Yup :)

Get your copy at http://www.mozilla.org

I'm downloading it right now

Yeah... Mozilla 1.0 'tis sweet... and btw...

"Three years after America Online acquired Netscape Communications, all signs indicate that this fall's AOL 8.0 software will finally replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer with a browser based on Netscape's open-source Mozilla project." (read more...) (http://www.wired.com/news/ebiz/0,1272,52873,00.html)

I just downloaded it...

I'm a bit confused. What advantages does this software have?

Pages seem to load alot slower than in MSIE.

It won't crash like MSIE, looks cooler, and uses standards to display pages like they are meant to be displayed.

Internet Explorer hardly ever crashes on me. The only reason AOL is replacing I.E. with Netscape Gecko is because Microsoft is opposing a bill supported by Time Warner. You've probably heard of it - a worse version of the DMCA.

Internet Explorer is a lot faster, and I find it renders pages better. It also has better features support. So. No thank you to Gecko.

Originally posted by Devorius
Internet Explorer hardly ever crashes on me. The only reason AOL is replacing I.E. with Netscape Gecko is because Microsoft is opposing a bill supported by Time Warner. You've probably heard of it - a worse version of the DMCA.
Possible other reasons include a) Gecgo is superior and b) They own Netscape, why not use it!
Originally posted by Devorius
Internet Explorer is a lot faster, and I find it renders pages better.
Because it's built into the operating system. If you enable QuickLaunch it's very nice!
Originally posted by Devorius
It also has better features support.
coughNOcough.

Mozilla is far more customizable and has so many fun features. One of the best is the ability to turn pop-ups off!

Well see here. This is where opinion kicks in I suppose. Then again I suppose not.

I personally HATE NetScape. Tried 6.0. It stunk. I couldn't fill out forms and HALF of the pages I would go to wouldn't be displayed properly.

So no thanks to anything with Netscape on it. Personally like most everyone else on this board I hate MS etc. However I am not going to not use their browser for something inferior just because I don't like MS.

Here is irony for you.

Mozilla 1.0 doesn't even properly show the serch field on cnn.com. The "h" is cut off where it says search.

On Hostrocket.com the pictures don't align properly on the right.

My domain search field is offset on my page.

I know they are just little things but they are, to me, annoying little things.


Geez. Take a look at what it does to IBM.com compared to how IE displays that page.

Michael

Congrats to the developers who contributed to this amazing accomplishment in open source software! Mozilla is one of the most (if not the best) HTML compliant browsers available. Maybe web developers will take note and stop using MS proprietary tags in their pages.

Regards,

Jeff

Originally posted by Synthetic
I just downloaded it...

I'm a bit confused. What advantages does this software have?

Pages seem to load alot slower than in MSIE.

The advantage is there's finally a decent browser available for Linux.

Originally posted by michaeln
I personally HATE NetScape. Tried 6.0. It stunk. I couldn't fill out forms and HALF of the pages I would go to wouldn't be displayed properly.

Most sites that do not display well or the same in Mozilla/NS vs IE do so not because of an inferior browser but because of poor HTML.

In the case of the CNN example, the search text box overlap is a rendering difference and a minor one at that. They are using PX (pixels) for font sizing yet the search box size is "7" characters. The two browsers just happen to render the text input field differently. This does not make Mozilla's implementation "wrong".

The IBM example highlights a rendering difference with tables which I've had to deal with myself on various sites. Its an easy fix for IBM. I'll give them the fix for free if they ask.

:0

Actually the two examples you gave were not that bad. Not bad at all considering that Moz 1 is only just out. And don't forget, Netscape has not yet released its own version of Mozzila 1. Its still in release candidate mode.

Here's another example http://www.eweek.com/ - near as I can tell it renders the same in both browsers. Since they led with a story this week on the new release, perhaps they double checked their own pages.

What the real problem is...

MS IE forgives a great many HTML mistakes. Is this a good thing? NO. It is, in my opinion, part of their strategy to dominate browser market share. By improperly supporting HTML standards, which includes not being strict about HTML interpretation, they essentially thwart standards.

An analogy:
you decide that english will be your standard language, but instead of friend to describe a close associate, you use the word pooper-scooper.

"I'm going to the beach and taking my pooper-scooper with me for some fun"

Loses a little in the translation doesn't it? But for others that speak your special flavor of "English" it makes perfect sense.

Well that's the Microsoft approach with IE, in part.

I think you will find increasingly that web designers will target both platforms. Every site I do I check against Netscape / Moz / Opera and IE.

Also as the use of CSS becomes more widespread I think you'll find display differences become less of an issue.

Useful resources and web standards evangelism:

http://www.zeldman.com/
http://archive.webstandards.org/

Originally posted by Devorius
Internet Explorer is a lot faster, and I find it renders pages better.

you@localhost:~$ mozilla -turbo

Originally posted by michaeln
On Hostrocket.com the pictures don't align properly on the right.

My domain search field is offset on my page.

I know they are just little things but they are, to me, annoying little things.

Geez. Take a look at what it does to IBM.com compared to how IE displays that page.

Is that the fault of the browser, or is that an indication of faulty HTML? No offense, as I do not claim to be an HTML guru, but there are a lot of folks (myself included) that can *not* run IE in Linux. We've been looking at those faults in pages for some time now.

Regards,

Jeff

It is my opinion that all browsers should take this somewhat of a less strict approach to HTML if it helps pages be displayed properly as the designer wished the to be showed.

It is rare that IE doesn't show the page properly but a rather common thing in Mozilla. So you see I don't think it is as much a matter of how strict the browser should stick to the HTML as to how forgiving the browser is.

I could understand your point of view if IE forgiving nature to HTML caused problems with people making webpages etc. However it doesn't. On the other hand Mozilla is so strict that if you make just a very simple mistake it can mess the whole page up.

Also I find that IE's forgiving nature makes life much easier with making pages when it comes to tables and having them stretch across the screen. Mozilla can be very annoying when it comes to this.

So basically you find as many pages as you can that doesn't show up properly in IE and then do so the same with Netscape/Mozilla. There are far more pages that do not show up properly in Mozilla than in IE. And remember, pages specifically designed for one doesn't count. Looking at it from that respect IE is definately the better browser.

I understand that you can't use IE under Linux. In that case Mozilla is definately the next best thing, and is what I use when I am on my linux terminal. However, logically speaking it is not the better browser.

Regards,
Michael

Why doesn’t my page look right in Mozilla?

The base Mozilla code is designed to support W3C standards as thoroughly as possible. Some sites either use erroneous browser sniffing (http://developer.netscape.com/evangelism/tools/practical-browser-sniffing/) , or write their pages for the quirks of older non-standard browsers, rather than using standards-compliant HTML that all current browsers (e.g. Mozilla-based browsers, Konqueror, Opera, Internet Explorer 6+) can read. If this is the case, you should direct your webmaster to the Mozilla Web Author FAQ (http://www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/faq.html) and Netscape DevEdge. (http://developer.netscape.com/)

Originally posted by michaeln
It is my opinion that all browsers should take this somewhat of a less strict approach to HTML if it helps pages be displayed properly as the designer wished the to be showed.
This is completely wrong.

Back to our analogy - we started with:

You decide that english will be your standard language, but instead of friend to describe a close associate, you use the word pooper-scooper.

"I'm going to the beach and taking my pooper-scooper with me for some fun"

Contemplating your comment:
less strict approach to HTML if it helps pages be displayed properly as the designer wished the to be showed

We add to the analogy:

Fred decides too that english will be his standard but doesn't like pooper-scooper as the word for Friend and instead chooses the word Sausage. Mary chooses Kinky. Joe choses Friend, since he believes in standards. Resulting in chaos:

"I'm going to the beach and taking my pooper-scooper / sausage / kinky friend with me for some fun"

HTML is a language. Being strict is not being limited, its being accurate.
It is rare that IE doesn't show the page properly but a rather common thing in Mozilla. So you see I don't think it is as much a matter of how strict the browser should stick to the HTML as to how forgiving the browser is. This has nothing to do with quality of the browser or how standards compliant it is, this has everything to do with market share and mind share. Many people write poor quality HTML (and even some automated tools do this for you) and only test under IE. They are oblivious to the problem precisely because IE doesn't highlight it. This is not a good thing, unless you believe that the world only wants or needs one browser.

Its not a good thing because it forces web designers to add tweaks for every platform. Because it takes time to do such work,and because of market share, Microsoft gets the first tweak, then Netscape and then maybe Opera or some of the Mac browsers.

The bottom line is that the world would have more choice, not less, if Microsoft and all browser vendors chose to support web standards in a uniform manner. Only Microsoft benefits from less choice.

Originally posted by michaeln
It is rare that IE doesn't show the page properly but a rather common thing in Mozilla.

That's because most people only test pages in Internet Explorer.

I pooper-scooper understand sausage you are talking kite.

Or Mozilla could take this less stringent approach and pages would look just as good in it as they do in IE. Then everyone is happy.

The quality of the browser, by most logical people, is measured by how well it displays a page. Netscape fails the test. IE passes. It is a simply yes or no equation.

It basically boils down to this. Could Netscape/Mozilla write a browser that displayed pages just as good or better than IE. Most definitely. They could do it without any problems at all. However, hrmm, it seems they choose not to? Why. Arrogance maybe, who knows.

The simple fact is that a good majority of the pages on the internet are for personal sites, or small business that can't afford a professional designer to make their pages for them. So short of spending 6 months in the html books to just make an attempt at making a page that will show up properly in Netscape and then at that most of them still will not show up properly. On the other hand we have MSIE and they will show up properly in that.

Anyone can throw some HTML code together that will show up properly in MSIE. You have to read the books carefully to get them to show up properly in Mozilla. So lets be logical here. For the general public which is better.

There is the old saying, "If it isn't broken don't fix it." Well simply put, the way MSIE does it thing aint broke. They work. Pages are displayed properly. The way Mozilla does things don't work. something needs to be fixed. This takes us back to can Mozilla make a browser that shows pages as good as or better than IE. Of coarse. Why don't they? Like I said before, who knows. Some strange attitude that it has to be done a certain way or we refuse to properly display your pages.


You have to understand I am not talking about how you tell the browser to set the margins to 0 on all sides of the screen. I agree with you about that. I am not sure if it is still different code but I know at one time what worked for one didn't for the other. All browsers should use the same code for that, and frankly I find MS going off on their on with that and a few other things overly annoying. I am talking about how it shows tables etc. Take for example the IBM website. Or what I said in an earlier post about making tables that span across the screen. Netscape could easily take the easier approach to these things but the choose not to.

Now the fact that they choose not to brings me to another point. Who suffers. People on Linux or Mac machines, and then there is this whole conspiracy blaming it on MS. I hate MS as much as the next guy but I find that to funny. It isn't MS's fault that all of these different companies have gotten together and decided to make these strict rules about displaying tables etc. and then making their browsers so strict in their interpretation and blaming the difference on MS.

Or look at it this way. With MS it is easy to make a webpage that properly works. With Netscape it isn't so easy. You have to study. So as I said before, if it aint broke don't fix it.

Regards,

Michael

Or Mozilla could take this less stringent approach and pages would look just as good in it as they do in IE. Then everyone is happy. Rarely is following someone elses bad practices the right way to behave in the long run.

Standards are good things. Imagine if there were different CD ROM formats (well, actually there are!) and it was hit and miss as to whether your CD ROM would belt out the latest Britney Spears album for you?

Or picture filling up with gas only to find that station had a different quality control standard for water content, causing your car to stall in the middle of an intersection with a dump truck barelling down on you.

Suppose you were flying on an Airbus 300 that was serviced with nothing but grey market parts, half of which were long past their good for use date? Feeling comfy?

Basically your argument is that Microsoft should be tolerated and even encouraged for altering standards for its own purpose and that all should follow them.

HTML isn't very complicated. Rather than arguing for a browsers that compensates for people's mistakes, but can't possibly compensate the same way as another browser because there is no "mistake compensation standard", why not argue for tools that make it easy to pump out standards compliant HTML or XHTML or XML etc?

The good news is that more modern HTML tools are headed that direction.

I challenge you to make web sites that are accessible (deliver the content to users whether they are blind or sighted, in text or graphical browsers, or via 'readers'), that run well on multiple platforms, without knowing a thing or two about html. For any significant site on the internet the designers already have all the knowledge needed to craft fully standards compliant sites.

If Microsoft were not so dominant, those same designers would already be writing to standards, rather than writing to Microsoft's browser behaviour, and there would be no extra work required to make pages display as the designer intended, regardless of browser.

It may happen, but it will take time.

Enough of this discussion for me.

Basically your argument is that Microsoft should be tolerated and even encouraged for altering standards for its own purpose and that all should follow them.


No, my argument is that all of the other browser makers should build their browsers to loosly understand HTML pages as IE has.

Like I said in my last post, I agree with you about specific things, such as how you tell the browser to set all margins to 0. However that isn't the problem with why IBM's page doesn't show up properly. That is due to how the browser shows tables which is a simple matter of do I have to define how high and wide will the table be or can I let the browser deside depending on the users resolution.

I find that tables is the biggest difference between the two when it comes to displaying a simple page properly that has nothing browser dependent in it. It is those things I am talking about. And when you get down to that we arn't even arguning about standards anymore. Simply over the fact that IE leaves room for, oh my, human error and Mozilla does not. And in terms such as that IE is better than Mozilla.


If Microsoft were not so dominant, those same designers would already be writing to standards, rather than writing to Microsoft's browser behaviour, and there would be no extra work required to make pages display as the designer intended, regardless of browser.


We are not arguing about professional designers. We are arguing about Joe Blow that makes their own page. Gesh, I have seen pro Netscape people's websites where IE displayed their website better than Netscape. Go figure. They couldn't even keep as strictly to the overly strict standerd as the browser requires.

Yes I do agree standards is a good thing, but lets compare them to laws. When they get to strict they are more cumbersom and more of an annoyance than a good thing. Remember, all things are good in moderation. So yes, standerds are a good thing until you make them so strict that you have to break one standard to keep another one.

Regards,
Michael

Interesting, and potentially a never ending argument. May I make a couple points however. First and foremost to interchange haphazardly Netscape Navigator (Communicator, whatever) and Mozilla is not entirely fair. Certainly Mozilla resides in the core of Netscape, but development of the two browsers does not necessarily follow the same road. My Netscape 4.7 renders a largely different view than my Mozilla 0.9.7. And secondly, why shouldn't this piece of open source accomplishment be a great way for Joe User to get involved in the whole movement?

Regards,

Jeff

Originally posted by Synthetic
I just downloaded it...

I'm a bit confused. What advantages does this software have? ...

It uses Internet standard rather than Redmond standards.

Originally posted by Jeffyt
... First and foremost to interchange haphazardly Netscape Navigator (Communicator, whatever) and Mozilla is not entirely fair. Certainly Mozilla resides in the core of Netscape, but development of the two browsers does not necessarily follow the same road. ...


What is Mozilla?

Mozilla is a project to continue Netscape Communicator as an open project. The project is maintained by employees of Netscape (now a division of AOL), RedHat, some other companies, as well as contributors from the community.

On what is Mozilla based?

The Mozilla project started near the end of life of the 4.x line of Netscape Communicator. Originally, the plan was just to re-stabilize the code and release 5.0, but it was decided within the community that the more ambitious changes that were planned for later integration were close to being ready. The old layout engine, networking engine, and several of the older modules were gutted, and much later, the sources reached the point where Netscape was comfortable making a release, and so Netscape 6.0 was released. Netscape 6.0 and above are based off of the Mozilla source. Mozilla 1.0 (Mozilla uses a different versioning system than Netscape) is due for release soon.

What is the relation between Mozilla versions and Netscape versions?

The current arrangement between Netscape (AOL) and the Mozilla project is that Mozilla develops its own releases, and when Netscape (AOL) is preparing to make a release, it takes the current version of Mozilla, makes modifications, and does its own QA. In return for this, Netscape (AOL) contributes developers to work on the project. The Netscape versions may have a different look/feel than Mozilla versions, and also may add proprietary features. The Netscape versions are all branded as Netscape (AOL) products.

See:
http://www.mozilla.org/docs/mozilla-faq.html

Originally posted by michaeln


No, my argument is that all of the other browser makers should build their browsers to loosly understand HTML pages as IE has. Even if that were the intent, it wouldn't be an attainable goal. Browser developers have to make decisions about how to render particular occurences of the markup language. The html standards present, well a standard way of doing that, and also identify for web designers what to expect. As long as a designer writes within the standard, every browser should respond in a particular way. But there are an infinite number of possible "things to do," and a designer might choose to depart from the standards and then, even if standards were strictly adhered to by browser developers, would have to test each browser to see how they handle "non-standard" html. But the designer has made the choice, then, to go beyond the parameters of the standards, and so has chosen to complicate the job.

You're asking Mozilla's developers and others to produce a browser that will respond the same way that Microsoft's does in an infinite number of possible situations. It could only be done by testing every possible scenario in IE and programming their products to respond in the same way.

You say that all browsers should "loosely understand html," but that isn't what you're asking for. You're asking them to interpret it strictly in exactly the same way IE does.

You say that all browsers should "loosely understand html," but that isn't what you're asking for. You're asking them to interpret it strictly in exactly the same way IE does.


Perhaps I should put this in a slightly different perspective which I tried to do in my last post.

The standards are to strict. As I said before it is like laws. To an extent they are good and necessary. However, when they get to excessive you have a few problems. Take for example our legal system today. Attornys go to school for 4 to 8 years depending and still don't fully understand the law in a whole. They only understand bits and pieces of it.

Wait forget that. LOL.. Here we go to prove my point that to much can be a bad thing. Take the Income Tax laws in the US for example. I know I don't even have to go into detail about that. Who understands those.

It is the same way with this. The standards on many aspects are to strict. As I have said all along, tables. To strict. Yes I know your argument. If everyone made their HTML pages as per the standards there would not be a problem.

Ok look at it like this. The very existance of IE and the fact that it shows tables no matter how they are thrown at it perfectly fine in itself proves the standards applied to mozilla and the others are to strict. The fact that everything concerning tables works fine in IE shows that the level of standard that MS as built their browser around (Same standard just not as strict as everyone elses) works fine. That proves that THE STANDARD is to strict and should be loosend. Then no one would have a problem.

It isn't a matter of them having to copy MS's standard. It is a matter of simply loosening the the standards they have set. However, instead doing that they blam the compatability problems on Micro$oft saying their standards are to loose when the truth is their standards are to strict. They force web designers to have to go an extra mile that they shouldn't have to go.


Regards,
Michael

Originally posted by michaeln
It is the same way with this. The standards on many aspects are to strict. As I have said all along, tables. To strict. Yes I know your argument. If everyone made their HTML pages as per the standards there would not be a problem. Nope, that's not my argument!

As I said, if the standards were adhered to by the browser manufacturers, site developers would be free to choose themselves whether they want to depart from those standards and so take on the responsibility for cross-browser compatibility; or alternatively abandon support for one or more segment of the user community.

Without adherence to the standards by the major browser developers, there is no such choice. This, of course, is one point on which your tax law analogy fails -- you aren't able to just decide to abandon them. Or maybe the analogy doesn't fail: you can choose to abandon them, but there are consequences! :)

The analogy also fails because your argument implies that html standards are complex, like the tax codes -- "Who understands those." Come on! What would it take to get a working grasp of the html standards? A few hours if you're a quick study, but certainly no more than several hours of effort. And that's for someone new to html; for someone who's learned the basics to then learn the standards and how to adhere to them would be trivial.

Do you argue that the tax codes are too strict? I'd disagree, and point out the many loopholes that allow large corporations to avoid paying any income tax at all as evidence. But that's a topic for a different forum!
The very existance of IE and the fact that it shows tables no matter how they are thrown at it perfectly fine in itself proves the standards applied to mozilla and the others are to strict. The fact that everything concerning tables works fine in IE shows that the level of standard that MS as built their browser around (Same standard just not as strict as everyone elses) works fine.So it's your contention that there's no way to construct a table that won't be properly rendered by IE? Of course there is; but you and most people who are developing for IE are constructing them in such a way that IE will render them. If you leave out a tag or nest incorrectly, you catch it and correct it because you're testing your pages in IE.

Why would it require "going the extra mile" to adhere to the html standards? In what way would it be any more work?

Mozilla IS EXCELLENT. Doesnt crash as often as IE5/6.

Some of you people are talking about how IE will display a page that has been incorrectly coded - yet Mozilla wont. And are putting Mozilla down for this?

Thats stupid. Does that mean McDonalds (or any company...) should be able to skirt around health standards? Building standards ("hey its standing ok at the moment")?

Standards are there for a purpose.

Warp, my argument are the standards are to strict.


JayC,
Personaly I think the whole tax system should be garbaged and replaced with a new nation wide sales tax. All of the loopholes are due to it being to massive, and of coarse many of them are put there on purpose. But as you said that is a whole other story.

You said it would only take a few hours to properly understand HTML for the average Joe. Tell that to my wife, who by the way, after studying it for a few weeks can hand write a page that shows correctly in IE.

You are dancing around my argument. I agree that yes if all of the browser makers including MicroSoft stuck strictly to the standards then all of the designers would make pages that showed up properly in all of the browsers. That is the obvious and I am not arguing with that. I am saying the standards are to strict in SOME areas. I understand the concept of why they are they way they are. Having such stringent standards makes it easier on the browser makers to make compliant browsers and for everyones webpage to be viewed the same in each browser.

I am simply stating that the more stringant the standards the more cumbersom it is for the developer to make a site. So in some cases where they might be to strict they should be loosened up a bit. That is all I am saying. Why make things to hard on the poor sole trying to make their website.

Yes it is true that joe blow can go and having no knowledge of HTML know enough after only a few short hours to throw up a simple site. But how about a slightly more complex one.

I would agree that NetScape is better than it used to be. I can remember when EVERY site looked different.

Anyway I have more reasons for not using NetScape. Maybe they have fixed this problem but when I first downloaded NetScape 6 I could fill out forms. When you hit the submit button the stupid browser would sit there like you did nothing. I thought perhaps it was that one form, so I went and tried many others. Same problem with each one. Now if that wasn't poor coding I don't know what is but to me, for a company to put something out in that bad of condition shows how un trustworthy not only they are but their products as well. And no, I didn't have the BETA verison.

I don't remember the hosts name but one of these web hosts says that you will have to sign up for their services with the IE browser as their form will not work in Netscape. Hrmm again. problem.

Regards,
Michael.

To add to my previous post.

Here is a perfect example of how the standards are to strict. However, first let me complain about how freaking small Mozilla 1.0 makes this textbox. Very annoying. So much for it being 70 columns wide.

Back to topic. Visit http://www.cpinews.net in both browsers. You will notice that in IE you see a solid line around each of the boxes. However, you will not see the line in Mozilla 1.0. Why might you ask. Well simply because the standards are a bit to strict here. Mozilla expects the coder to put "px" after the border width in the style call. so it has to be "border: 1px;". IE doesn't require the px.

Now let me ask you. Is the "px" 100% necessary? Why can't it be common knowledge that if you don't put a px or some other letter combination behind the numeral that the browser will default to pixels as IE does.

It is these simple things I am arguing about where the standards are way out there in never never land. So in mozilla if you don't put the px it ignores the whole call and sets the border to 0. All because the coder didn't put a simple px there. But hey you all want to make it harder on your selves so I just hope you don't accidentally put "pz" there sometime and then can't figure out why your page doesn't load properly.

Regards,
Michael

Well after all of the arguing my review of Mozilla 1.0

-----

I have to say it is much better than it used to be. Most every page I goto at least looks decent. May not look exactly like the designer intended but there are only minor diffrerences that I wish they would fix.

Another problem I have with it is how it does the width of textareas. This box is extrememly narrow.

Past that I those two things which I think they should fix I think it is great.

Their whole tab thing is awsome. I know Opera has had it for a while but as everyone knows Opera isn't exactly the best browser to use though it is pretty good.

I will defenately be using this more than IE as it is also much less buggy than the last Mozilla or Netscape browser I installed. Now if I could only get the Alexa toolbar for Mozilla. ;)

So now that Linux has a decent web browser when will I be able to get Dreamweaver for linux. I will be all set thing.. ;)

Regards,
Michael

IMO it seems to be very solid, and i havent got an error yet.

I like it alot. It has some nice features, but is slow, however, it seems that it parses HTML different than how IE does.

I don't see where it is any slower than IE. On my machine it has really been kind of a toss up. Anyway other than the things I mentioned above I really like it as well. I have been using it since this thread started without one error so that isn't to bad as I live on the net. ;)

Originally posted by michaeln
I don't see where it is any slower than IE. On my machine it has really been kind of a toss up. Anyway other than the things I mentioned above I really like it as well. I have been using it since this thread started without one error so that isn't to bad as I live on the net. ;) It is slower than IE.

Well on the worlds greatest(apple) mozilla is way faster than IE:cool:

Originally posted by michaeln
Back to topic. Visit http://www.cpinews.net in both browsers. You will notice that in IE you see a solid line around each of the boxes. However, you will not see the line in Mozilla 1.0. Why might you ask. Well simply because the standards are a bit to strict here. Mozilla expects the coder to put "px" after the border width in the style call. so it has to be "border: 1px;". IE doesn't require the px.

Now let me ask you. Is the "px" 100% necessary?
Because it could also be 1pt, 1em, etc.

Your overall argument is that people don't take the time to learn and that browers should make up for that. Wrong. People should learn how to code properly and to standards. It's really not that hard and takes just a bit more time. It gets a lot harder when IE decides to use a different box model for CSS than the standard, so now we have to use a hack to get around it and then hack the hack so that the hack doesn't effect Opera, etc. It's crazy.

Your argument is completely flawed, just a formal fallacy and not an informal one :) . You see two browsers, NS and IE and believe that people should code for IE and NS should render like IE. Since IE has a bigger market share, that makes sense. Right?

Well, let's say that there are four browsers competing for users. SHould they each follow each other, should they all render pages differently? No. They should follow the standards. That's why we have them. Not so one company can make a decision that effects everyone, not that they can dominate how things render, but so that anyone can make a page and it can be viewed in any browser and it will look close to the same.

I'm sick and tired of people saying "well, it looks good in IE" F- that. It's not going to work much longer. AOL is switching (I'm pretty sure, but not positive) to the Mozilla rendering engine. That increases, from what I've read, the "NS" percentage to 20-30%.

Spend the time, code to standards. I've made many websites that look almost exactly the same in both NS 6+ and IE. It didn't take any extra effort, I simple coded to standards and opened the page in each browser: Presto, it worked.

Thank you Mozilla for rendering correctly, not IEy.

Rally, Apple may say that Mozilla is faster, but IE and OmniWeb share the top rung for the Mac world. The majority of Windows users think IE is the greatest, the majority of Mac users think IE is the greatest ... just because Linux doesn't have IE, doesn't mean you should call IE crappy; Linux, after all, is the least used OS for desktops, and that's where browsers count.

So you can piss and moan about IE all you want, but you're the minority, and the majority rules.

Dogma, I'm an AOL beta tester and so I know what's going on; yes, they're going to start using Netscape Gecko .. they've been testing it. No one is happy with this move. The testers agree that IE is better.

The only reason AOL is switching to Gecko is because (as I've said before) Microsoft is opposing a bill supported by AOL Time Warner. Get the facts; it's politics. Netscape was better a few years ago when they were both at 4.x, but now IE is the clear winner.


P.S.
Only the bit about IE and OmniWeb were directed to you, Rally; the rest was to the "l33t" Linux groupies.

Originally posted by Devorius
Rally, Apple may say that Mozilla is faster, but IE and OmniWeb share the top rung for the Mac world. The majority of Windows users think IE is the greatest, the majority of Mac users think IE is the greatest ...



Very valid point but look how long mozilla 1.0 has been out, give it a chance tho :)

Dogma,

You miss the whole point. I said the standards are to strict. The standards should clearly say that if px, pt, em etc are not specified than the numeral is a px value. My argument is not that Mozilla should render like IE. My argument is that the standards are to strict in their requirments as in the example above. They should be set failesafe so that the coder doesn't have to put in the px, pt whatever. It wouldn't be hard for Mozilla, Opera and the others to do this. What, maybe one or two lines of code here and there to save a whole bunch of people a lot of trouble.

EDIT:
I will say this as a plus. At least you don't have to worry about all of those stupid bugs they keep finding in IE.

Ok,

I give in. IE STINKS...

I made a page tonight that looks better in NetScape because IE has its own ideas about css styles. You has for dots and it gives you lines.

Anyway I see your point. I give in, I was wrong. All of that stuff.

Later.

Every webmaster recognises this situation: You work on a page many hours, days and nights, you give it your best, you’ve got good ideas. You create images, tables and framesets, you insert a few harmless javascripts, a little bit of css here and there. Finally, after long and intensive work, you enjoy the appearance of your page with Internet-Explorer. Everything looks really good and works quite well, you just want to lean back and relax, then you remember, there is yet another browser that the pages should run in. A terrible feeling creeps over you, you start-up Netscape. Your fingers tremble as you enter the URL, now your only a touch on the enter key away from your fears. Your pupils widen, your finger moves hesitatingly over the enter key, then you resign yourself to fate.

What happens next? each description scoffs and you feel the cold chill of horror creeping up and down your spine. You feel it moving up to your brain and shortly before your head explodes, you begin to curse that thing and cry out loud! It came, as it had to come: once more Netscape did not understand the half of your work! The images do not fit, those tables look really strange and css was never meant to be understood by Netscape! It is simply maddening!
-webmasters against netscape http://hypercall.de

i prefer to call it nutscrape , or crapzilla . These broswers suck , thats why the majority of people arent using them . As far as AOL is concerned , it will probably be better then the aol intergrated browser , the only problem i see here is now millions of people will be looking at sites completely messed up , causing aol to once again to loose lots of customers . Anyways , im not a huge fan of ms , but the got the browser catagory licked

Maybe we all should just get along ----- and use OPERA ;)

Regards,

Jeff

I tried using Opera. For some strange reason, *no* sites ever load for me. Nothing is displayed. I tried getting help at their forums, but the only suggestion I got from someone was to get rid of my firewall...:rolleyes:

Ya i have been using Mozilla 1.0 all day...there e-mail and everything.. Very sweet! Its almost as good as IE 6.0. Also i liek how i coudl import everythign from Outlook 2002 without a problem!

Originally posted by case

-webmasters against netscape http://hypercall.de

i prefer to call it nutscrape , or crapzilla . These broswers suck , thats why the majority of people arent using them . blah, blah, blah...
You know what's kinda funny, that page looks exactly the same in both IE and NS. Seems just as competant, not sucky...

You have a little fallacy of false cause. You claim that the browsers suck and that's why they are not used. I would like to suggest that IE has a greater marketshare because MS bundles, err, integrated IE into Windows and didn't allow computer manufacturers to install Microsoft. The average computer user is just going to use what's there.

A distinct, thick, really, really, really big line needs to be drawn between NS4.x and NS6+. NS4.x sucks, it renders code poorly, can barely understand CSS, etc. NS6 and 7 (and Mozilla) are very nice browsers.

Infact, if you supply a strict DTD, then your page will render according to standards in both NS6+ and IE6 (or earlier).

Don't have an agenda against a browser. People complain about NS failing because they use exclusive code that MS made up. Just code to standards and everything will be all right.

Looks like Mozilla 1.1 Alpha is out.
I just finished downloading 1.1 Alpha, itsless buggy.

Does it have spell check for emails?