How would one configure Apache so that anyone using IE would be met with
a "nice friendly message" that they are not welcome?
Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on the
'net, I would like to start a campaign to essentially "lock out" IE from
accessing websites.
Of co
On Friday 10 October 2003 08:46 am, HaywireMac wrote:
>
> How would one configure Apache so that anyone using IE would be met with
> a "nice friendly message" that they are not welcome?
>
> Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on the
> 'net, I would like to start a cam
On Friday 10 October 2003 08:46 am, HaywireMac wrote:
> How would one configure Apache so that anyone using IE would be met with
> a "nice friendly message" that they are not welcome?
>
> Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on the
> 'net, I would like to start a campaig
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:19:28 -0400
Greg Meyer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Do what the sites that allow only IE do. Test the browser string and
> present a warning page to users of IE and the real page to everybody
> else.
Right, I understand the basic concept, but I cannot see in my
httpd2.co
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:34:38 -0400
Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> > Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on
> > the'net, I would like to start a campaign to essentially "lock out"
> > IE from accessing websites.
> >
> > Of course, one would still be able t
Greg Meyer wrote:
On Friday 10 October 2003 08:46 am, HaywireMac wrote:
How would one configure Apache so that anyone using IE would be met with
a "nice friendly message" that they are not welcome?
Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on the
'net, I would like to sta
> I don't have many pages to edit, so adding it to each and every page
> would be a simple matter of copy and paste.
>
Just a suggestion: If you're editing multiple pages, even just a dozen,
you might consider making the pages PHP based. You can enable .html as a
PHP script in apache then just inse
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:50:00 -0500
"J.C. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Hey HeywireMac,
>
> Google is your friend, a very *good* friend at that. Just look at what
ya, I was so engrossed in the Apache docs, I forgot my own similar
observations on that point.
> google gave me with one run
This may be just me, but "locking out" anybody based on their browser is
not a tactic that is compatible or consistent with the Open Source way.
In fact I think it's below us. We should be taking the high road and
setting an example cuz 1) that's the quality of people we want to be. 2)
We don't w
Hello HaywireMac,
Friday, October 10, 2003, 5:46:18 AM, you wrote:
H> Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on
H> the 'net, I would like to start a campaign to essentially "lock
H> out" IE from accessing websites.
H> Of course, one would still be able to use Windows,
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:14:11 -0400
Miark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> 3) It punishes computer users who
> are too inexperienced to know how to change their browser.
This is exactly what I intend to do. The page which is served to IE
users will explain *why* (info on MS and it's record on securi
On Friday 10 October 2003 10:14 am, Miark wrote:
> This may be just me, but "locking out" anybody based on their browser is
> not a tactic that is compatible or consistent with the Open Source way.
>
> In fact I think it's below us. We should be taking the high road and
> setting an example cuz 1)
Miark wrote:
This may be just me, but "locking out" anybody based on their browser is
not a tactic that is compatible or consistent with the Open Source way.
In fact I think it's below us. We should be taking the high road and
setting an example cuz 1) that's the quality of people we want to be.
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:57:37 -0400
"Ronald J. Hall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Don't get me wrong, Haywiremac - I understand where you are coming
> from but maybe a better solution would be to redirect an IE identified
> browser to a page that explains the point(s) that you are trying to
> get
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:15:56 -0500
"J.C. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> Your missing the point, Miark. This is not what HMac is doing (and do
>
> jump in if I have you wrong, HMac).
No, you've got it just right, I will heed the advice to make this as
polite and well-mannered as possi
>I think that is the direction, at least partially, I'm leaning. All
>joking aside about Stephen's infamous 404 page, I certainly
don't wish
>to paint all *nix users as ill-tempered ideologues, but at the
same time
>what is the point of a quick redirect that people will simply ignore
>anyway?
>
>Y
On Friday 10 October 2003 18:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> this would allow even the
> newbie-est to find and install whatever flavor tickles their
> tastebuds with a minimum of effort or understnding on their part.
Right up to the point where they uninstall explorer, thinking they won't be
need
--- Original Message ---
From: "H.J.Bathoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [expert] How to Block IE from a Website
>On Friday 10 October 2003 18:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> this would allow even the
>> newbie-est to find and instal
On Friday 10 October 2003 09:36 am, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:34:38 -0400
>
> Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> > > Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on
> > > the'net, I would like to start a campaign to essentially "lock out"
> > > IE from
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:55:54 -0400
Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> I do not know of any method of detecting the browser and altering the
> default page displayed based on that browser that does not entail
> creating code on the default display page and possibly subsequent
> pages of t
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 08:50:00 -0500
"J.C. Woods" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Happy blocking, and, BTW, I like your thinking on this one.
Wt! It works!
Thank you thank you thank you!
Of course, as Brian P. said, anyone with half a brain can prolly bypass
it, but it's easy to do, and if
Bryan Phinney wrote:
On Friday 10 October 2003 09:36 am, HaywireMac wrote:
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 09:34:38 -0400
Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on
the'net, I would like to start a campaign to essentially "lock out"
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 11:39, HaywireMac wrote:
so I thought about both sides while I was walking to work this morning,
and decided to do this in my standard_html_footer in Zope:
0">
http://www.mozilla.org/";>USE MOZILLA
It comes up right next to the Apache button if MSIE is used to visit any
of
On Friday 10 October 2003 02:23 pm, HaywireMac wrote:
> > That depends on your pages. If you use a CGI method, each page that
> > can be reached via URL must be CGI based. If you use a PHP method,
> > the same holds true. If you mix html, dhtml, CGI, etc. it is not a
> > simple cut and paste fu
Am Freitag, 10. Oktober 2003 16:28 schrieb HaywireMac:
> Why be dishonest and hide the fact that we are *against* MS and their
> shenanigans, while at the same time offering an alternative? It is
> indeed hypocrisy to accept the ill-conceived and hair-raisingly
> insecure MS garbage that's out the
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 17:47:31 -0400
Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> No, actually, I suspect that they are confirming what I said. They
> assume that all of your pages are PHP and that you include the
> detection mechanism on all pages. If you were running something like
> post-nuk
On Friday 10 October 2003 06:21 pm, HaywireMac wrote:
> Again, this is just a small gesture, and not just aimed at IE. It's
> intended to expose Windows users to alternatives to not just IE, but to
> Windows itself, which is why I point to documentation which highlights
> the inherant problems wit
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:06:58 -0400
Bryan Phinney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Well, there is a favorite link that I like to send people to when I
> want to give them a few reasons to consider switching to Linux from
> Windows.
>
> http://aaxnet.com/editor/edit029.html
>
> The write-up is rathe
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 05:46, HaywireMac wrote:
> How would one configure Apache so that anyone using IE would be met with
> a "nice friendly message" that they are not welcome?
>
> Considering the effects of compromised home computers running XP on the
> 'net, I would like to start a campaign to e
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:14:30 -0700
James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> HaywireMac,
>
>If I were going to do this I'd go to one of the javascript sites
>grab
> a browser detection script and use it to re-direct the IE users.
Already done using PHP, try loading my site using
HaywireMac mused:
>
> How would one configure Apache so that anyone using IE would be
> met with
> a "nice friendly message" that they are not welcome?
This is REALLY easy. Here´s a link to read all about:
http://www.devin.com/ieblock_howto.shtml
Server side includes are probably the easiest wa
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:41:46 -0700
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> It comes up right next to the Apache button if MSIE is used to visit
> any of my web pages. This looks to me like the best balance of
> advocacy without limiting choice.
Wow. I actually maybe kinda somehow in a small wa
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 07:14, Miark wrote:
> This may be just me, but "locking out" anybody based on their browser is
> not a tactic that is compatible or consistent with the Open Source way.
>
> In fact I think it's below us. We should be taking the high road and
> setting an example cuz 1) that'
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 08:15, J.C. Woods wrote:
> Miark wrote:
>
> >This may be just me, but "locking out" anybody based on their browser is
> >not a tactic that is compatible or consistent with the Open Source way.
> >
> >In fact I think it's below us. We should be taking the high road and
> >set
bOn Fri, 2003-10-10 at 18:26, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 18:14:30 -0700
> James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> > HaywireMac,
> >
> >If I were going to do this I'd go to one of the javascript sites
> >grab
> > a browser detection script and use it to re-direct the
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 08:41, H.J.Bathoorn wrote:
> On Friday 10 October 2003 18:34, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > this would allow even the
> > newbie-est to find and install whatever flavor tickles their
> > tastebuds with a minimum of effort or understnding on their part.
>
> Right up to the poin
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 14:24, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:41:46 -0700
> Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> > It comes up right next to the Apache button if MSIE is used to visit
> > any of my web pages. This looks to me like the best balance of
> > advocacy without limiting
argh... I knew that would be mangled, but I didn't know how badly:
8.69% MSIE6 XP 7.77% Gecko X
6.97% MSIE6 XP.NET 3.63% Konq X
6.51% MSIE6 2K 2.49% Gecko XP
5.49% MSIE6 2K.NET 2.00% Gecko X
1.89% MSIE6 W98 1.38% Gecko X
1.31
Jack Coates mused:
[snip]
> look at how little the growth is for XP, .NET extensions, all that
> hype.
> Win98 is being abandoned, but for Linux and Win2000. And look at
> the
> huge increase in Mozilla on Windows.
That´s pretty cool! Maybe a trend? It´s amazing how many people
I run into nowa
On Saturday 11 October 2003 06:01, James Sparenberg wrote:
I> Ah but it can be removed! check out
>
> http://www.litepc.com/
I know that, you know thatthey don't! They just acquire an unbootable
Winders and have it re-installed, with the local M$ wizard telling 'em: "Yeah
that's wh
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 12:12:36 +0200
"H.J.Bathoorn" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> I know that, you know thatthey don't! They just acquire an
> unbootable Winders and have it re-installed, with the local M$ wizard
> telling 'em: "Yeah that's what you get when you start messing with
> this
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:56:51 -0700
James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> Ya might want to link out to this site.
>
> http://reactor-core.org
>
> or at least some of the stuff he has.
Wow, great site, thanks! Now I can become even *more* paranoid ;-)
--
HaywireMac
Registered Lin
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:47:05 -0700
James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> I like the idea of just confusing them.. Run a javascript that pops up
> a message that says. "You are not standards compatible" When it sees
> IE and an OK button. Has no affect on them but confuses the heck out
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:54:27 -0700
James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> Ok easiest way is via javascript check out the redirection scripts
> here.
> http://www.scriptsearch.com/JavaScript/Scripts/Redirection/
Doesn't XP come *without* Java now? Or is Java executed on the server
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 04:40, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:54:27 -0700
> James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> >
> > Ok easiest way is via javascript check out the redirection scripts
> > here.
> > http://www.scriptsearch.com/JavaScript/Scripts/Redirection/
>
> Doesn
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:36:06 -0700
Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> > Doesn't XP come *without* Java now? Or is Java executed on the
> > server like PHP?
>
> Java != JavaScript.
>
> Java is a C++ like object oriented language designed to write once,
> run anywhere via virtual machines.
On Saturday 11 Oct 2003 2:38 pm, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 07:36:06 -0700
>
> Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
> > > Doesn't XP come *without* Java now? Or is Java executed on the
> > > server like PHP?
> >
> > Java != JavaScript.
> >
> > Java is a C++ like object oriented lan
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 14:24, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:41:46 -0700
> Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> > It comes up right next to the Apache button if MSIE is used to visit
> > any of my web pages. This looks to me like the best balance of
> > advocacy without limiting
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 04:40, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:54:27 -0700
> James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> >
> > Ok easiest way is via javascript check out the redirection scripts
> > here.
> > http://www.scriptsearch.com/JavaScript/Scripts/Redirection/
>
> Doesn
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 04:36, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 20:56:51 -0700
> James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> > Ya might want to link out to this site.
> >
> > http://reactor-core.org
> >
> > or at least some of the stuff he has.
>
> Wow, great site, thanks! Now
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 11:35:50 -0700
James Sparenberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> Clean design. Considering the box it's coming off of and the "line"
> bandwidth you have... snappy too.
That box is downloading Apocalypse Now at about 25 KB/s as we speak too!
Good ol' IBM, that thing just ne
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 17:24, HaywireMac wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:41:46 -0700
> Jack Coates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> > It comes up right next to the Apache button if MSIE is used to visit
> > any of my web pages. This looks to me like the best balance of
> > advocacy without limiting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
In spite of repeated (nice) complaints from myself, my credit union still
dorks me over whenever I try to access MY account information via the web
using konqueror.
I set it to identify itself as netscape OR explorer but it doesn't work, they
redir
Am Samstag, 11. Oktober 2003 21:20 schrieb ed tharp:
> IIRC, IE doesn't support 'blink'... it's wasted
AFAIK its an IE only tag, so it should work on IE at least.
Ooops, no it was a proprietary netscape thing. marquee was IE only.
Steffen
Want to buy your Pack or Services from MandrakeSoft?
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 13:34, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In spite of repeated (nice) complaints from myself, my credit union still
> dorks me over whenever I try to access MY account information via the web
> using konqueror.
>
> I set it to id
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 13:34, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> In spite of repeated (nice) complaints from myself, my credit union still
> dorks me over whenever I try to access MY account information via the web
> using konqueror.
>
> I set it to id
> > I am DETERMINED to get past their nonsense and access my account
> > information USING KONQUEROR DAMNIT! So there. It does still
> > happen, this nonsense, and spoofing a browser doesn't always
> > work.
> >
> > praedor
>
> oops forgot an example page
>
> http://supportwizard.com
This wor
On Saturday 11 October 2003 10:24 am, Eric Huff wrote:
> > Honestly, maybe I don't hang out in the right places or something,
> > but my wife and I do almost everything online using Mozilla and
> > Galeon and hardly ever run into this problem. It's been at least a
> > year since the last time I had
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:16:01 -0400
Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> A recent experience:
> During dinner a week or so back, SheThatIs decreed that the purchase and
> installation of a new mailbox and post was essential to my continued
> happiness. There are two major sources for such
On Saturday 11 October 2003 09:44 pm, Tim Sawchuck wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:16:01 -0400
>
> Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> snipped long rant about trying to access Home Depot website from Konq
> I have done that three times (I'm old enough to blame the fact that I
> forget
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
October 11, 2003 07:16 pm, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
> On Saturday 11 October 2003 10:24 am, Eric Huff wrote:
> > > Honestly, maybe I don't hang out in the right places or something,
> > > but my wife and I do almost everything online using Mozilla and
>
On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 22:29:09 -0400
Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Saturday 11 October 2003 09:44 pm, Tim Sawchuck wrote:
> > On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:16:01 -0400
> >
> > Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>> snipped long rant about trying to access Home Depot website from
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 18:16, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
...
> And yes, I thought about sending them a nastygram, but that was not in the
> list of options. (Remember when every website had a Contact Webmaster link?)
> Then too, would anyone who considers Netscape 4.0 and IE 4.0 to be the latest
> an
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 15:08, Eric Huff wrote:
> > > I am DETERMINED to get past their nonsense and access my account
> > > information USING KONQUEROR DAMNIT! So there. It does still
> > > happen, this nonsense, and spoofing a browser doesn't always
> > > work.
> > >
> > > praedor
> >
> > oops
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 18:44, Tim Sawchuck wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2003 21:16:01 -0400
> Carroll Grigsby <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > A recent experience:
> > During dinner a week or so back, SheThatIs decreed that the purchase and
> > installation of a new mailbox and post was essential to my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A little checking and I see that my credit union isn't what I would call
linux-unfriendly, just konqueror unfriendly. The login system using java or
javascript (*.jsp...is that java or javascript?). One error message I
received when trying to bypa
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
More messing around. I have used mozilla to identify all the key javascript
pages and entered them into the user agent box for konqueror, instructing
konqueror to identify itself as mozilla 4.76 or 5.5. I can now briefly get
to the pages but short
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 06:48, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A little checking and I see that my credit union isn't what I would call
> linux-unfriendly, just konqueror unfriendly. The login system using java or
> javascript (*.jsp...is that java o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
There is a ref to a browser check script but I am not certain where its root
lies, so I am not sure what webpage to pass a mozilla user agent id to:
doBrowserCheck();
I have tried simply added the previous root URL and subdirectory to the
br
Bad form, bad form... tsk. You might get lucky with google: try
searching for
browsercheck.js site:your.credit.union
If you can get the browsercheck, I'll help you show them how to make it
only match IE vs. Other. It's probably two hundred lines long and
testing for Netscape 3 and other anachroni
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Thanks, but that didn't work. I did manage to download their browsercheck.js
file however. Google couldn't find it and I couldn't "load" it in konqueror.
I ended up simply trying to load
https://homebanking.purdueefcu.com/homebanking/js/browserch
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Sorry...I suppose I shouldn't have attached anything.
On Sunday 12 October 2003 03:01 pm, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> Thanks, but that didn't work. I did manage to download their
> browsercheck.js file however. Google couldn't find it and I couldn'
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 06:48, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> A little checking and I see that my credit union isn't what I would call
> linux-unfriendly, just konqueror unfriendly. The login system using java or
> javascript (*.jsp...is that java o
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't really know javascript but my perusal of the code suggests that it is
specifically setup to ignore browser spoofing and thus eliminate opera and
any other browser that is doing a spoof. Thing is, I kept getting closer and
closer to getting
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I don't believe this to be a real problem though. All they need to do is
design basic javascript, if that is what they intend to use, that doesn't do
anything wierd or os-specific/browser-specific. The simple approach is to
provide a warning to us
On Monday 13 October 2003 01:13 am, rikona wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> Sunday, October 12, 2003, 9:40:03 PM, you wrote:
>
> EH> That's the silly part: we're not really even asking for
> EH> development. We just want them to get rid of the rejection of non
> EH> IE browsers. It would mean *less* work
On Sun, 12 Oct 2003 21:34:39 -0700 rikona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Praedor,
>
> Sunday, October 12, 2003, 7:41:58 PM, you wrote:
>
> PA> It seems patently indefensible and unfair to out-and-out ban
> PA> opera, safari, konqueror, etc, as a matter of policy. It most
> PA> certainly is
On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 08:01:05 -0500 Praedor Atrebates <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> I simply want the option, in the form of a button, to go
> ahead and try to use their site through a non-mozilla/non-IE browser.
I have many complaints with my credit card provider; but at least they do
just as you
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 06:17, Bryan Phinney wrote:
...
> This really depends on what the web site or application is doing. If you code
> for Opera, then you can be 98% sure that it will work with other browsers
> because Opera only supports W3 Consortium standards which are industry
> standards
On Monday 13 October 2003 11:24 am, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 06:17, Bryan Phinney wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > This really depends on what the web site or application is doing. If you
> > code for Opera, then you can be 98% sure that it will work with other
> > browsers because Opera onl
Jack Coates wrote:
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 06:48, Praedor Atrebates wrote:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
A little checking and I see that my credit union isn't what I would call
linux-unfriendly, just konqueror unfriendly. The login system using java or
javascript (*.jsp...is that
Bryan Phinney wrote:
On Monday 13 October 2003 11:24 am, Jack Coates wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 06:17, Bryan Phinney wrote:
...
This really depends on what the web site or application is doing. If you
code for Opera, then you can be 98% sure that it will work with other
browsers because Oper
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 08:24, Jack Coates wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 06:17, Bryan Phinney wrote:
>
> ...
> > This really depends on what the web site or application is doing. If you code
> > for Opera, then you can be 98% sure that it will work with other browsers
> > because Opera only supp
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 08:40, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> On Monday 13 October 2003 11:24 am, Jack Coates wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 06:17, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> >
> > ...
> >
> > > This really depends on what the web site or application is doing. If you
> > > code for Opera, then you can be 98%
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 23:42, James Sparenberg wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 08:24, Jack Coates wrote:
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 06:17, Bryan Phinney wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > > This really depends on what the web site or application is doing. If you code
> > > for Opera, then you can be 98% sure t
On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 21:29, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
>
> Tim:
> Good for you. And good for the guy who runs your local Home Depot. He seems to
> understand that every dollar spent at a competitive store is a buck that he
> won't get. But the root cause -- the idiot webmaster -- still remains. No
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:24, Jack Coates wrote:
> you make the fatal assumption that IE supports the standard. It doesn't.
> Standard code works on IE if it's really really simple, but frequently
> breaks in ugly ways.
>
> Transparent PNGs.
> PNGs at all (color is off).
> Advanced CSS features, l
On Thursday 16 October 2003 03:46 pm, Chuck Stuettgen wrote:
> On Sat, 2003-10-11 at 21:29, Carroll Grigsby wrote:
> > Tim:
> > Good for you. And good for the guy who runs your local Home Depot. He
> > seems to understand that every dollar spent at a competitive store is a
> > buck that he won't ge
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 13:49, Chuck Stuettgen wrote:
> On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:24, Jack Coates wrote:
>
> > you make the fatal assumption that IE supports the standard. It doesn't.
> > Standard code works on IE if it's really really simple, but frequently
> > breaks in ugly ways.
> >
> > Transpar
James Sparenberg wrote:
On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 13:49, Chuck Stuettgen wrote:
On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:24, Jack Coates wrote:
you make the fatal assumption that IE supports the standard. It doesn't.
Standard code works on IE if it's really really simple, but frequently
breaks in ugly ways.
On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 03:01, Franki wrote:
> James Sparenberg wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 2003-10-16 at 13:49, Chuck Stuettgen wrote:
> >
> >
> >>On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 10:24, Jack Coates wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>you make the fatal assumption that IE supports the standard. It doesn't.
> >>>Standard
Hello JM5379,
Friday, October 10, 2003, 9:34:05 AM, you wrote:
Jsn> this would allow even the newbie-est to find and install whatever
Jsn> flavor tickles their tastebuds with a minimum of effort or
Jsn> understnding on their part.
Also include the suggestion that they set their new, non-M$ brows
Hello Praedor,
Sunday, October 12, 2003, 7:41:58 PM, you wrote:
PA> It seems patently indefensible and unfair to out-and-out ban
PA> opera, safari, konqueror, etc, as a matter of policy. It most
PA> certainly isn't a security problem as IE certainly isn't more
PA> secure than opera, etc.
I've
Hello Eric,
Sunday, October 12, 2003, 9:40:03 PM, you wrote:
EH> That's the silly part: we're not really even asking for
EH> development. We just want them to get rid of the rejection of non
EH> IE browsers. It would mean *less* work and less code if they
EH> didn't put it in to begin with.
I
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 10:09:30 -0700
rikona <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> uttered:
>
> Also include the suggestion that they set their new, non-M$ browser to
> ID as IE, otherwise MANY pages will not work well, or at all. If you
> don't do this, they will think you sent them off in a rather
> ridiculous, non
On Fri, 2003-10-10 at 10:09, rikona wrote:
> Hello JM5379,
>
> Friday, October 10, 2003, 9:34:05 AM, you wrote:
>
> Jsn> this would allow even the newbie-est to find and install whatever
> Jsn> flavor tickles their tastebuds with a minimum of effort or
> Jsn> understnding on their part.
>
> Also
> Honestly, maybe I don't hang out in the right places or something,
> but my wife and I do almost everything online using Mozilla and
> Galeon and hardly ever run into this problem. It's been at least a
> year since the last time I had to show her how to spoof a browser
> ID with Konqueror.
It st
> The more honest ones have admitted they can't justify
> developing for more than IE, given the huge REPORTED market share.
> With so many people using spoofing, it just makes the market share
> look even bigger than it is. We can't win for loosing.
That's the silly part: we're not really even as
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 21:40, Eric Huff wrote:
> > The more honest ones have admitted they can't justify
> > developing for more than IE, given the huge REPORTED market share.
> > With so many people using spoofing, it just makes the market share
> > look even bigger than it is. We can't win for loo
On Sun, 2003-10-12 at 22:13, rikona wrote:
> Hello Eric,
>
> Sunday, October 12, 2003, 9:40:03 PM, you wrote:
>
> EH> That's the silly part: we're not really even asking for
> EH> development. We just want them to get rid of the rejection of non
> EH> IE browsers. It would mean *less* work and
1 - 100 of 108 matches
Mail list logo
