svg, it would be there. You are purposely distorting what I'm saying

By saying dumb and false crap like that it really amuses me you thinking you are a specialized in the field. If you spent so much time figuring it out, I suggest you go kill yourself. Because you spent too much time figuring out stupidity.

Well, now you're being very nice and constructive
I don't see why this is such a sore subject? it's like the mother of all testicles

I find it strange that I'm almost the only one that actually is critical about w3c, and critical to why people constantly says that IE is so incredibly bad.

You can think everyone is wrong and you are the right one. But it just show how wrong you are.

No, it shows I have the possibility of critical thought
I don't think everyones wrong and I'm right, I'm just saying "maybe w3c isn't as good as you think it is"

Don't get me wrong, I don't use IE anymore, I've switched over to FF because of numerous annoyances and bugs when debugging javascripts and CSS.
I've used XML a couple of times, right now I use XML to construct the menus for my websites, of course I could've used something else, but in this case XML was the best choice. One reason : it has a hirearchy. I did use the w3c XML-reader, but I wrote my own writer to save time and frustration (again with the w3c)

Now you are showing how fucking Hipocrite you are. I bet you blammed javacript and CSS for your annoyances...

Hipocrite? I found one relatively good solution that saved me time. In this single thing, XML proved itself useful as a configuration appliance. But if I had used the w3c writer, I would've spent more time figuring out how to use it, than I did by making it myself - I'm raising a valid point

you're distorting what I say in favor of your abusive nature

Now fucking please; don't bash on me for your religious beliefs in this field. You appearantly have blind confidence in mozilla and w3c. FF IS BEST NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY - CSS IS PERFECT - XML IS A REALLY GOOD IDEA.

You are the one workshipping IE like a religion. By reading all your posts, one can easily see you are actually bashing almost anything web-related to defend IE. Retarded posts like: "It is not IE fault, it is CSS/Firefox/Opera/XML/W3C's fault!"

I never blamed opera or firefox, I say it's w3c's fault, not the browsers
and somehow people think that firefox is the perfect browser and that it never fails and whatnot
which simply isn't true

XML - what is it for? Yes I know what it's supposed to be for, but why do we need that, and why does it constantly get shoved down our throats?

It don't. No one is forced to use it. And you still fail miserably for not noticing why the loosely tags in HTML is a problem, and why allowing embed other specific XML-based markup languages in HTML is good.

Oh my fucking god you are totally misdirecting

Why do you need a standard for something that is unique from application to application?

As a badass skillfull web programmer, I guess you never heard about XSLT, DOM, SAx, etc???

yes I have, you still aren't answering my question

Simply put, XML DON'T Change from aplications. The data and tags inside tag documents may change, but the structure is always the same. And there are already too many tools and libraries to read it.

I didn't say XML changes, I said the configuration. I can't use web.config in an ant-build for instance

XML is a universal structure to hold hierarquical data. You can read it even in C++, Python, Java, Javascript, or wathever!

ORLY

Here we go, I having to teach you again... Shame on you for working with it and not even understanding it. Like all other crap you said, anyway.

So please come with something constructive instead of doing personal attacks as that is in no way appropriate. You might think that you're the smartest guy in the universe and that you have everything thought out; problem is - you don't. Trust me on this, you don't know everything, you never will.

1) You are the one who started with the personal attacks. I just talked negavive about IE and you started flamming me with personal attacks.

What? I've never said anything personal, I'm just having a discussion, you are the one who take offense to my opinions

2) I don't think I am the smartest guy in the universe. Just that you don't know any crap that you are talking about. And am intelectually offended by your retarded posts.

RSS is not a derivative, it is xml in it's plainest form.

Like always, you talk shit. RSS is XML, but XML is not RSS. So it is a derivative. In the same way HTML and XML are derivative from SGML. Note RSS have more restrictions than XML, in the same way XML and HTML have more restrictions than SGML.

So in this way, all single xml-files are a derivative? So my menu can be called RSM and it's not xml because it's RSM

Seriously. I can make a huge list of retarded stuff you said in this thread. I really feel pity of the people who work with you.

Can you see the difference between a personal attack and stating an opinion?
You are retarded vs. You are wrong?
What YOU just said, is a personal attack
me saying "maybe w3c isn't as all-glorious as you think it is" IS NOT A PERSONAL ATTACK
you're the one being a dick, I'm defending my opinions