I hope Mozilla and Netscape die a horrible death.

simX

simX

Unofficial Mac Genius
I have been working on developing a web page for about 3 weeks now, and I have come to the realization about why Netscape/Mozilla doesn't dominate the web browser market. I can sum it up in two words: "they suck".

If you want to say I'm starting another browser war here, fine. But I am speaking from experience now, and Mozilla and Netscape have frustrated me to NO END when developing this website!

First, I make a page with frames that OmniWeb and Internet Explorer display just fine. Netscape and Mozilla? Zilch. I spend almost a WHOLE DAY trying to figure out that Netscape and Mozilla can't handle FRAME tags inside BODY tags. Noooo.. FRAME tags MUST go on their own, according to Mozilla/Netscape. Otherwise, you get a blank page.

Then I am given a page with JavaScript code embedded into it, which works in Internet Explorer and OmniWeb. It does some minor calculations depending on what information you supply in fields and which buttons you click, and spits information back out. There are actually two "calculators" on the page.

When I finally finish clearing up the god-awful HTML code that I inherited with this page, and I test it.. I'm perfectly happy with it in OmniWeb and Internet Explorer. And then I get to Mozilla and Netscape. They stoutly refuse to do anything with the second calculator. So I spend another hour or so looking through the hoard of JavaScript code to see if I can find out why Mozilla/Netscape won't do the calculator. Finally I just find a workaround – instead of referencing the specific form that the form elements were in, I just specify "all" to JavaScript so it just searches the whole page. Problem solved.. after 2 hours of banging my head on the wall.

Then today.

I go to add a SIMPLE PAGE to the website. Here's the code:

(HTML)
(head)
(title)Beam Line 6-2 Overview(/title)
(/head)
(body)
(br)(br)
(center)(font size=+2)(b)Beam Line 6-2 Overview(/b)(/font)(/center)(br)(br)(br)

BioSync description available (a href="http://biosync.sdsc.edu/ssrl/BL6-2.html")here(/a).(br)(br)

SSRL description available (a href="http://www-ssrl.slac.stanford.edu/beamlines/BL6-2.html")here(/a).
(/body)(/HTML)
Click to expand...

Internet Explorer and OmniWeb? They display them perfectly. Mozilla/Netscape? Noooo... they have to make things hard on me and refuse to display the second link or text at all. Mozilla/Netscape just stop after the BioSync description link (nevermind about the content – you may not be able to access those links).

So basically after this whole rant, what I want is this. 1) Someone PLEASE TELL ME why Netscape/Mozilla refuse to display that SIMPLE HTML CODE! And 2) someone tell me why it is WORTH MY WHILE to continue to try and support Netscape/Mozilla with my webpage when all these browsers do is cause me headaches and head-to-wall-banging. I am at my wit's end, and am considering dropping support for these browsers.

EDIT: GRRR I HATE IT HOW THESE FORUMS AUTOMATICALLY INTERPRET HTML! Can I turn that off somehow? In the meantime, I changed all the tags to have parentheses instead.

EDIT 2: I have posted the web page at http://homepage.mac.com/simx/smbxas/ . Please don't comment on the graphics or anything, as it's just a brief mockup (well, you can only if they are compliments :) ). But mouse-over beamlines, and click on "BioXAS Beamline 6-2" or 7-3 or 9-3. Then click "Overview" at the top of the page. That's the page that isn't being displayed properly.

EDIT 3: Well, luckily when I set the target to the correct frame, Mozilla/Netscape display the page fine. But my original rant still stands.
 
The real question is, is your code working because IE and OmniWeb support non-standard HTML formating?

From everything that I've seen, the gecko engine is basically a pretty straight implementation of the W3C standards, while on the other hand, alot of other browers support non-standard syntax functions, etc. IE is known for not following standards, and making their own. Most people just assume they are standards because almost everyone uses IE now. OmniWeb probably is taking the non-standard things IE does so that people don't try to blame them for not displaying a page properly, when it's really someone writing code that is only IE compliant, not standards compliant.

Ofcourse, it could actually be a problem with the Gecko engine, but I've seen very few problems with it. All the mozilla/netscape problems I have are with speed and reliablity, not problems with displaying pages properly.

Brian
 
It seems to me that my code is up to "standards". But I'm not exactly sure as I've not really been a website creator up until lately.

In any case, it's still very annoying to have to support Netscape/Mozilla as they are very picky browsers. One small thing makes a whole page not display! That's not a very good implementation of the Gecko engine, and they SHOULD support FRAME tags inside BODY tags. Whether it is "standard" is kind of beside the point. A programming language should be modular, which is what Internet Explorer and OmniWeb seem to provide. Netscape/Mozilla are very strict, and are bad in that respect as a web browser.
 
You hit the nail on the head of why OSS projects can be crap. They are free, so they don't have users they have to keep happy, so they get on high and mighty horses and preach until they are blue in the face about standards, and how they will only supports standards, and anyone who doesn't is just wrong (namely Microsoft).

I say, put up a pretty page on your site that Mozilla folks go to when they first get there, telling them that they may not see things correctly, and to use another browser. This is what Marc Andressen, one of Netscapes founders, did with his new companies website from what I recall.

Or, you can make everyone happy and code your pages for lynx users. Then, you won't have any problems :) I can't think of any browser today that can't support HTML 1.0 properly :)

Brian
 
We are angry with Netscape aren't we?

Whilst I'd happily jump up and down on the dead body of netscape 4 - I have to disagree with you about netscape 6.2 / mozilla 1.0.

In many case they are better than Internet Explorer v4,5, or 6.

One simple example:
I've been working on a page with a lot of form elements and layers (divs) that hide/show dependent on user interaction. In IE the form elements always get drawn as the front most thing in the browser window - regardless of the z-index of the layer they are in. This makes for a pretty horrible display so I had to write some ugly Javascript to hide form elements when they are not in the front most layer.

In Mozilla 1.0 (and all other gecko browsers) it works perfectly as it should.

So IE is far from perfect.

Stick to the 'proper' coding standards and by and large Gecko is very good and stuff will work in both IE and Gecko based browsers.

Don't stick to those standards and you deserve all you get in my opinion.

The reason so many people come out with rants like yours is because so many people have not stuck to the standards. It becomes one big circle of badness!

(oh, and frames don't go in the body tag! I don't care if IE lets you - it's wrong!!!)
 
Well, obviously you are doing something wrong.

Don't blame the software before you are 100% sure you are doing everything right.

And about th pages redirecting mozilla users to a page saying download a new browser. That sickens me. That is saying that you don't give a crap about me. So I will automatically leave your site. Those pages just show ignorance on the part of the developer.

Sorry to put it this harshly, but something must be wrong on your part. This rant serves no purpose. The gecko engine is the best engine out there hands down. Don't complain about it because you don't know what you are doing.

And drop support for gecko if you want. Not seeing that standards are good it blind and wont do you good in the long run.

Sorry for being so harsh on you :).
 
Coming from the perspective of a web developer, I don't understand some of these comments.

(oh, and frames don't go in the body tag! I don't care if IE lets you - it's wrong!!!)
Click to expand...

goynang: No, actually, I think it's wrong that Mozilla/Netscape don't allow that. Give me ONE VALID REASON why it's wrong to do that, besides the "reason" that Netscape/Mozilla are so strict about HTML rules. NEWS FLASH: There aren't any. It would be very beneficial if Mozilla/Netscape eased up on stupid rules like this one.

The whole point of the rant is that Mozilla/Netscape are super-freakin'-picky about their HTML code, while IE and OmniWeb are not. In this case, I think that OmniWeb and IE are GOOD because of this.

Maybe I should be targeting the standard itself, more. A GOOD standard would be very flexible – allow frames inside body tags, and such. It's very bad and very annoying to have an inflexible language that you have to learn. That's not how a standard should be set up.

Getting back to the point, though, is that Mozilla/Netscape should loosen up their rules. WHY ON EARTH can't I put a FRAME tag inside a BODY tag? There is no valid reason why I shouldn't, except for the reason that the language was originally intended to be that way. That's BS. If Mozilla/Netscape were good browsers, they would realize that loosening up on HTML rules would only make web developers (like me) get work done faster, and it wouldn't hurt a single thing!

gplex: Note that I never intended to put a page for Mozilla users to go and download IE. I know how frustrating that is when you go to a peecee only website. I WANT TO support Mozilla/Netscape. So far my site is going fine, as I figured out all the problems that Mozilla/Netscape were having.

The thing is, these browsers just make me do more work! If the developer of Mozilla/Netscape had TAKEN THE TIME to put one stupid little line of code allowing for FRAME tags inside BODY tags, I wouldn't have wasted half a day figuring out what the problem is!

You know my stance on various issues from my posts throughout the forum, gplex. I'm practical. Spending half a day trying to figure out that a FRAME tag does not go inside a BODY tag is NOT PRACTICAL. What IS practical is allowing for flexibility in the standard, saving me and probably many other amateur web developers a lot of head-banging. Unfortunately, the developers of Mozilla/Netscape do not seem to really care about this. In this respect, IE/OmniWeb are much more practical browsers, and because of it, I am inclined to use them more and support them more.

gplex, I don't appreciate at all you reading into my posts what isn't there. Nowhere in there did I say that I don't like standards. Nowhere in there did I imply that I am blind to the benefits of standards. Nowhere in there did I say that IE was perfect (because it isn't). NOWHERE in there did I say I didn't give a crap about Mozilla users like you, because obviously I do – OTHERWISE I WOULDN'T BE BANGING MY HEAD AGAINST THE WALL TRYING TO GET IT TO WORK. Get your head out of the Mozilla/Netscape bottle and realize that I am trying to support these browsers. The problem is that it is these browsers that are impeding me from doing so! A little foresight on the part of the developers would have prevented this. A little flexibility in the application of the standard would have prevented this. Microsoft (gasp!) and OmniGroup (surprise, surprise) had this foresight. The developers of Mozilla/Netscape did not. THAT is why I posted this rant. And THAT is why I am angry at you for reading this as more of a browser war post. For once would you look at browsers objectively?

voice-: It seems to work fine for me in Mozilla...
 
Originally posted by simX

Maybe I should be targeting the standard itself, more. A GOOD standard would be very flexible – allow frames inside body tags, and such. It's very bad and very annoying to have an inflexible language that you have to learn. That's not how a standard should be set up.
Click to expand...

Are you being serious? That almost sounds like Homer Simpson speaking!

That's not flexibility - that's just chaos!

HTML is a language and like any language it depends on rules. Take away the rules and all you have is meaningless jumble.

Now, I appreciate short-cuts and 'slang' might be needed here and there but you can't expect a language to just take whatever rubbish you throw at it and still make sense.

HTML is structured and an awful lot of its benefits come from that structure.

It seems to me (and I aplogise if I judge you too harshly) that you can't really be bothered to learn the 'why' - just the 'how'.

You will fail with this approach - as you currently seem to be doing by your own claims.

I appreciate it can be frustrating but take the time to learn why HTML is like that and the results will come.

I'm not saying HTML is perfect but it is the reality so them's the breaks.
 
Riiiight. One simple thing like that will lead to chaos.

How in the world could allowing such simple things like that lead to chaos? It would be very beneficial to allow things like this.

Obviously it doesn't hurt anything, otherwise IE and OmniWeb would be throwing a fit, wouldn't they? But they don't, so it doesn't harm anything, so Mozilla/Netscape should make allowances like this, too.

I have learned much about HTML in making this webpage, but this is still something very stupid. It makes no sense to require a FRAME tag to not be inside a BODY tag.

What if some lights were required to be outside a house in order for them to work? That would be terribly inconvenient. The same thing applies here (although it's a corny analogy) – allow some flexibility in order to make the programming language more friendly.
 
You don't know the reason why the choice to not be able to put frame tages inside body tags was made so don't complain about it. I'm sure there is a reason.

In my previous post I was talking about the redirect pages not directed at you rather at others who suggested that.

HTML is very very flexible. It just doesn't want Frames inside the body. Thats not the way it works. Just like you have to declare you're variables at the begining of the functions in obj-c (don't quote me on that :p) its just the way it works.

Actually I have never seen someone have this problem before. Most people read a short blurb on frames before they start doing stuff with them and never make this mistake. Documentation is a good thing. Frames are annoying anyways :D.

And I'm not trying to create a browser war. It seems to me you are. Just look at the title of this thread. You really did ask for it.

Changing your doctype might help as well. Tells browsers how to interpret the code. To follow the rules loosely or strictly.

Oh btw the center tag isn't really standards :D.
 
Originally posted by googolplex
You don't know the reason why the choice to not be able to put frame tages inside body tags was made so don't complain about it. I'm sure there is a reason.
Click to expand...

And there's a reason why IE and OmniWeb choose to allow frame tags inside body tags. Because it allows for more flexibility and less problems.

HTML is very very flexible. It just doesn't want Frames inside the body. Thats not the way it works. Just like you have to declare you're variables at the begining of the functions in obj-c (don't quote me on that :p) its just the way it works.
Click to expand...

That's just the way it works....... in Netscape/Mozilla. Obviously it's fine for FRAME tags to be inside BODY tags in IE/Omniweb.

And I'm not trying to create a browser war. It seems to me you are. Just look at the title of this thread. You really did ask for it.
Click to expand...

Yes, I did, because Netscape/Mozilla have been driving me up the walls. Like I said, I'm not a professional web developer, and maybe I should chalk this up to experience. But it certainly makes me despise Mozilla/Netscape that much more.

Changing your doctype might help as well. Tells browsers how to interpret the code. To follow the rules loosely or strictly.
Click to expand...

???

Oh btw the center tag isn't really standards :D.
Click to expand...

???
 
Yikes a FRAMESET within a BODY :confused: :confused: :p

The reason this isn't valid, is that the BODY tags enclose the content of your document. Between the body tags you get text, tables, pics, etc - stuff to look at.

Where as a frameset specifies the layout of these content blocks!
Having the meta level layout of content defined within a content block doesn't make sense!

To resort to corny analogies.. Having a frameset within the body is like having the frame of your house as your furniture and having the furniture holding up your house!
 
What you're requesting results in far more work for designers, users, and application developers.

The entire problem with the Web is that too many browsers have chosen to depart from standards and supply arbitrary "features". Netscape started it, Microsoft went even further, and now you find writing code to be a pain in the ass. You now need to test your code with dozens of browsers on several platforms. Users need to deal with the stupidity of designers who don't do so. And application developers need to worry about trying to reimplement the broken misfeatures present in other browsers for "compatibility".

If everyone actually paid appropriate attention to the standards, you (and everyone else) would be able to simply adhere to those, and not worry about it.

Your childish whining about wanting to use a language without properly learning it inspires amazingly little sympathy. If you would like an environment which makes fuzzy attempts to guess what you mean, rather than simply doing what you say, please allow me to refer you to the dozens of "web design" applications which are intended for people who are not interested in learning a simple markup language. Such tools should nicely streamline your process of writing broken pseudo-html, without requiring you to break it by hand.
 
And there's a reason why IE and OmniWeb choose to allow frame tags inside body tags. Because it allows for more flexibility and less problems.
Click to expand...

I don't think OmniWeb "Choose" to support it. They are just being compatiable with IE. I'm sure if you speak to the poor omnigroup developers that have to support all the none standard illogical HTML in IE, they wouldn't be to thrilled about it.
 
And there's a reason why IE and OmniWeb choose to allow frame tags inside body tags. Because it allows for more flexibility and less problems.
Click to expand...

No, IE did it because IE is stupid and omniweb did it to immitate IE. You don't put frames inside the body period.

That's just the way it works....... in Netscape/Mozilla. Obviously it's fine for FRAME tags to be inside BODY tags in IE/Omniweb.
Click to expand...

No, as explained the body is for content frames are external content.

???
Click to expand...


A doctype is something you put at the top of your html document to tell browsers how they should render the page. You can tell it to render it strictly to standards or to render it loosely to a lower version of html.

???
Click to expand...

Obviously you need to do some research into HTML. the center tag (used in your example) was depricated a while ago and is not supose to be used anymore. It is good for novice HTMLers, however, so its not bad. But I have to take everything you say about HTML with a grain of salt since you don't know a lot about HTML.
 
Standards are created for a reason. That is, so that everything will work the same given the same code.

Using your example(simX), in C++, you should be able to declare your public/protected/private variables/functions outside of your class!

Hmm, I have a header file with a class declaration and the variables declared outside of the class. Why isn't this working???:p

And the compiler should just compile the code for you because you don't know the rules.

IE and OW simply don't follow the HTML standards one bit.

If you go to W3.org you can see that there is indeed a standard for HTML, and that the rules are clearly laid out for people to learn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top