I can't see my Web site from Internet Explorer because I use LINUX!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gordon Burditt wrote:

>>> Sometimes it's not worth the hassle with the client, who just wants it
>>> to work on /his/ setup which, as far as he is concerned, is the same as
>>> the rest of the world.
>>>
>>
>>
>>Well, aren't most people on the Internet using IE? and then maybe the
>>mozilla browsers and then opera?
>
> Which version of IE? Some web developers complain that there
> is a much larger difference between IE and IE than, say, between
> Mozilla and Opera, or even between Mozilla and IE.
>
> Only testing with the latest 6 versions of IE may turn out to be a
> big mistake, as you may be leaving out more than half the clients
> surfing the web.
>
> Gordon L. Burditt

It's amazing that people don't upgrade their browsers to the current
browsers. I feel like they don't even belong on the Web. But, of course,
thats another ideological thought -- they get in the way. So that's not
practical.

It must be hard to test in multiple IEs because Windows only lets you have
one of them at a time, right?

Ian.H wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Aug 2004 06:23:46 +0000, Mudge wrote:
>
>>> Code for the _standards_ (which happens to be more Mozilla etc based
>>> than anything IE may throw out), _then_ consider work arounds for IE..
>>> but just because a lot of people use it (only because it's been forced
>>> upon people) doesn't make it right.
>>>
>>> IE renders and displays what it wants to, not how you code it to.
>
>>
>> I don't give a shit about standards.
>
>
> Enough said... sadly, but you continue living in your little redmond
> bubble while the rest of us get on with the real world.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian

I'm sorry, I'm not from this planet. What is redmond? I actually really
want to know.

Mudge

Matthew Crouch wrote:

>>>
>>> Ian
>>
>> I don't give a shit about standards. I just care about what the majority
>> of the visitors will see -- isn't that what is important? the viewers not
>> the standards.
>>
>> Looking long term, standards definitely enable better viewing because
>> they bring about better consistency and therefore design and programming.
>
> Also looking long term, the more people there are who "don't give a shit
> about standards", the longer the long term will be.
>
> Coding to the quirks of a software product rewards the creator of that
> product for making it difficult to get our work done. Refusing to do so
> penalizes him or her.

That is a good point.

Mudge wrote:

> I don't give a shit about standards.

Then ignore them. All of them. Ignore the real standards like RFC 2616.
Don't bother sending content-type headers, hell, don't send any headers
at all. Use urls in whatever form you like. How about
http-mudge-is-cool://\*/get my great document [now].`<>&nbsp;<>

Be independent, who needs those standards nerds at W3C? Or CERN for that
matter. Or ISO. Friggin losers ruin creativity. Do your own thing, and
see how many people can see your site then!

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Leythos wrote:

> if you only code to the standards you can miss a large number of
> custom features that a browser provides that other browsers don't
> provide.

Good web site design means adding features for those that can use them,
while not degrading the page for those who cannot.

I'd like to add that much of the IE only coding -- and that effectively
means IE/Win, at the expense of even IE/Mac -- often involves a
construct that could be done just as easily, and with support for
Mozilla, Opera, Safari, etc. Stranger still are examples where IE/Win
only tests make things more complicated then they need to be. More on
that here:

http://simon.incutio.com/archive/2003/08/11/documentAll

--
Brian (remove ".invalid" to email me)
http://www.tsmchughs.com/

Brian wrote:

> Mudge wrote:
>
>> I don't give a shit about standards.
>
> Then ignore them. All of them. Ignore the real standards like RFC 2616.
> Don't bother sending content-type headers, hell, don't send any headers
> at all. Use urls in whatever form you like. How about
> http-mudge-is-cool://\*/get my great document [now].`<>&nbsp;<>

HaHaHaHa, I love it!

On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:05:59 GMT, Mudge <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Help,
>
>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer? Crapo.


You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll. Good job!
--
gburnore@databasix dot com
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
How you look depends on where you go.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary L. Burnore | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
DataBasix | ÝÛ³ºÝ³Þ³ºÝ³³Ýۺݳ޳ºÝ³Ý³Þ³ºÝ³ÝÝÛ³
| ÝÛ³ 3 4 1 4 2 ݳ޳ 6 9 0 6 9 ÝÛ³
Black Helicopter Repair Svcs Division | Official Proof of Purchase
================================================== =========================
Want one? GET one! http://signup.databasix.com
================================================== =========================

Gary L. Burnore wrote:

> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:05:59 GMT, Mudge <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Help,
>>
>>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
>>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell do
>>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer? Crapo.
>
>
> You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll. Good job!

Well, it's not a complete troll. I'm actually really interested in this data
and want this data, but I'm having fun too.

Mudge wrote:

> Gary L. Burnore wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 06:05:59 GMT, Mudge <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Help,
>>>
>>>I love linux, but i'm a major Web developer, but most my visitors use
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>>>Internet Explorer. I cant' run Internet Explorer on linux. How the hell
>>>do
>>>I make sure everything looks ok on Internet Explorer? Crapo.
>>
>>
>> You're sure getting a lot of mileage out of this troll. Good job!
>
> Well, it's not a complete troll. I'm actually really interested in this
> data and want this data, but I'm having fun too.

But thanks.

"Ian.H" <ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net> wrote in message
news:pan.2004.08.09.02.36.07.422000@bubbleboy.digi serv.net...
> I rest my case, those customers are pure idiots. From your statements,
> you're not part of this category as you recognise standards.. but the way
> I see it, if I (or anyone else) can code a site that renders the same in
> IE as it does in Moz, Opera or "anything else", I fail to see how that'd
> be a bad thing(tm) or why a company would complain. The other joke to this
> is of course, they'd probably never appear in a higher page than about
> 500,000 in a search engine rank unless they were unique in some way (which
> is very highly doubtful). This again outlines just how clueless and
> clue-proof some (most?) companies are and the results normally of
> marketing dept. driven companies.. where they have no idea of the "real
> world".

It's a fairly standard practice for web-design firms to charge extra for
each browser/OS combination supported, since it does add to the cost of
development, primairly from additional testing required. If the client is
unwilling to pay, then the site is guaranteed to work on IE/Windows only.
And of course, from a business standpoint, it makes no sense that the site
automatically works on every other browser too.



--
Obey the Clown - http://www.conradish.net/bobo/