Re: wine and IE
On Tue, 2003-03-04 at 23:28, Kent West wrote: > Karsten M. Self wrote: > > >Moreover: even in the corporate world, if two business needs make > >conflicting browser demands, you may not be able to accomodate them > >(particularly for specific versions of MSIE after 5.x). > > > >For this and other reasons, I consider the browser user-agent string to > >be harmful. You can join the protest: > > > >http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/UserAgentString > > > > Oh sure, use a phrase that discourages Christians and other > non-profanity users from participating in this community. Otherwise I'd > certainly give this movement serious consideration. > > Call me a prude. prude ;-) remove the offending word... I'm sure you'll still get your point across. -- Scott Henson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Karsten M. Self wrote: Moreover: even in the corporate world, if two business needs make conflicting browser demands, you may not be able to accomodate them (particularly for specific versions of MSIE after 5.x). For this and other reasons, I consider the browser user-agent string to be harmful. You can join the protest: http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/UserAgentString Oh sure, use a phrase that discourages Christians and other non-profanity users from participating in this community. Otherwise I'd certainly give this movement serious consideration. Call me a prude. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
on Sat, Feb 22, 2003 at 04:20:14AM -0800, Paul Johnson ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:13:53AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > And how many people have their browser dictated by corporate policy? > > How many people are allowed to use the browser for non-business > reasons? > > > But I also realize that standards or not, the world is a diverse place, > > with diverse software, old and new, and if I want people to see a site, > > I have to accomodate them. > > You'd go a lot farther in accomodating them if you stuck to the > standard, encouraged everybody else to stick to the standard. > Webmasters (including you) are responsible for letting vendors put you > in this (broken) situation to begin with. Only webmasters (including > you) can fix it. If customers aren't able to properly render the vast > majority of websites because thier browser can't render to the > standard worth shit, that browser gets dumped. Even > corporate-dictated ones. Moreover: even in the corporate world, if two business needs make conflicting browser demands, you may not be able to accomodate them (particularly for specific versions of MSIE after 5.x). For this and other reasons, I consider the browser user-agent string to be harmful. You can join the protest: http://twiki.iwethey.org/twiki/bin/view/Main/UserAgentString Peace. -- Karsten M. Self <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>http://kmself.home.netcom.com/ What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand? Reading is a right, not a feature -- Kathryn Myronuk http://www.freesklyarov.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:42:26AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > In general, people who think of the way pages are "intended to be seen" > > are missing the point of the web. Will your pixel-perfect design look > > the way you intended it to look on my PDA? The standards emphasize > > semantic markup, not physical markup, and leave the details of rendering > > up to the browser where they belong. CSS merely provides hints. > > I completely agree. But that's not the issue. Actually, it's the entirety of the issue. Webmasters, especially commercial websites, *NEED* to learn this fact. I say especially commercial websites because if they don't bother to shape up, there's really no customer demand for the browser vendors to figure it out. As long as the site itself works, stick to the standard and let the user worry about how it renders. The user has the browser, the browser has the burden of rendering the page. If the user doesn't like how pages render in that browser, the user should ditch it. -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > complex). Unless the HTML writer makes the needed concessions to > text-only browsers, graphics rendering is worthless. Well, ALT is *not* optional in HTML and newer. If webmasters are going to use HTML 4 still, they should bother to learn the standard at some point during the five or six years it's been around. Failing that, thier boss should see thier incompetance in basic HTML for what it is and can thier ass. > It is certainly a goal to shoot at. The reality is that most people use > browsers that are a couple (or more) releases behind. You cannot forget > that the overwhelming majority are users. By comparisons, Linux tends > to draw user/administrators. > By suggesting that the customer is at fault because he can't see your > site the way you intended it be seen, is to suggest they are not > welcome. Remember, the average visitor to a web site has no idea what a > bug report is. You imply that the webmaster has final say in how thier website looks, when this is not the case. Webmasters need to realise that browser windows come in many shapes and sizes, and specifying widths in pixels breaks things for people on smaller or larger displays, or even using a different window manager or web browser. > What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or > vice versa? Neither. Not everybody drives a Honda, so why have Honda shaped parking spaces? Wouldn't it make sense to have spaces roughly the width of a standard traffic lane and as long as a car length? If so, why do you think it's acceptable to use the equivilent of triangular parking spaces when W3C tells you at length what a reasonable parking space looks like? The W3C isn't oblivious to what's going on in the industry, they state the common ground. -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 09:13:53AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > But that's not even the point. How many people upgrade their browsers > regularly? Do you remember how hard it is to do when you're on a dial-up > line (due to the download sizes)? Yup. The trick I used to use, and the one preferred by my family (I was living with my folks last time I used dailup regularly) was to do apt-get -y update && apt-get -y dist-upgrade right as dinner is served. I get new software, and no telemarketers can interrupt the meal. > And how many people have their browser dictated by corporate policy? How many people are allowed to use the browser for non-business reasons? > But I also realize that standards or not, the world is a diverse place, > with diverse software, old and new, and if I want people to see a site, > I have to accomodate them. You'd go a lot farther in accomodating them if you stuck to the standard, encouraged everybody else to stick to the standard. Webmasters (including you) are responsible for letting vendors put you in this (broken) situation to begin with. Only webmasters (including you) can fix it. If customers aren't able to properly render the vast majority of websites because thier browser can't render to the standard worth shit, that browser gets dumped. Even corporate-dictated ones. -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
nate wrote: >Gary Turner said: > > >> page of nested tables, simply because that seems the best way to present >> your ideas. Then take a look at the page with Lynx. > >i don't think that's fair. lynx is not what I would call a feature >complete browser. links may be better to compare with. But for me I test in Lynx precisely because it is not featureful. It is my purely personal prejudice that any page *I* write should still be understandable even in a browser such as Lynx. [...] > >> The graphic artists, or anyone coming from print seem to think they can >> control the final look. That may be the reason so many sites are >> effectively IE only :( The fact is that browsers render differently, and >> are further affected by user preferences. Since the final look is *not* >> under the author's control, the author must test and rewrite until the >> page at least looks ok regardless of browser. ^ OK, this is hyperbole ;) More later. > >to a certain point of course. Even different versions of IE render >pages differently in many cases(I've read posts by people who said >their intranet apps were designed for IE 5.5 and the ONLY work in >IE 5.5 not in 6 not in 5.0, not in anything non IE). To really make Not just on intranets. There are sites in the wild that exhibit similar limitations. As far as I'm concerned, these so-called web designers are acting stupidly. >it work regardless of browser you'd probably have to use HTML 3 >or below[...] Not necessarily, just be aware of how the browser will handle the tag. Lynx doesn't support tables, so you take care that your tables render reasonably. IE isn't fully compliant with CSS1 or CSS2. You just have to be alert to possible problems and adjust accordingly. > >But a web developer can't test every possible combonation, e.g what >about the web browser on QNX? or[...] > >Some amount of testing is important, but saying regardless of >browser goes too far I think.[...] See my revisions and extensions above. Yeah, what you do is test for your market. In my case, IE, NS, Moz, and Opera for the most part on Win, Mac and Linux OSs. There are others, of course, but these pretty well cover my customer base. > >If someone really wants to make their stuff work on most any browser >they have to drop all the modern stuff like[...]Or at least make >a version of the site that does not use such technologies. True. > >I don't encounter many pages that I can't view in phoenix/moz/opera >but when I do(e.g. mostly flash only sites) I leave and never go >back. Friends don't let friends use flash. I have yet to see a site that Flash adds any value to. They must be out there, I just haven't seen'em. > last night for some reason I was trying to download a BIOS >upgrade for my sister's dell from dell's support site(I HATE DELL), >and the damn site wouldn't let in in using phoenix, no matter what >link I clicked it took me to the same page(choose what kind of >customer you are). Mozilla worked though so i managed to get the >update..only to have to fire up vmware in order to make the floppy >to update it! Dell has one of the worst sites I've ever seen from a useability standpoint. I've found the answer is to get customer service on the phone and let them lead me by the hand through the site. (What the hey, it works :)) > >oh, and of course I absolutely refuse to load VMWARE to load IE >(or wine or any other method) to view a site. If the site wants >to lock me out then that's their choice. And it's mine to choose >not to go there or reccomend it in the future to anyone. When I run into that, and if I have a moment, I email the webmaster to suggest they hire a designer with a clue. [...] Nate's comments were heavily edited. If not fresh in your mind, please reread it. It is very clueful. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Everything here could be wrong--Messiah's Handbook as quoted by Bach in "Illusions" -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Colin Watson wrote: >On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:04:15AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> Colin Watson wrote: >> >Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm >> >not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen >> >in the quest to do so, I honestly don't care if their rendering is a bit >> >off due to them using a five-year-old browser; I'll write >> >standards-compliant content - which means that browsers should be able >> >to extract the information even if not all the formatting - and if the >> >rendering doesn't look right then that's their problem. >> >> Ah, Colin. You misunderstand my point. From an earlier post, except >> for the Ego pages, web pages are the store fronts of e-commerce. > >I guess you must do e-commerce for a living, but for the rest of us the Only in a very small manner---and that mostly advisory, trying to put a lid on the graphic artists. >distinction is not even close to as clear-cut as that. I actually find >it kind of offensive that e-commerce people think that everything that >predated them on the web must have been pure ego. No, I mean by Ego pages, the ones that say "hey, look at my neat-o page", or "here's my new baby". Even at that, I'm not being quite fair--that is information of a sort. > >(Consider, for example, science, the birthplace of the web. If you think >that science is just ego then we have nothing further to discuss ...) Not at all. My earlier post clearly stated that information is one of the two reasons for web pages. Commerce includes the trade in ideas. Presenting a paper at an IEEE forum is no less commerce than selling a loaf of bread. > >> To expect your customer (for ideas or goods or services) to change their >> ways to suit your page is ridiculous. > >Which is why one uses semantic markup (tables, for example, aren't >semantic) to allow the "customer" to control things themselves. Sure, Authors do not have final say on how the final product looks, but that is no reason they can't suggest structure to better communicate. >some degree of testing is absolutely sensible, but good semantic markup >reduces the load on the coder as well. Just my point. If you want someone to accept your information, don't you think it's your responsibility to make it legible to as many as possible? (Including some logical structure, as needed.) As for tables, et al, they are a fact of web life and often just must be dealt with. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone tells you--- "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." ---they don't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Gary Turner said: > page of nested tables, simply because that seems the best way to present > your ideas. Then take a look at the page with Lynx. i don't think that's fair. lynx is not what I would call a feature complete browser. links may be better to compare with. But for me as long as a page LOADS and is viewable(without plugins like java, flash, activex whatever) it's good enough for me. How long have tables been around for? Probably 7 years? maybe more? lynx still doesn't support them? In this particular case I would blame the browser. don't get me wrong though lynx is a good browser I use it for a lot of testing, but links is much better for modern sites. And when I mean testing I mean testing in a system admin standpoint, I'm by no means a web developer, though I do host a lot of websites and pages which I made. > The graphic artists, or anyone coming from print seem to think they can > control the final look. That may be the reason so many sites are > effectively IE only :( The fact is that browsers render differently, and > are further affected by user preferences. Since the final look is *not* > under the author's control, the author must test and rewrite until the > page at least looks ok regardless of browser. to a certain point of course. Even different versions of IE render pages differently in many cases(I've read posts by people who said their intranet apps were designed for IE 5.5 and the ONLY work in IE 5.5 not in 6 not in 5.0, not in anything non IE). To really make it work regardless of browser you'd probably have to use HTML 3 or below(not that I have anything against that, when I was on the net back in 1995 and '94 pages looked just fine, even e commerce pages, though not sure which version of HTML was standard back then). But a web developer can't test every possible combonation, e.g what about the web browser on QNX? or BeOS? or embedded systems? what about eudoraweb on my handspring visor? or Blazer on my visor(which goes through a proxy even to format content so it's more suitable to a small screen), or Netscape on all the various unix platforms, since mozilla is new enough that many systems do not meet the software requirements(e.g. debian 2.2, current mozilla builds do not run on glibc 2.1). What about things that are clearly bugs in the browser(e.g. the vendor admits it's a bug). Hell my phoenix 0.5 still won't load www.debian.org without crashing! But if I remove my ~/.phoenix directory it loads fine. Some amount of testing is important, but saying regardless of browser goes too far I think. Nobody has unlimited time nor unlimited platforms to test on. My last company's internet web site programmer screwed up the main page so it would not render in netscape 4.x. I mean all that would show is a BLANK page, nothing! That is bad design, but it took about 2 weeks for me to notice it, and another week before a customer noticed it and they were pressured to fix it. Since that company is a unix software company with lots of customers running HPUX, AIX, Solaris ..they have a lot of customers using netscape 4 since thats what runs best on those systems for the most part. And these may be real old versions of netscape 4 like 4.04 or something, I tried upgrading to a more modern netscape on a AIX 4.x machine and couldn't get past the dependencies, needed all kinds of patches and stuff to support the libraries needed by it, so we stuck with the version that came with the OS. If someone really wants to make their stuff work on most any browser they have to drop all the modern stuff like xhtml, css, javascript, and whatever other fancy web buzzwords that I can't think of right now. I miss the days when websites were simple. Or at least make a version of the site that does not use such technologies. I don't encounter many pages that I can't view in phoenix/moz/opera but when I do(e.g. mostly flash only sites) I leave and never go back. last night for some reason I was trying to download a BIOS upgrade for my sister's dell from dell's support site(I HATE DELL), and the damn site wouldn't let in in using phoenix, no matter what link I clicked it took me to the same page(choose what kind of customer you are). Mozilla worked though so i managed to get the update..only to have to fire up vmware in order to make the floppy to update it! oh, and of course I absolutely refuse to load VMWARE to load IE (or wine or any other method) to view a site. If the site wants to lock me out then that's their choice. And it's mine to choose not to go there or reccomend it in the future to anyone. I started using linux in 1996 so I never really got attached to any sites that focused on MS-only stuff. IE 4.0 beta 2 I think was the last version of IE that I used seriously, and it's part of what made me jump to netscape on linux. So, it's been much easier for me to be not attached to anything IE or MS-centric as a result. nate -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of
Re: wine and IE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 11:04:15AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > Colin Watson wrote: > >Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm > >not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen > >in the quest to do so, I honestly don't care if their rendering is a bit > >off due to them using a five-year-old browser; I'll write > >standards-compliant content - which means that browsers should be able > >to extract the information even if not all the formatting - and if the > >rendering doesn't look right then that's their problem. > > Ah, Colin. You misunderstand my point. From an earlier post, except > for the Ego pages, web pages are the store fronts of e-commerce. I guess you must do e-commerce for a living, but for the rest of us the distinction is not even close to as clear-cut as that. I actually find it kind of offensive that e-commerce people think that everything that predated them on the web must have been pure ego. (Consider, for example, science, the birthplace of the web. If you think that science is just ego then we have nothing further to discuss ...) > To expect your customer (for ideas or goods or services) to change their > ways to suit your page is ridiculous. Which is why one uses semantic markup (tables, for example, aren't semantic) to allow the "customer" to control things themselves. Sure, some degree of testing is absolutely sensible, but good semantic markup reduces the load on the coder as well. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Colin Watson wrote: >On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> >> What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or >> vice versa? > >Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm >not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen >in the quest to do so, I honestly don't care if their rendering is a bit >off due to them using a five-year-old browser; I'll write >standards-compliant content - which means that browsers should be able >to extract the information even if not all the formatting - and if the >rendering doesn't look right then that's their problem. Ah, Colin. You misunderstand my point. From an earlier post, except for the Ego pages, web pages are the store fronts of e-commerce. And, commerce includes the exchange of ideas and information. If you want your stuff to be intelligible, you need to be aware of just how the various browsers will render your page. As a simple example, you may compose a page of nested tables, simply because that seems the best way to present your ideas. Then take a look at the page with Lynx. Or check out a browser configured for very large font size. Presentation can be re-ordered into something totally illogical. For anything other than a simple page, some screwy things can happen to compliant code rendered on compliant browsers. >In general, people who think of the way pages are "intended to be seen" >are missing the point of the web. Will your pixel-perfect design look >the way you intended it to look on my PDA? The standards emphasize >semantic markup, not physical markup, and leave the details of rendering >up to the browser where they belong. CSS merely provides hints. The graphic artists, or anyone coming from print seem to think they can control the final look. That may be the reason so many sites are effectively IE only :( The fact is that browsers render differently, and are further affected by user preferences. Since the final look is *not* under the author's control, the author must test and rewrite until the page at least looks ok regardless of browser. To expect your customer (for ideas or goods or services) to change their ways to suit your page is ridiculous. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone tells you--- "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." ---they don't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
-- Colin Watson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Friday, 21 February 2003, 01:06 PM +): > On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > > Paul Johnson wrote: > > >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > > >> Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is > > >> not an option. > > > > > >I never suggested it was. What I did state, though, is that folks run > > >a reasonably recent version of whatever browser they prefer and file > > >bug reports against non-compliant rendering. IMO, this is the Right > > >Way to handle the problem. > > > > By suggesting that the customer is at fault because he can't see your > > site the way you intended it be seen, is to suggest they are not > > welcome. Remember, the average visitor to a web site has no idea what a > > bug report is. > > > > What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or > > vice versa? > > Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm > not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen > in the quest to do so, I honestly don't care if their rendering is a bit > off due to them using a five-year-old browser; I'll write > standards-compliant content - which means that browsers should be able > to extract the information even if not all the formatting - and if the > rendering doesn't look right then that's their problem. > > In general, people who think of the way pages are "intended to be seen" > are missing the point of the web. Will your pixel-perfect design look > the way you intended it to look on my PDA? The standards emphasize > semantic markup, not physical markup, and leave the details of rendering > up to the browser where they belong. CSS merely provides hints. I completely agree. But that's not the issue. There's good, standards-compliant content that can still trigger rendering bugs in older browsers that makes the content unreadable. An instance I found this week was with setting margins on a item -- in IE 5, it caused all items styled in this fashion to float top-left in the window overlapping the content (and if there were multiple items, then they overlapped each other, as well). I didn't care so much that the rendering wasn't how I'd designed it and how it looked in Mozilla -- I cared that anybody viewing it in IE 5 wouldn't be able to read it. So I still need to test the site in older browsers and on other platforms -- until I can catalog *all* the possible rendering bugs on *all* the browsers... ;-) -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Friday, 21 February 2003, 12:10 AM -0600): > Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > >-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > >(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600): > >> Paul Johnson wrote: > >> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > >> >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. > >> >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not > >> >> compliant, while IE for Mac is. > > > Once my deadlines aren't looming so heavily, I'll try and see if I > >can get some of the solutions presented working. > > Good luck. It might be worthwhile to use a junker loaded with Windows > for testing a number of browsers. I've found, for example, that > Mozilla, Opera, and BrowseX act slightly different on Windows compared > to Linux. And don't forget Mac. Which was what I *WAS* doing until that computer's mobo died a few weeks ago -- this is an interim solution until I have enough cash flow to replace it. :-( -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
-- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Friday, 21 February 2003, 01:54 AM -0800): > On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:17:46AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > > And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding > > standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one > > browser, than[sic] it'll work anywhere." Not all browsers implement > > standards the same or correctly -- > > OK, then people with broken browsers or webmasters noticing such bugs > in W3C compliant pages should be filing bug reports with the vendors. > The more reports, the more likely the vendor is going to get off thier > ass and fix thier broken software. At this point, if you can't render > XHTML 1.1, its broken. Life is too short to bend over backwards for > the lazy. The vendor may already have fixed the bug in a later release -- but not everybody upgrades their browsers regularly. More below. > > and, with the number of older > > browsers out there, you have to be worried also about graceful > > degradation of the code so that bugs in older browsers don't make a site > > unreadable. > > At this point, HTML 4 has been deprecated in favor of XHTML 1.x, and > has been for three years. If you can't be bothered to update your > browser once in three years, why should everybody else bend over > backwards to use obsolete standards? Just because it's been deprecated doesn't mean that it isn't used and/or isn't widely used -- most of the "current" GUI web editors for Windows/Mac are creating HTML, not XHTML, for instance. But that's not even the point. How many people upgrade their browsers regularly? Do you remember how hard it is to do when you're on a dial-up line (due to the download sizes)? And how many people have their browser dictated by corporate policy? (Some of my clients are university departments where Netscape 4 is the installed browser/mail client -- they don't have a choice in the matter.) Sure, I upgrade regularly, but then I develop for the web and want to see what new features exist. But I also need to make sure that pages I create for my clients can be seen by their audience -- and, lazy or not, if the intended audience cannot access the information on the page due to a rendering bug in their browser, more likely than not they'll move right on to another site before upgrading their browser. Sure, I don't like having to test in as many environments as I can get my hands on, and I'd prefer to code once and have it viewable anywhere. But I also realize that standards or not, the world is a diverse place, with diverse software, old and new, and if I want people to see a site, I have to accomodate them. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://weierophinney.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Fri, Feb 21, 2003 at 06:34:35AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > Paul Johnson wrote: > >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > >> Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is > >> not an option. > > > >I never suggested it was. What I did state, though, is that folks run > >a reasonably recent version of whatever browser they prefer and file > >bug reports against non-compliant rendering. IMO, this is the Right > >Way to handle the problem. > > By suggesting that the customer is at fault because he can't see your > site the way you intended it be seen, is to suggest they are not > welcome. Remember, the average visitor to a web site has no idea what a > bug report is. > > What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or > vice versa? Not everybody developing for the web is a shopkeeper (thank God). If I'm not trying to sell something and therefore achieve Perfect Marketing Zen in the quest to do so, I honestly don't care if their rendering is a bit off due to them using a five-year-old browser; I'll write standards-compliant content - which means that browsers should be able to extract the information even if not all the formatting - and if the rendering doesn't look right then that's their problem. In general, people who think of the way pages are "intended to be seen" are missing the point of the web. Will your pixel-perfect design look the way you intended it to look on my PDA? The standards emphasize semantic markup, not physical markup, and leave the details of rendering up to the browser where they belong. CSS merely provides hints. -- Colin Watson [[EMAIL PROTECTED]] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Paul Johnson wrote: >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, >> Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does >> Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if >> they choose to use Lynx? > >Lynx somewhat gracefully handles everything you mention but Javascript >and Flash. The former could be improved in (e)l[iy]nks, though. Actually, until you test, you are likely not to have a clue how Lynx will render your frames or tables (especially as layout becomes more complex). Unless the HTML writer makes the needed concessions to text-only browsers, graphics rendering is worthless. > >> All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell >> something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web >> site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the >> site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on >> some browser(s). > >Isn't that why standards exist to begin with? It is certainly a goal to shoot at. The reality is that most people use browsers that are a couple (or more) releases behind. You cannot forget that the overwhelming majority are users. By comparisons, Linux tends to draw user/administrators. > >> Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is >> not an option. > >I never suggested it was. What I did state, though, is that folks run >a reasonably recent version of whatever browser they prefer and file >bug reports against non-compliant rendering. IMO, this is the Right >Way to handle the problem. By suggesting that the customer is at fault because he can't see your site the way you intended it be seen, is to suggest they are not welcome. Remember, the average visitor to a web site has no idea what a bug report is. What is more reasonable, the shopkeeper cater to the customer --- or vice versa? -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone tells you--- "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." ---they don't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Robert Ewald wrote:
even with comlpiant browsers, valid html and valid css you can still get
display difference between browsers!
take the following (abrevieted) example
#big {width : 100px; height :100px; background-color : red;}
#small {width : 50px; height: 50px; background-color : blue;}
a small div containing
a big div
now there is nothing invalid about either the CSS or the HTML above
But it is clearly bad coding - the big div can't fit inside the small
one - and the browser has to either increase the size of the small div,
decrease the big one, break the containment ...
This is clearly not logical, so why does the browser render it at all or tries
to guess what the designer really meant? That makes no sense to me. Why not
just saying bug in line 11, or something?
well untill browsers do much more error reporting than is available at
the moment - we still have to test websites on multiple browsers (or
code without any logic errors ;)
--
Sean Burlington
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, > Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does > Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if > they choose to use Lynx? Lynx somewhat gracefully handles everything you mention but Javascript and Flash. The former could be improved in (e)l[iy]nks, though. > All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell > something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web > site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the > site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on > some browser(s). Isn't that why standards exist to begin with? > Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is > not an option. I never suggested it was. What I did state, though, is that folks run a reasonably recent version of whatever browser they prefer and file bug reports against non-compliant rendering. IMO, this is the Right Way to handle the problem. -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg32087/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:17:46AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding > standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one > browser, than[sic] it'll work anywhere." Not all browsers implement > standards the same or correctly -- OK, then people with broken browsers or webmasters noticing such bugs in W3C compliant pages should be filing bug reports with the vendors. The more reports, the more likely the vendor is going to get off thier ass and fix thier broken software. At this point, if you can't render XHTML 1.1, its broken. Life is too short to bend over backwards for the lazy. > and, with the number of older > browsers out there, you have to be worried also about graceful > degradation of the code so that bugs in older browsers don't make a site > unreadable. At this point, HTML 4 has been deprecated in favor of XHTML 1.x, and has been for three years. If you can't be bothered to update your browser once in three years, why should everybody else bend over backwards to use obsolete standards? -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg32086/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 08:19:39AM -0600, DvB wrote: > I've found that lots of web developers (who are more aesthetically > oriented than programmers, as a general rule), tend to be very picky > about the little details of how a page looks, even if it looks > "correct." Then they need to move to XHTML 1 or 1.1, which allows for greater control while preserving readability in text-mode browsers. HTML 4 is hella-ancient and deprecated at this point in time... -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg32084/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
> even with comlpiant browsers, valid html and valid css you can still get
> display difference between browsers!
>
> take the following (abrevieted) example
>
>
>
>
> #big {width : 100px; height :100px; background-color : red;}
> #small {width : 50px; height: 50px; background-color : blue;}
>
>
>
>
> a small div containing
>
> a big div
>
>
>
>
>
> now there is nothing invalid about either the CSS or the HTML above
>
> But it is clearly bad coding - the big div can't fit inside the small
> one - and the browser has to either increase the size of the small div,
> decrease the big one, break the containment ...
This is clearly not logical, so why does the browser render it at all or tries
to guess what the designer really meant? That makes no sense to me. Why not
just saying bug in line 11, or something?
Robert
-BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org
iD8DBQE+VVIuILH3kR/OabQRAtUVAKCTklPBnFlEvo3iEQKAS78JNXrjbgCaAlqd
uIWXSzK5KARQop1smouwDIg=
=hU9G
-END PGP SIGNATURE-
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote >(on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600): >> Paul Johnson wrote: >> >> >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. >> >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not >> >> compliant, while IE for Mac is. >> > >> >So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if they want >> >to test it out in Windows IE they can find out it's not you who sucks. >> >> It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, >> Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does > >Actually, I beg to differ regarding Flash -- if a technology requires >that the browser utilize a plugin in order to work, I wouldn't call it >standardized. Otherwise, spot on. You're right, of course. Its pervasive ubiquity and seamless integration make me forget that it's not a browser feature. > [...] > Once my deadlines aren't looming so heavily, I'll try and see if I >can get some of the solutions presented working. Good luck. It might be worthwhile to use a junker loaded with Windows for testing a number of browsers. I've found, for example, that Mozilla, Opera, and BrowseX act slightly different on Windows compared to Linux. And don't forget Mac. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] Friends don't let friends use Flash. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
-- Gary Turner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Thursday, 20 February 2003, 09:27 PM -0600): > Paul Johnson wrote: > > >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. > >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not > >> compliant, while IE for Mac is. > > > >So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if they want > >to test it out in Windows IE they can find out it's not you who sucks. > > It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, > Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does Actually, I beg to differ regarding Flash -- if a technology requires that the browser utilize a plugin in order to work, I wouldn't call it standardized. Otherwise, spot on. > Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if > they choose to use Lynx? > > All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell > something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web > site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the > site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on > some browser(s). He can either back off some technologies, or provide > some kind of alternative, or maybe just decide that it's not all that > broken. Without testing, how does he make an informed decision? > Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is > not an option. "or provide some kind of alternative" -- exactly. And sometimes that alternative is simply a different stylesheet or utilizing bugs in how a browser works so that the content can be displayed in a reasonable fashion. And you won't know that you need the workarounds unless you view in the given app and/or OS, nor will you know if the solution actually works. Which was my whole point in starting the thread -- I'm trying to do this. Once my deadlines aren't looming so heavily, I'll try and see if I can get some of the solutions presented working. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Paul Johnson wrote: >On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: >> If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. >> That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not >> compliant, while IE for Mac is. > >So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if they want >to test it out in Windows IE they can find out it's not you who sucks. It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if they choose to use Lynx? All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on some browser(s). He can either back off some technologies, or provide some kind of alternative, or maybe just decide that it's not all that broken. Without testing, how does he make an informed decision? Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is not an option. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone tells you--- "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." ---they don't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 01:43:29AM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. > That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not > compliant, while IE for Mac is. So slap the appropriate W3C compliant buttons on there so if they want to test it out in Windows IE they can find out it's not you who sucks. -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg31991/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 11:17:46AM -0500, Matthew Weier O'Phinney spake thus: > -- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote > (on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800): > > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: > > > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I > > > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably > > > would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your > > > purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards > > > compliant development). > > > > Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? > > If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than > > it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o) > > Because IE has around 90% share of the browser market -- if it doesn't > work on IE, you lose your audience. I tend to agree. Even getting something to display correctly on different versions of the same browser and browsers which are said to be from the same codebase can often be a frustrating exercise. Sam - -- Sam Varghese http://www.gnubies.com The term software piracy is probably the only real innovation one can attribute to Microsoft. -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Version: GnuPG v1.2.0 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE+VTQgZyXhknb+33gRAl32AJ9gHXMljoOz/nsnibAIZo4RnFUU1QCfcxgO NTpsSIQl+Etg1BXJz1XYGiI= =KzFm -END PGP SIGNATURE- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: -- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800): On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards compliant development). Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o) Because IE has around 90% share of the browser market -- if it doesn't work on IE, you lose your audience. And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one browser, than[sic] it'll work anywhere." Not all browsers implement standards the same or correctly -- and, with the number of older browsers out there, you have to be worried also about graceful degradation of the code so that bugs in older browsers don't make a site unreadable. even with comlpiant browsers, valid html and valid css you can still get display difference between browsers! take the following (abrevieted) example
#big {width : 100px; height :100px; background-color : red;}
#small {width : 50px; height: 50px; background-color : blue;}
a small div containing a big div now there is nothing invalid about either the CSS or the HTML above But it is clearly bad coding - the big div can't fit inside the small one - and the browser has to either increase the size of the small div, decrease the big one, break the containment ... unfortunately different browsers cope with this situation in different ways... and while in this example it is easy to see what is wrong: in more complex pages similar things happen but are much harder to debug. and I have not seen any tools that validate html and css together (though the mozilla DOM inspector comes close) -- Sean Burlington -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
-- Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Wednesday, 19 February 2003, 10:15 PM -0800): > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: > > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I > > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably > > would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your > > purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards > > compliant development). > > Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? > If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than > it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o) Because IE has around 90% share of the browser market -- if it doesn't work on IE, you lose your audience. And, contrary to popular belief (hint: sarcasm!) coding standards-compliant HTML and CSS does not mean that if "it works in one browser, than[sic] it'll work anywhere." Not all browsers implement standards the same or correctly -- and, with the number of older browsers out there, you have to be worried also about graceful degradation of the code so that bugs in older browsers don't make a site unreadable. For instance, I recently ran into a bug with IE 5 whereby setting a margin (using standards-compliant CSS) on an unordered list caused it to float top left in the window, overlapping the rest of the content; had I not seen it with my own eyes, I wouldn't have known it could happen. (Those interested in a solution, google for "tantek hack".) So, basically, the more browsers and platforms I can view a website in, the more information I have for making sure it displays in a reasonable fashion. (Which does *not* mean looking the same everywhere! I simply mean that all content is visible and readable.) This is the whole point of trying to get at least *a* version of IE up and running on my machine. -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Paul Johnson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: > > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I > > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably > > would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your > > purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards > > compliant development). > > Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? > If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than > it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o) > I've found that lots of web developers (who are more aesthetically oriented than programmers, as a general rule), tend to be very picky about the little details of how a page looks, even if it looks "correct." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Paul Johnson wrote: >On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: >> I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I >> don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably >> would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your >> purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards >> compliant development). > >Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? >If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than >it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o) If only that were true. Every page I produce is 100% W3C compliant. That's not enough. In the area of CSS alone, IE for Windows is not compliant, while IE for Mac is. NS v>6, and Mozilla v>.8 are. Opera is not. And, let's not even get into how tables and frames are handled. If you develop for the web, you just have to test, and test on every browser (old and new) users might possibly choose. -- gt [EMAIL PROTECTED] If someone tells you--- "I have a sense of humor, but that's not funny." ---they don't. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 03:07:59PM -0600, DvB wrote: > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I > don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably > would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your > purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards > compliant development). Well, if that's the assumption, why bother getting IE to work at all? If you go to the standard, and it works in one browser, than it'll work anywhere. Save yourself the trouble. 8:o) -- .''`. Baloo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' :proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system msg31817/pgp0.pgp Description: PGP signature
Re: wine and IE
-- Chris Hoover <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote (on Tuesday, 18 February 2003, 09:25 PM -0500): > Robin Putters wrote: > >On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 21:43, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > >>Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? > >>Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install > >>directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some > >>pointers? > > > >Okay: from somewhere deep down in my memory: > > > Just go to codeweavers.com and purchase a copy of crossover office. > This is a version of wine that will run IE, Quicken, Office 2000, etc > on linux. It is the same code base as wine, just more advanced. > Definetly worth the money and will probably be perfect for you. I would, except I *don't* *own* MS Office; the only application they support that's of any use to me is IE -- and I'm not sure that it's worth shelling out >$50 right now (there are libraries and campuses in my area that I'm regularly visiting anyways). (In any event, I hope to get a new mobo for the computer that died in the next month or so, so spending money on crossover now depletes my expense fund for that.) If I can get wine or plex86 working, it will suit my purposes fine and give me another tool with which to work; if not, I'll be okay until I can dual-boot again. Thanks, everybody, for the suggestions and advice! -- Matthew Weier O'Phinney [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Robin Putters wrote: On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 21:43, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some pointers? Okay: from somewhere deep down in my memory: - Get a IE5 complete setup from somewhere (I got it of the Office2000 CD's). - run 'wine DCOM98.EXE' (can be found on MS site somewhere) - run 'wine WINSOCK2.EXE' (can also be found on MS site somewhere) - run 'wine IE5SETUP.EXE' and select the typical installation Wine will crash a couple of times, but just keep repeating the last step until it's finally installed. After that, I even ended up with a nice little shortcut on my desktop to IE (with nautilus that is). After that, it's possible to upgrade to IE6. Installing IE6 from scratch is not possible (at least I haven't found out how yet), it gives you an error that it needs at least win98. And, like some other user mentioned here, your fonts will look ugly, but there might be some tweaking possible. I just did it to show someone you can run (some) win32 programs with linux. Have fun! PS: check also appdb.codeweavers.com.. You will find a lot of usefull tips there (and also a lot of outdated ones). Just go to codeweavers.com and purchase a copy of crossover office. This is a version of wine that will run IE, Quicken, Office 2000, etc on linux. It is the same code base as wine, just more advanced. Definetly worth the money and will probably be perfect for you. Chris -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Tue, 2003-02-18 at 21:43, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? > Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install > directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some > pointers? > Okay: from somewhere deep down in my memory: - Get a IE5 complete setup from somewhere (I got it of the Office2000 CD's). - run 'wine DCOM98.EXE' (can be found on MS site somewhere) - run 'wine WINSOCK2.EXE' (can also be found on MS site somewhere) - run 'wine IE5SETUP.EXE' and select the typical installation Wine will crash a couple of times, but just keep repeating the last step until it's finally installed. After that, I even ended up with a nice little shortcut on my desktop to IE (with nautilus that is). After that, it's possible to upgrade to IE6. Installing IE6 from scratch is not possible (at least I haven't found out how yet), it gives you an error that it needs at least win98. And, like some other user mentioned here, your fonts will look ugly, but there might be some tweaking possible. I just did it to show someone you can run (some) win32 programs with linux. Have fun! PS: check also appdb.codeweavers.com.. You will find a lot of usefull tips there (and also a lot of outdated ones). -- Robin Putters <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
On Tuesday 18 February 2003 9:43 pm, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: >Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? The only success I've had is by using Crossover Office's wine setup and IE 5.x. Some things don't work (i.e. favorites)... Jeff Elkins http://www.elkins.org -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Matthew Weier O'Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? > Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install > directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some > pointers? > I've never done this, but I've seen it done (with me own eyes! :-) I don't think it worked as well as the native Linux browsers and probably would crash as soon as it started doing its Direct-X crap but, for your purposes, it would probably work (one would assume you do standards compliant development). As to the specifics, I saw it on a Mandrake system (I forget what version, but post 7.0) and I believe it was being run from a FAT32 partition that was mounted under Linux. That's about all I know. Your other options, of course, are VMWare and Plex86. I know the former works quite well, if you don't mind paying for it. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some pointers? Afaik this will not be enough for you. Even if it works, making all the fonts appear correctly etc. would be impossible or at least require a lot of time. It doesn't work here anyway... just tried. hth, /johan -- Johan Ehnberg [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Windows? No... I don't think so." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: wine and IE
I'd be shocked if IE worked reliably under wine, but would also be happy to find out otherwise. My experience is that MS apps are the worst trying to run under wine (presumably because of "undocumented" OS features). If I were in your shoes I'd spring for a copy of VMWare and run a virtual machine for testing. ap -- Andrew J Perrin - http://www.unc.edu/~aperrin Assistant Professor of Sociology, U of North Carolina, Chapel Hill [EMAIL PROTECTED] * andrew_perrin (at) unc.edu On Tue, 18 Feb 2003, Matthew Weier O'Phinney wrote: > I'm a freelance web designer/programmer, and until recently I had a > machine I could dual boot into Windows in order to test on IE, Netscape > (for Windows -- it *DOES* display differently than on linux), Mozilla > (again, same thing), and Opera... that is, until the mobo died on me, > possibly taking out the CPU and RAM. > > I've been having problems with one of the sites I maintain, and have > isolated the problems to version 5.x of IE -- and would, understandably, > like to test my reworkings. > > Last I tried wine, it typically locked up my computer (but that may have > been the programs I was trying to utilize), but I *do* recall getting at > least solitaire working with it, so I know it *can* work. > > Has anybody on the list gotten IE to work under a normal wine install? > Is it possible to get different versions to work under different install > directories (this would be IDEAL!)? Would you be willing to give me some > pointers? > > -- > Matthew Weier O'Phinney > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
