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

Ian.H wrote:

> On Mon, 09 Aug 2004 02:05:13 +0000, Leythos wrote:
>
>> In article <pan.2004.08.09.01.13.54.547000@bubbleboy.digiserv .net>,
>> ian@WINDOZEdigiserv.net says...
>>> And just for arguments sake, company XYZ after having to many issues
>>> with IE's lace-condom style security or general "quirks" decide to give
>>> another browser a go and like it.. if you want to sit and recode their
>>> entire intranet, go for your life! Me? I'd like to cover that
>>> possibility from the word go. "Browser specific features" is bullshit..
>>> IE _really_ isn't that good ;)
>>
>> I'm not saying that I agree with a IE only site, I'm saying that I know
>> companies that wanted it coded that way, even government orgs that
>> wanted it coded that way.
>
>
> Have you not seen some of these sites? _Many_ of the .gov sites and
> "official" sites (IIRC, the UK railways info site got attacked bigtime for
> it's lack of accessability for example) are coded by complete amateurs
> that know no better than m$ software.
>
>
>> I know this is a PHP group, but there are platforms other than PHP that
>> can, for the most part, determine the browser type, and you can code for
>> it.
>
>
> And there's your problem right there, "for the most part". My sites work
> in "all" browsers as-is.. no need to determine browser type, which just
> like an HTTP_REFERRER for example, cannot be reliably used for anything..
> wasn't the wget example enough to show that you _cannot_ reliably detect a
> remote browser? Wget is obviously not the only tool available where you
> can define a user-agent string.
>
>
>> Don't get me wrong, I, myself, don't code for one browser when I write
>> apps, but I've had customers say they only want IE compatibility, and
>> some of them were large companies. Sometimes you can't sway them,
>> sometimes you can. It's not that you need to only code to the standard,
>> it's that you should unless directed to by the customer.
>
>
> 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".
>
> I'll _never_ be convinced to write a site specifically for a browser.. so
> far, once explained to, I've not had a client tell me that my ideas of
> how to adjust the site to be more beneficial and attract (or be more
> usable) to a wider audience should not be done.
>
> It's a really sad state of affairs when people seem to think the
> be-all-and-end-all of IT is m$ driven =(
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ian

Most people in this world -- at least from the U.S. that I can tell -- don't
really know much about computers or the Internet. The normal is not to
know.

"Mudge" <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_FtRc.250341$JR4.237756@attbi_s54...
> It must be hard to test in multiple IEs because Windows only lets you have
> one of them at a time, right?

Wrong.

http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/000094.php

Steve
--
Steven C. Gallafent - The Computer Guy, Inc.
steve@compguy.com - http://www.compguy.com/

Mudge wrote:
>
> I don't give a shit about standards.

Then I hope and pray no one is stupid enough to hire you.

bblackmoor
2004-08-11

Mudge wrote:
>
> Standards are really great, but they are only an idea.
> So when it comes to building a Web site, fuck em.

This kind of staggering incompetence does at least as much damage to the
web and our industry as Microsoft does. The great strength of the web is
also its greatest weakness: any idiot with a dial-up account can claim
to be a web developer.

Ah, well. At least it's easy for us to spot them when we do interviews.

Hint: I work at one of the largest employee owned science and technology
companies in the WORLD. We pay better than most of the companies in our
sector. If you want to be employed, and paid well, then learn what the
standards are, and adhere to them. Period.

bblackmoor
2004-08-11

Leythos wrote:
>
> It's fairly easy to detect which browser is being used
> and add the code that provides the format based on the
> differences

Good lord: is it still 1998 where you live?

bblackmoor
2004-08-11

"Mudge" <mark1822@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:_FtRc.250341$JR4.237756@attbi_s54...
> 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.

Microsoft does a pretty good job pushing people to upgrade to the latest
version. Big Brother is great when conformity is what you want...

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

That's what VMWare is for :-)

To reliably test the various versions of IE, you really need separate
installations of Windows, as the browser is integrated pretty deeply into
the OS.