Re: newest version

[Barry Edwin Gilmour]

 Phillip Jones wrote:

Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote:

   Phillip Jones wrote:

Rufus wrote:

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The
same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part 
of the

SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will
reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.


The Unsent, Draft, Template, and Trash I've always assumed are 
there to

allow you to work off-line when you can't get a connection in the same
manner that you might on-line...as for additional ones I've created -

I use my Local Folders to save or backup posts for future reference
without having to go search some archive - like references from my
health groups, or pictures I post, urls, good information, etc. that I
see that I think I may wish to refer to or explore in more detail 
in the

future.  I've created my own subject oriented Local.

Seems to take less disk space to store them in Local Folders than to
store them as raw Save files...of course, then I'm stuck using SM as a
reader, but that's ok with me.



Ahh yes but you can also save archive emails (copies) to sent folder
in  the email section and you use to be able to before the local
folder Newsgroups post as well. in fact I had a folder/directory
called newsgroups and a templates and Drafts folder for each email
account, that worked as well for newsgroups as well. now for drafts
and templates for newsgroups, only local folder can be used for
newsgroups now.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/22198...@n03/4383515757/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22198...@n03/4384299388/sizes/l/

Phillip, Are your preference-settings OK? I'm still successfully using
my email-Drafts and Sent folders for composing sending this Newsgroup
response, but I later move sent-messages into respective subject-folders
and still-later finally-archive them under subject/year, etc. ~ I never
have had this draft-save/sent habit, interrupted by the
nightly-trunk-builds during the past few years or more... Maybe just
lucky, I guess.
Yes I had set to use the drafts/Templates folder I kept getting a 
warning message about *this directory is for email only messages of 
this type will be ignored*.  Since moving to the local Directory I 
haven't had this problem.


Crossed-fingers and touch wood, I've yet to see that ominous warning, 
and nothing has died (yet) by my using newsgroup-replies saved to the 
email drafts/templates, etcetera. I may have disabled a more-obscure 
preference that governs the warning-message.. Barry.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

Barry Edwin Gilmour wrote:

   Phillip Jones wrote:

Rufus wrote:

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The
same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will
reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.


The Unsent, Draft, Template, and Trash I've always assumed are there to
allow you to work off-line when you can't get a connection in the same
manner that you might on-line...as for additional ones I've created -

I use my Local Folders to save or backup posts for future reference
without having to go search some archive - like references from my
health groups, or pictures I post, urls, good information, etc. that I
see that I think I may wish to refer to or explore in more detail in the
future.  I've created my own subject oriented Local.

Seems to take less disk space to store them in Local Folders than to
store them as raw Save files...of course, then I'm stuck using SM as a
reader, but that's ok with me.



Ahh yes but you can also save archive emails (copies) to sent folder
in  the email section and you use to be able to before the local
folder Newsgroups post as well. in fact I had a folder/directory
called newsgroups and a templates and Drafts folder for each email
account, that worked as well for newsgroups as well. now for drafts
and templates for newsgroups, only local folder can be used for
newsgroups now.


http://www.flickr.com/photos/22198...@n03/4383515757/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22198...@n03/4384299388/sizes/l/

Phillip, Are your preference-settings OK? I'm still successfully using
my email-Drafts and Sent folders for composing sending this Newsgroup
response, but I later move sent-messages into respective subject-folders
and still-later finally-archive them under subject/year, etc. ~ I never
have had this draft-save/sent habit, interrupted by the
nightly-trunk-builds during the past few years or more... Maybe just
lucky, I guess.
Yes I had set to use the drafts/Templates folder I kept getting a 
warning message about *this directory is for email only messages of this 
type will be ignored*.  Since moving to the local Directory I haven't 
had this problem.


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Daniel]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will
reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.


If you have several mail accounts, you can set them up to use a Global 
Inbox, in which case all incoming mail from all your mail account would 
end up in the Local Folders Inbox.



I use Local Folders as an archive account. In my mail account, I have 
set up various folders into which I move mail, i.e. when I send this 
off, a copy will be saved in the folder 2010_NS_Moz_SM under my Mail 
account.


I have about a dozen such folders that I then move to the Local Folders 
account at the end of the year.


This way, all my mail is readily available without having to have huge 
folders on the Mail account.


Daniel
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Barry Edwin Gilmour]

 Phillip Jones wrote:

Rufus wrote:

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :
wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The 
same

question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will
reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.


The Unsent, Draft, Template, and Trash I've always assumed are there to
allow you to work off-line when you can't get a connection in the same
manner that you might on-line...as for additional ones I've created -

I use my Local Folders to save or backup posts for future reference
without having to go search some archive - like references from my
health groups, or pictures I post, urls, good information, etc. that I
see that I think I may wish to refer to or explore in more detail in the
future.  I've created my own subject oriented Local.

Seems to take less disk space to store them in Local Folders than to
store them as raw Save files...of course, then I'm stuck using SM as a
reader, but that's ok with me.



Ahh yes but you can also save archive emails (copies) to sent folder 
in  the email section and you use to be able to before the local 
folder Newsgroups post as well. in fact I had a folder/directory 
called newsgroups and a templates and Drafts folder for each email 
account, that worked as well for newsgroups as well. now for drafts 
and templates for newsgroups, only local folder can be used for 
newsgroups now.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/22198...@n03/4383515757/sizes/o/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/22198...@n03/4384299388/sizes/l/

Phillip, Are your preference-settings OK? I'm still successfully using 
my email-Drafts and Sent folders for composing sending this Newsgroup 
response, but I later move sent-messages into respective subject-folders 
and still-later finally-archive them under subject/year, etc. ~ I never 
have had this draft-save/sent habit, interrupted by the 
nightly-trunk-builds during the past few years or more... Maybe just 
lucky, I guess.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

Rufus wrote:

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will
reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.


The Unsent, Draft, Template, and Trash I've always assumed are there to
allow you to work off-line when you can't get a connection in the same
manner that you might on-line...as for additional ones I've created -

I use my Local Folders to save or backup posts for future reference
without having to go search some archive - like references from my
health groups, or pictures I post, urls, good information, etc. that I
see that I think I may wish to refer to or explore in more detail in the
future.  I've created my own subject oriented Local.

Seems to take less disk space to store them in Local Folders than to
store them as raw Save files...of course, then I'm stuck using SM as a
reader, but that's ok with me.



Ahh yes but you can also save archive emails (copies) to sent folder in 
 the email section and you use to be able to before the local folder 
Newsgroups post as well. in fact I had a folder/directory called 
newsgroups and a templates and Drafts folder for each email account, 
that worked as well for newsgroups as well. now for drafts and templates 
for newsgroups, only local folder can be used for newsgroups now.


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Rufus]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will 
reappear.





Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.


The Unsent, Draft, Template, and Trash I've always assumed are there to 
allow you to work off-line when you can't get a connection in the same 
manner that you might on-line...as for additional ones I've created -


I use my Local Folders to save or backup posts for future reference 
without having to go search some archive - like references from my 
health groups, or pictures I post, urls, good information, etc. that I 
see that I think I may wish to refer to or explore in more detail in the 
future.  I've created my own subject oriented Local.


Seems to take less disk space to store them in Local Folders than to 
store them as raw Save files...of course, then I'm stuck using SM as a 
reader, but that's ok with me.


--
 - Rufus
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[chicagofan]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.



As Phillip mentioned, for people like me who read/follow lots of 
newsgroups, Local Folders is where all of the messages I can't complete 
for one reason or another [ISP problems, etc.] are stored in Drafts, and 
the ones I do send, are filed in the Sent folder.   Some info learned in 
technical newsgroups I like to save in the Sent folder.

bj

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.

I never understood the logic for them either to me they are a waste.

The only thing they are an advantage for, or disadvantage for is that if 
you need to save as Draft a message on newsgroups you have to copy them 
to drafts folder in local Directory in order to edit and send off. 
previously you could do so in Draft of one of your email folders and the 
application had the sense the know the difference between email and a 
news post.


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[S. Beaulieu]

Phillip Jones a écrit :

wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will reappear.




Fair enough! But it still doesn't explain what's their point...

S.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Bernard Mercier]

Dans son message précédent, Phillip Jones a écrit :

S. Beaulieu wrote:

u...@domain.invalid a écrit :

I would like to delete the Local
Folders but I haven't figured out yet if I can without messing things up.



That's an excellent question I've long asked myself. So, *can* they be
deleted altogether? If not, whay not? And what's the point of local
folders anyway?

S.


wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same 
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the SM/TB 
code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will reappear.

Thanks. Wasn't sure that was the good answer, so I didn't mention.
But in case of a switch from sm1 to sm2 with uninstall of sm1, the sm1 
one wouldn't be regenerated. ;-)


--
[URL=http://users.kbc.skynet.be/fi001005] *Belgische Ardennen - 
Ardennes Belge [/URL]



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

S. Beaulieu wrote:

u...@domain.invalid a écrit :

I would like to delete the Local
Folders but I haven't figured out yet if I can without messing things up.



That's an excellent question I've long asked myself. So, *can* they be
deleted altogether? If not, whay not? And what's the point of local
folders anyway?

S.


wouldn't do any good if you could. they regenerate themselves. The same 
question came up years ago when they first appeared and it part of the 
SM/TB code. if they are removed. next time SM/TB opens they will reappear.


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Bernard Mercier]

S. Beaulieu avait prétendu :

u...@domain.invalid a écrit :

I would like to delete the Local
Folders but I haven't figured out yet if I can without messing things up.



That's an excellent question I've long asked myself. So, *can* they be 
deleted altogether? If not, whay not? And what's the point of local folders 
anyway?


S.
Not long ago in a thread this came up, hower I don't remember what 
exactly the answer was.


--
[URL=http://users.kbc.skynet.be/fi001005] *Belgische Ardennen - 
Ardennes Belge [/URL]



___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[S. Beaulieu]

u...@domain.invalid a écrit :

I would like to delete the Local
Folders but I haven't figured out yet if I can without messing things up.



That's an excellent question I've long asked myself. So, *can* they be 
deleted altogether? If not, whay not? And what's the point of local 
folders anyway?


S.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[user]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 2/18/2010 4:12 AM, DonWB wrote:

Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem of some
websites not being compatible with 1.1.18, the version I am running
now? Bing Maps is a good example, I get a message asking me if I'm
sure I want to use my browser on their site, and when I go ahead the
page doesn't come up the same as it does with Firefox.

If I stick with SeaMonkey I know I'll have to update sooner or later,
but I don't want to do it until it's of some benefit to me.


Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100205 SeaMonkey/2.0.3

I just tried it, and I did not get the message.  However, I usually
browse with my preferences set to load images only from the same domain
as the page I'm viewing.  For Bing Maps, I had to change that to load
images from any domain.  Fortunately, I have this preference setup as a
menulist in the PrefBar extension.


Congratulations, you are the first one to answer the question I asked.

I did install 2.0.3 along with my version and noticed right away that 
2.0.3 loads much faster and seems to load the web pages faster also. It 
also loads bing maps without giving me the warning first.


One minor thing I didn't care for is I sent it to save a copy of my 
emails in my sent folder and I also have the drafts folder and trash 
folders under my email account name. It also set itself to save 
everything in a set of folders under Local Folders which I thought was a 
waste and also a little strange. I went into preferences and changed 
that and it seems all is well now. I would like to delete the Local 
Folders but I haven't figured out yet if I can without messing things up.

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[David E. Ross]

On 2/20/2010 8:18 AM, MCBastos wrote:
> Interviewed by CNN on 19/2/2010 22:36, David E. Ross told the world:
>> On 2/19/2010 12:51 PM, JeffM wrote:
>>> Phillip Jones wrote:
 Page designers that design pages for w3c [compliance]
 should add a notation.
 /This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards
 and should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers

>>> There's even a tag for that.
>>> Put this in an HTML file and view that with IE, then Gecko:
>>> 
>>>
 /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
 and please tell them you will discontinue use of
 [their] product until [it] meets specifications/.

>>> ...or simply:
>>> This site best viewed with a standards-compliant browser.
>>> http://google.com/search?q=%22+best.viewed.with.a.standards-compliant.browser
>>> When combined with the tag shown above
>>> and using large red text, it grabs the attention.
>>> Using the flash tag would put the icing on the cake.
>>>
 The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C

>>> It's easier to do damage when you're one of the Fifth Column
>>> than when you're an overtly declared enemy:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
>>
>> If appears that more is required to sniff for IE.  I tried your example.
>>  The same text showed in both IE 7 and SeaMonkey 2.0.3.
>>
> 
> Try this:
> 
> 
> 
> You may style the note above as you wish, for instance, like this:
> 
>   #ienote {border: thick red outset;
>background-color:yellow;
>color:red;
>padding:0.5em;
>clear:both;}
>   #ienote p.warning {font-weight:bold;
>  font-size:larger;
>  text-align:center;}
> 
> I tried using "blink", but IE apparently doesn't support it -- even as a
> style, which IS in CSS1. So it's useless in this context.
> 

Aha.  That works.

-- 
David E. Ross


Go to Mozdev at  for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Neil Hughes]

Philip Chee wrote:

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:58:21 +, Neil Hughes wrote:

Arne wrote:

Have you ever tried all options on Google Maps? The "Satelite" and
"Terrain" (if that is the word in English)! I take Google any time
over that *terrible* map from Bing.

A mapping system is only as good as it is accurate and up-to-date.
Google's aerial maps for my part of the UK are at least 3 years old - I
can see my next door neighbour's old car and the housing estate a few
miles away is missing half it's buildings. Bing's aerial maps seem to be
only months old.


Bing is only months old. Will their aerial maps still be "only months
old" three years from now?
Good pointwe shall see. However, I access maps in the present, not 
the future, and currently Google's are woefully out-of-date for a lot of 
the checks *I* do. I'm not claiming this applies to everyone...I simply 
thought the original statement that Bing's maps are terrible compared to 
Google was such a blanket statement it needed to be corrected.




Lots of people in the SEO forums complain that it takes up to several
months before Bing notices a new high traffic website they put up
whereas Google finds new sites in a matter of hours.

This weakness is officially acknowledged by Microsoft so they've focused
their crawlers on "popular" topics such as celebrities and news events.
The net effect is that Bing appears faster and more up to date for
popluar searches but since they are starving resources for less common
search terms, searches in your specialist area of interest (especially
if obscure, esoteric, or arcane) will be much worse than Google.


In which case, I'll stick to doing my normal searching in Google, and my 
map searching in Bing. Thanks for the information.


--
Neil Hughes

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[BJ]

JeffM wrote:

"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck
is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners."
  --Ernst Jan Plugge

 Here's one for you, Jeff:

"I'm not proud.  We really haven't done everything we could to protect
 our customers.  Our products just aren't engineered for security."
  --Microsoft VP in charge of Windows OS Development, Brian Valentine.

BJ
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[MCBastos]

Interviewed by CNN on 19/2/2010 22:36, David E. Ross told the world:
> On 2/19/2010 12:51 PM, JeffM wrote:
>> Phillip Jones wrote:
>>> Page designers that design pages for w3c [compliance]
>>> should add a notation.
>>> /This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards
>>> and should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers
>>>
>> There's even a tag for that.
>> Put this in an HTML file and view that with IE, then Gecko:
>> 
>>
>>> /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
>>> and please tell them you will discontinue use of
>>> [their] product until [it] meets specifications/.
>>>
>> ...or simply:
>> This site best viewed with a standards-compliant browser.
>> http://google.com/search?q=%22+best.viewed.with.a.standards-compliant.browser
>> When combined with the tag shown above
>> and using large red text, it grabs the attention.
>> Using the flash tag would put the icing on the cake.
>>
>>> The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C
>>>
>> It's easier to do damage when you're one of the Fifth Column
>> than when you're an overtly declared enemy:
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
> 
> If appears that more is required to sniff for IE.  I tried your example.
>  The same text showed in both IE 7 and SeaMonkey 2.0.3.
> 

Try this:



You may style the note above as you wish, for instance, like this:

  #ienote {border: thick red outset;
   background-color:yellow;
   color:red;
   padding:0.5em;
   clear:both;}
  #ienote p.warning {font-weight:bold;
 font-size:larger;
 text-align:center;}

I tried using "blink", but IE apparently doesn't support it -- even as a
style, which IS in CSS1. So it's useless in this context.

-- 
MCBastos

This message has been protected with the 2ROT13 algorithm. Unauthorized
use will be prosecuted under the DMCA.

-=-=-
... BOFH excuse #118:
the router thinks its a printer.
*Added by TagZilla 0.066.2 running on Seamonkey 2.0.3 *
Get it at http://xsidebar.mozdev.org/modifiedmailnews.html#tagzilla
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

Philip Chee wrote:
>Lots of people in the SEO forums complain that
>it takes up to several months before Bing notices
>a new high traffic website they put up
>
"The day Microsoft makes something that doesn't suck
is probably the day they start making vacuum cleaners."
 --Ernst Jan Plugge

>whereas Google finds new sites in a matter of hours.
>
In the last few weeks I have noticed a step function
in the discover time for new pages.  I am VERY impressed.
It also used to take 24 hours after discovery
for Google to provide a cache of the page;
now caches appear to be immediate
--unless it's <24 hours from the publishing time of the page.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

>JeffM wrote:
>>IE is a complete botch.
>>
BJ wrote:
>that doesn't stop a lot of noobs from using it
>
8-(
If people were charged for each infection they spread,
the n00bs would fall out of love with IE really fast.
The popularity of M$ would look like it fell off a cliff.

>I think the EU has the best approach.
>
Well, it's *an* approach--one really slow in coming.
M$ can't produce technology that's worth a damn
but they really know how to play the political/legal game.
http://google.com/search?q=%22+March.1%22+%22+ballot.screen%22+%22+Internet.Explorer

Google has had a better approach out for several months.
It allows IE users who are too pitiful to learn a new interface
to keep the one they're used to.
Under the old skin, it rips out M$'s crappy rendering engine
and replaces it with WebKit:
http://google.com/search?q=%22+Google.Chrome.Frame%22+%22+Internet.Explorer
It works for *any* version of Internet Exploder.

>I think we're in basic agreement,
>but you apparently are a strong M$ basher
>
Does it seem that way?  8-)
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Philip Chee]

On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 20:58:21 +, Neil Hughes wrote:
> Arne wrote:
>> Have you ever tried all options on Google Maps? The "Satelite" and 
>> "Terrain" (if that is the word in English)! I take Google any time 
>> over that *terrible* map from Bing.
> A mapping system is only as good as it is accurate and up-to-date. 
> Google's aerial maps for my part of the UK are at least 3 years old - I 
> can see my next door neighbour's old car and the housing estate a few 
> miles away is missing half it's buildings. Bing's aerial maps seem to be 
> only months old.

Bing is only months old. Will their aerial maps still be "only months
old" three years from now?

Lots of people in the SEO forums complain that it takes up to several
months before Bing notices a new high traffic website they put up
whereas Google finds new sites in a matter of hours.

This weakness is officially acknowledged by Microsoft so they've focused
their crawlers on "popular" topics such as celebrities and news events.
The net effect is that Bing appears faster and more up to date for
popluar searches but since they are starving resources for less common
search terms, searches in your specialist area of interest (especially
if obscure, esoteric, or arcane) will be much worse than Google.

Phil

-- 
Philip Chee , 
http://flashblock.mozdev.org/ http://xsidebar.mozdev.org
Guard us from the she-wolf and the wolf, and guard us from the thief,
oh Night, and so be good for us to pass.
[ ]Logic means arriving at wrong conclusions with assurance.
* TagZilla 0.066.6

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Phillip Jones wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 2/19/2010 6:02 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:

BJ wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers
competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards.
That
would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.


So would I, but that's not reality.


And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not
"accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display
compliant pages?


We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block,
does not display compliant pages . . . "compliantly" in many cases.  IE
will display the page, but if the code is not written in "IE standards
(which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display
that compliant code way out of whack.  I don't like that, but that
is the reality.

Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers
will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C
compliant code, it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.

And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.  I'm sure that 500
pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the
time comes (if it ever does).

BJ



Perhaps, Page designers that design pages for w3c compliant should add a
notation.

/This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards and
should show properly on the vast Majority of Web browsers on the Market
today/. /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
and please tell them you will discontinue use of there product until it
meets specifications/.

Then the users should do what it says.

The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C, along
with Apple and other major industry players.  MS specific goal in doing
so, is to find out what the specs are so that they can make them as far
as possible the other direction, to make more people dependent upon IE
rather than less.



I hope you correct the syntax before putting those statements into an
actual Web page.
 "... Consortium specifications ..."
 "... their product ..."


No. just a suggested Idea. the person doing so would word accordingly?

Yes I have a problem on occasion using words that sound alike, but are
spelled different. unfortunately the spell checker doesn't catch them. :-)


Note also these, which don't sound alike:
the vast majorITY
until IT meets specifications

I can understand "use of there product" based on what you said.

Obviously, no responsible web designer would roll out a page without
proofing it first.


I agree.

--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Phillip Jones wrote:

David E. Ross wrote:

On 2/19/2010 6:02 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:

BJ wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers
competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. 
That

would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.


So would I, but that's not reality.


And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not
"accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display
compliant pages?


We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block,
does not display compliant pages . . . "compliantly" in many cases.  IE
will display the page, but if the code is not written in "IE standards
(which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display
that compliant code way out of whack.  I don't like that, but that
is the reality.

Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers
will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C
compliant code, it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.

And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.  I'm sure that 500
pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the
time comes (if it ever does).

BJ



Perhaps, Page designers that design pages for w3c compliant should add a
notation.

/This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards and
should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers on the Market
today/. /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
and please tell them you will discontinue use of there product until is
meets specifications/.

Then the users should do what it says.

The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C, along
with Apple and other major industry players.  MS specific goal in doing
so, is to find out what the specs are so that they can make them as far
as possible the other direction, to make more people dependent upon IE
rather than less.



I hope you correct the syntax before putting those statements into an
actual Web page.
"... Consortium specifications ..."
"... their product ..."


No. just a suggested Idea. the person doing so would word accordingly?

Yes I have a problem on occasion using words that sound alike, but are 
spelled different. unfortunately the spell checker doesn't catch them. :-)


Note also these, which don't sound alike:
the vast majorITY
until IT meets specifications

I can understand "use of there product" based on what you said.

Obviously, no responsible web designer would roll out a page without 
proofing it first.


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

David E. Ross wrote:

On 2/19/2010 6:02 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:

BJ wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers
competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That
would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.


So would I, but that's not reality.


And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not
"accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display
compliant pages?


We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block,
does not display compliant pages . . . "compliantly" in many cases.  IE
will display the page, but if the code is not written in "IE standards
(which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display
that compliant code way out of whack.  I don't like that, but that
is the reality.

Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers
will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C
compliant code, it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.

And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.  I'm sure that 500
pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the
time comes (if it ever does).

BJ



Perhaps, Page designers that design pages for w3c compliant should add a
notation.

/This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards and
should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers on the Market
today/. /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
and please tell them you will discontinue use of there product until is
meets specifications/.

Then the users should do what it says.

The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C, along
with Apple and other major industry players.  MS specific goal in doing
so, is to find out what the specs are so that they can make them as far
as possible the other direction, to make more people dependent upon IE
rather than less.



I hope you correct the syntax before putting those statements into an
actual Web page.
"... Consortium specifications ..."
"... their product ..."


No. just a suggested Idea. the person doing so would word accordingly?

Yes I have a problem on occasion using words that sound alike, but are 
spelled different. unfortunately the spell checker doesn't catch them. :-)


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[David E. Ross]

On 2/19/2010 6:02 AM, Phillip Jones wrote:
> BJ wrote:
>> Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
>>> I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers
>>> competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That
>>> would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.
>>
>> So would I, but that's not reality.
>>
>>> And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not
>>> "accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display
>>> compliant pages?
>>>
>> We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block,
>> does not display compliant pages . . . "compliantly" in many cases.  IE
>> will display the page, but if the code is not written in "IE standards
>> (which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display
>> that compliant code way out of whack.  I don't like that, but that
>> is the reality.
>>
>> Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers
>> will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C
>> compliant code, it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.
>>
>> And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
>> I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.  I'm sure that 500
>> pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the
>> time comes (if it ever does).
>>
>> BJ
>>
> 
> Perhaps, Page designers that design pages for w3c compliant should add a 
> notation.
> 
> /This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards and 
> should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers on the Market 
> today/. /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not, 
> and please tell them you will discontinue use of there product until is 
> meets specifications/.
> 
> Then the users should do what it says.
> 
> The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C, along 
> with Apple and other major industry players.  MS specific goal in doing 
> so, is to find out what the specs are so that they can make them as far 
> as possible the other direction, to make more people dependent upon IE 
> rather than less.
> 

I hope you correct the syntax before putting those statements into an
actual Web page.
"... Consortium specifications ..."
"... their product ..."

-- 
David E. Ross


Go to Mozdev at  for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[David E. Ross]

On 2/19/2010 12:51 PM, JeffM wrote:
> Phillip Jones wrote:
>> Page designers that design pages for w3c [compliance]
>> should add a notation.
>> /This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards
>> and should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers
>>
> There's even a tag for that.
> Put this in an HTML file and view that with IE, then Gecko:
> 
> 
>> /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
>> and please tell them you will discontinue use of
>> [their] product until [it] meets specifications/.
>>
> ...or simply:
> This site best viewed with a standards-compliant browser.
> http://google.com/search?q=%22+best.viewed.with.a.standards-compliant.browser
> When combined with the tag shown above
> and using large red text, it grabs the attention.
> Using the flash tag would put the icing on the cake.
> 
>> The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C
>>
> It's easier to do damage when you're one of the Fifth Column
> than when you're an overtly declared enemy:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish

If appears that more is required to sniff for IE.  I tried your example.
 The same text showed in both IE 7 and SeaMonkey 2.0.3.

-- 
David E. Ross


Go to Mozdev at  for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[BJ]

JeffM wrote:

IE is a complete botch.


Agreed, but that doesn't stop a lot of noobs from using it . . . mostly 
because it comes with their machines.  I think the EU has the best approach.



Pros know that after they have built a compliant page
that looks fine in all other browsers
they have to do specific tests on their pages
to see how they look in IE6/7/8.


While I am not a pro, I'm building a web site for my brother-in-law's 
real estate business.  I have a Windows VM within my Linux, so I have 
IE(8) just so I can check how my pages render.  I check them for Chrome, 
Opera, and IE8 (I write them using FF).  I probably should check them in 
IE6 and 7 too, but my brother-in-law uses IE7 (well . . . AOL's version 
of IE7, which is another story . . . I'm more of an AOL basher than I am 
a Micro$oft basher) and I have him check the view-ability of pages on 
his machine before I "release" them.


Unfortunately, most who view his web site are using IE7, so I have to 
make my code "accommodate" IE7.  I do have the "Best Viewed with the 
Firefox Browser" caution on his site, but that hasn't changed the 
traffic pattern.



*Smart* pros give a price for a compliant site
and a separate price beyond that to make it look right in IE
(actually, a separate price for *each version* of IE).


There was an interesting twist to this for my brother-in-law's real 
estate business.  He was being inundated with marketing emails from web 
development companies offering to "design" a web page for his business. 
 Most of his colleagues had retained one or another.


He asked me for advice on this, so I checked some of the sites his 
colleagues had (and had built by what I thought were scammers.)  NONE of 
the sites rendered without substantial display issues in IE . . . much 
as I suspected.  Turns out these "pros" (not) were doing it for a flat 
fee and NOT checking the rendering in IE.  From my vantage point, since 
I knew most of the customers were viewing these pages in IE, they were 
seeing something that, while maybe W3C standards compliant (and real 
estate customers don't know what that means, much less care about it), 
looked very unprofessional.


So that's why I agreed to do a web site for him (without charge, BTW).


After the google.cn/IE6 fiasco, government agencies in
France, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand
advised their residents to stop using *all* versions of IE.
U.S. CERT advised that back in 2004.


As I said, I think the EU, and Australia and NZ, have the right 
approach.  Interestingly though, the governments of those countries 
require their employees to use IE, while they recommend not to use it 
for their residents . . . what's wrong with that picture?


I think we're in basic agreement, but you apparently are a strong M$ 
basher (I am a little too, but I don't get my shorts so twisted . . . I 
just switched to Linux over it and now am glad I left Windows . . . I 
get my shorts more twisted over AOL).


BJ

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Neil Hughes]

Arne wrote:
Have you ever tried all options on Google Maps? The "Satelite" and 
"Terrain" (if that is the word in English)! I take Google any time 
over that *terrible* map from Bing.
A mapping system is only as good as it is accurate and up-to-date. 
Google's aerial maps for my part of the UK are at least 3 years old - I 
can see my next door neighbour's old car and the housing estate a few 
miles away is missing half it's buildings. Bing's aerial maps seem to be 
only months old.


--
Neil Hughes

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

Phillip Jones wrote:
>Page designers that design pages for w3c [compliance]
>should add a notation.
>/This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards
>and should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers
>
There's even a tag for that.
Put this in an HTML file and view that with IE, then Gecko:


>/If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not,
>and please tell them you will discontinue use of
>[their] product until [it] meets specifications/.
>
...or simply:
This site best viewed with a standards-compliant browser.
http://google.com/search?q=%22+best.viewed.with.a.standards-compliant.browser
When combined with the tag shown above
and using large red text, it grabs the attention.
Using the flash tag would put the icing on the cake.

>The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C
>
It's easier to do damage when you're one of the Fifth Column
than when you're an overtly declared enemy:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Phillip Jones]

BJ wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers
competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That
would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.


So would I, but that's not reality.


And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not
"accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display
compliant pages?


We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block,
does not display compliant pages . . . "compliantly" in many cases.  IE
will display the page, but if the code is not written in "IE standards
(which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display
that compliant code way out of whack.  I don't like that, but that
is the reality.

Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers
will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C
compliant code, it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.

And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.  I'm sure that 500
pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the
time comes (if it ever does).

BJ



Perhaps, Page designers that design pages for w3c compliant should add a 
notation.


/This website was written to World Wide Web Consortium Standards and 
should show properly on the vast Major of Web browsers on the Market 
today/. /If not please contact the creator of the browser that does not, 
and please tell them you will discontinue use of there product until is 
meets specifications/.


Then the users should do what it says.

The funny thing about w3c is MS is one of the Signatories of W3C, along 
with Apple and other major industry players.  MS specific goal in doing 
so, is to find out what the specs are so that they can make them as far 
as possible the other direction, to make more people dependent upon IE 
rather than less.


--
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T."If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net   http://www.vpea.org
mailto:pjon...@kimbanet.com
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

BJ wrote:
>[...]IE will display the page,
>but if the code is not written in "IE standards["]
>
...and you have to specify **which** "IE standards".
Each *version* of IE renders the same code differently.
IE is a complete botch.
Even the latest IE only gets 20 percent on Acid3
while other browsers achieved in excess of 90--some hit 100.

>Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM,
>
Some (techie) sites are seeing parity with IE (cumulatively)
and Firefox (Gecko, cumulatively, according to their methods).

>developers will be faced with the reality that,
>even though they write W3C compliant code,
>it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.
>
Pros know that after they have built a compliant page
that looks fine in all other browsers
they have to do specific tests on their pages
to see how they look in IE6/7/8.

*Smart* pros give a price for a compliant site
and a separate price beyond that to make it look right in IE
(actually, a separate price for *each version* of IE).

The old hands have lots of tricks up their sleeves
gathered over years of kludging things up for IE
and they don't give those away for free.

>And even then
>(i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM),
>I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.
>
...and water is wet.  M$, however, doesn't have a choice.
The slower they are to become compliant,
the faster they will lose market share.

After the google.cn/IE6 fiasco, government agencies in
France, Germany, Australia, and New Zealand
advised their residents to stop using *all* versions of IE.
U.S. CERT advised that back in 2004.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[BJ]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers
competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That
would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.


So would I, but that's not reality.


And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not
"accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display
compliant pages?

We all know that IE, produced by the 500 pound gorilla on the block, 
does not display compliant pages . . . "compliantly" in many cases.  IE 
will display the page, but if the code is not written in "IE standards 
(which in many cases differs substantially from W3C), it may display 
that compliant code way out of whack.  I don't like that, but that 
is the reality.


Until the market share shifts SUBSTANTIALLY toward FF/SM, developers 
will be faced with the reality that, even though they write W3C 
compliant code, it may not be displayed "properly" via IE.


And even then (i.e. if the market share shifts substantially to FF/SM), 
I'm not so sure MS will surrender to W3C compliance.  I'm sure that 500 
pound gorilla has something ready to thwart that circumstance when the 
time comes (if it ever does).


BJ

___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[David E. Ross]

On 2/18/2010 7:00 PM, Paul B. Gallagher wrote:
> 
> The original vision of HTML was that the page would be coded to a 
> standard and the various browsers would render it as their programmers 
> and users thought best. But what we have now is a world in which certain 
> browser publishers have enough weight in the marketplace that webmasters 
> intentionally write nonstandard code for them, and that forces other 
> browsers to devise ways of coping with these noncompliant pages.
> 
> I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers 
> competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That 
> would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.
> 
> And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not 
> "accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display 
> compliant pages?
> 

Various surveys now indicate that IE and Firefox are tied in terms of
usage.  Some surveys even indicate that Firefox now has a larger share
of the browser market than IE.

Too many managers lack technical experience. Far too readily, they
accept the concept that, if Micro$oft says "It's okay", then it must
indeed be okay. They provide Micro$oft tools to their staff for
generating Web pages. They believe that, if a Web page looks as intended
with Internet Explorer, it looks okay to the entire world. They do not
realize that they have tied their Internet presence to a browser with a
steadily declining market share, to a "fading star".

-- 
David E. Ross


Go to Mozdev at  for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Paul B. Gallagher]

BJ wrote:

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Arne wrote:

JeffM wrote:

Arne wrote:

Bing Map[...]
There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.


There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.


Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff but at least they
give the user an option to enter any way, other simply throw you out!


Is it just me, or isn't it incredibly stupid to design three or four or
five different versions of your site for three or four or five different
browsers because that takes two or three times as much labor? Why would
a web design firm allow their people to charge them two or three times
as much when they can simply require one compliant design?

While it is indeed "incredibly stupid" that design has to be doubled, or 
tripled, web pages are designed for end users.  Designers have to 
accommodate end users and cannot control what browser a person uses.


And the web design firm simply passes on the cost to the page owner. So, 
this sad fact has an impact on the site owner, not the web design firm.


Notwithstanding a "best viewed with . . . " notice, you really have no 
choice but to accommodate all browsers IF you want everybody to be able 
to view your site.


In a perfect world, everybody would use FF/SM and multiple design would 
not be necessary.  However, that's not reality.


The original vision of HTML was that the page would be coded to a 
standard and the various browsers would render it as their programmers 
and users thought best. But what we have now is a world in which certain 
browser publishers have enough weight in the marketplace that webmasters 
intentionally write nonstandard code for them, and that forces other 
browsers to devise ways of coping with these noncompliant pages.


I would be perfectly satisfied with a world in which multiple browsers 
competed for market share but websites were coded to W3C standards. That 
would be a level playing field and the best browser(s) would win.


And anyway, how is writing a single version of compliant code not 
"accommodating all browsers"? Are some browsers unable to display 
compliant pages?


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[BJ]

Paul B. Gallagher wrote:

Arne wrote:

JeffM wrote:

Arne wrote:

Bing Map[...]
There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.


There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.


Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff but at least they
give the user an option to enter any way, other simply throw you out!


Is it just me, or isn't it incredibly stupid to design three or four or
five different versions of your site for three or four or five different
browsers because that takes two or three times as much labor? Why would
a web design firm allow their people to charge them two or three times
as much when they can simply require one compliant design?

While it is indeed "incredibly stupid" that design has to be doubled, or 
tripled, web pages are designed for end users.  Designers have to 
accommodate end users and cannot control what browser a person uses.


And the web design firm simply passes on the cost to the page owner. 
So, this sad fact has an impact on the site owner, not the web design firm.


Notwithstanding a "best viewed with . . . " notice, you really have no 
choice but to accommodate all browsers IF you want everybody to be able 
to view your site.


In a perfect world, everybody would use FF/SM and multiple design would 
not be necessary.  However, that's not reality.


BJ
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Paul B. Gallagher]

Arne wrote:

JeffM wrote:

Arne wrote:

Bing Map[...]
There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.


There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.


Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff but at least they 
give the user an option to enter any way, other simply throw you out!


Is it just me, or isn't it incredibly stupid to design three or four or 
five different versions of your site for three or four or five different 
browsers because that takes two or three times as much labor? Why would 
a web design firm allow their people to charge them two or three times 
as much when they can simply require one compliant design?


--
War doesn't determine who's right, just who's left.
--
Paul B. Gallagher
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Bill Spikowski]

Arne wrote:

Bill Spikowski wrote:

JeffM wrote:


The funny part here is that
you actually expect Micros~1 to know what they are doing.
I'm curious to know what is is about Bung[sic]
that makes it valuable to you (besides M$-slanted results).



I use Bing for only one purpose -- their incredible aerial oblique maps
-- nothing else like it anywhere on the internet!


Have you ever tried all options on Google Maps? The "Satelite" and 
"Terrain" (if that is the word in English)! I take Google any time over 
that *terrible* map from Bing.



Sure -- I use Google Maps 20 times for every time I use Bing Maps. But when you need 
"3D" aerial oblique maps, well Google just doesn't have them
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

>>Arne wrote:
>>>Bing Map[...]
>>>There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.
>>>
>JeffM wrote:
>>There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
>>JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.
>
Arne wrote:
>Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
>
You're too easy on developers who don't know WFT they're doing.
The *DEFAULT* should be **serve up a compliant page**.

Stupid M$ even treats the W3C Validator like it has 3 heads:
http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.bing.com/maps/
(Look at the "Address:" bar on that page.)

>All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff
>but at least they give the user an option to enter any way,
>other simply throw you out!
>
So, instead of being rock-head stupid,
they're just bonehead stupid.

WEBMASTERS,
JUST SERVE UP *COMPLIANT* PAGES BY DEFAULT.
If you want to sniff, then sniff for the **broken** browsers
(y'know, the ones Micros~1 builds)
and only treat **those** as "special" (as in "retarted").

BTW, you bunch of dim bulbs who can't seem to get it right
http://geckoisgecko.org/
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Arne]

JeffM wrote:

Arne wrote:

Bing Map[...]
There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.


There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.


Agree, was my post in any way defending any browser sniffing?
All I said, was that there is those sites who sniff but at least they 
give the user an option to enter any way, other simply throw you out!


--
/Arne
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

Arne wrote:
>Bing Map[...]
>There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.
>
There is *no* need to sniff for *standards-compliant* browsers;
JUST CREATE STANDARDS-COMPLIANT PAGES.
(Of couse, this would break M$'s foul business model.)

The ONLY need to sniff is for NON-compliant browsers.
(Guess who builds those.)
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Acid3

The only need to serve up "special" pages
is because junky browsers won't render compliant pages right.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[David E. Ross]

On 2/18/2010 4:12 AM, DonWB wrote:
> Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem of some
> websites not being compatible with 1.1.18, the version I am running
> now? Bing Maps is a good example, I get a message asking me if I'm
> sure I want to use my browser on their site, and when I go ahead the
> page doesn't come up the same as it does with Firefox.
> 
> If I stick with SeaMonkey I know I'll have to update sooner or later,
> but I don't want to do it until it's of some benefit to me.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.9.1.8)
Gecko/20100205 SeaMonkey/2.0.3

I just tried it, and I did not get the message.  However, I usually
browse with my preferences set to load images only from the same domain
as the page I'm viewing.  For Bing Maps, I had to change that to load
images from any domain.  Fortunately, I have this preference setup as a
menulist in the PrefBar extension.

-- 
David E. Ross


Go to Mozdev at  for quick access to
extensions for Firefox, Thunderbird, SeaMonkey, and other
Mozilla-related applications.  You can access Mozdev much
more quickly than you can Mozilla Add-Ons.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Arne]

Bill Spikowski wrote:

JeffM wrote:


The funny part here is that
you actually expect Micros~1 to know what they are doing.
I'm curious to know what is is about Bung[sic]
that makes it valuable to you (besides M$-slanted results).



I use Bing for only one purpose -- their incredible aerial oblique maps
-- nothing else like it anywhere on the internet!


Have you ever tried all options on Google Maps? The "Satelite" and 
"Terrain" (if that is the word in English)! I take Google any time 
over that *terrible* map from Bing.


BTW, Bing Map came up on my SM 2.0, at least they give you an option 
to enter with what ever browser you have, when they don't know what 
you have. There is worse examples of sites that do browser sniffing.


--
/Arne
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Bill Spikowski]

JeffM wrote:


The funny part here is that
you actually expect Micros~1 to know what they are doing.
I'm curious to know what is is about Bung[sic]
that makes it valuable to you (besides M$-slanted results).



I use Bing for only one purpose -- their incredible aerial oblique maps -- 
nothing else like it anywhere on the internet!
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[JeffM]

DonWB wrote:
>Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem
>of some websites not being compatible with 1.1.18,
>[...]Bing Maps is[...]asking me if I'm sure
>I want to use my browser on their site, and when I go ahead
>the page doesn't come up the same as it does with Firefox.
>
The funny part here is that
you actually expect Micros~1 to know what they are doing.
I'm curious to know what is is about Bung[sic]
that makes it valuable to you (besides M$-slanted results).

Have you done the standard bad-website troubleshooting?
http://google.com/search?q=cache:H9hqNLFv8oQJ:kb.mozillazine.org/Error_loading_any_website+site:mozillazine.org/Error_loading_any_website+*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-unwanted-content+Error.loading.some.websites+spoofer#Error_loading_some_websites
http://tinyurl.com/Basic-Website-Troubleshooting
http://kb.mozillazine.org/Error_loading_any_website#Error_loading_some_websites

Way down on the list is **compensate for a webmaster
who doesn't know WTF he is doing WRT "sniffing"**.
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey

Re: newest version

[Bill Spikowski]

DonWB wrote:

Has the newest version of SeaMonkey dealt with the problem of some
websites not being compatible with 1.1.18, the version I am running
now? Bing Maps is a good example, I get a message asking me if I'm
sure I want to use my browser on their site, and when I go ahead the
page doesn't come up the same as it does with Firefox.



I don't know Bing appears in Firefox; but I have been getting the same message 
in Seamonkey 1.1.18, ignoring it, and Bing Maps has always worked fine. But 
today it is not, so Bing may have changed something
___
support-seamonkey mailing list
support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey