f



COBOL FAQ *moved*

Because the Objectz site has had so many problems recently, I have gone ahead 
and MOVED the COBOL FAQ to the following location:

  http://home.comcast.net/~wmklein/FAQ/COBOLFAQ.htm

I still have NOT done any (or much) "content" updating, but have checked (and 
corrected) many links.  I *think* all existing links (but not email addresses) 
are currently valid.  I will go ahead and (soon) update the automated message 
that gets sent every two weeks or so.

I use Microsoft products for creating my web pages.  These are NOTORIOUS for 
causing problems for any (and all) browsers other than Internet Explorer.

Please feel free to let me (us) know which other browsers have which problems 
<G>.

Although the content/information is QUITE out-of-date, the fact that links are 
now valid should - I hope - allow users to find "current" information about some 
(all?) of the listed products.

I still don't know when I'll get around to updating the information, but if you 
have updates you want done (and haven't already sent them to me), please feel 
free to do so - off-list.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com 


0
wmklein (2605)
8/16/2005 9:03:24 PM
comp.lang.cobol 4278 articles. 1 followers. Post Follow

19 Replies
438 Views

Similar Articles

[PageSpeed] 34

Suggest you use a plain text editor or an open source web page crafting
program such as Bluefish. This gets around the Microsoft problem
nicely. 

Best,

John Culleton

0
john137 (804)
8/17/2005 1:55:59 PM
Suggest you use a plain text editor or an open source web page crafting
program such as Bluefish. This gets around the Microsoft problem
nicely. 

Best,

John Culleton

0
john137 (804)
8/17/2005 1:56:06 PM
Did you have problems accessing it - and if so, what problems?

I (personally) really LIKE the Microsoft Word -> Web-page facility and will try 
and "fix" problems that it causes (if significant), but otherwise will 
(probably) stick with what works easily for me.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
<john@wexfordpress.com> wrote in message 
news:1124286966.416161.236000@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Suggest you use a plain text editor or an open source web page crafting
> program such as Bluefish. This gets around the Microsoft problem
> nicely.
>
> Best,
>
> John Culleton
> 


0
wmklein (2605)
8/17/2005 2:03:48 PM
On 17/08/2005 10:03 AM, William M. Klein wrote:
> Did you have problems accessing it - and if so, what problems?
> 
> I (personally) really LIKE the Microsoft Word -> Web-page facility and will try 
> and "fix" problems that it causes (if significant), but otherwise will 
> (probably) stick with what works easily for me.
> 

Sure, authoring such pages in Word is easy.  However, it generates
almost completely non-standard content.  This means you have almost no
guarantee that anyone will be able to read it.  This is not just
nit-picking.  Do you intend everyone in the intended audience to be able
to read it?  What if they don't have IE?  What if they need to use a
screen-reader because of sight difficulties?

The HTML it makes is also many, many times larger than it needs to be,
and is nearly impossible to maintain with any other editor.  You are
also tied to a proprietary second-level file format.  There is no
guarantee that your document will render to HTML in a similar or
reasonable way in the future.

Woe betide anyone who takes over the editorship of your Word file in the
future.  For the skys will run red with poorly validated CSS applied
(and re-applied) to each and every HTML tag, and spurious and missing
end-tags.

The way, IMHO, the ideal way to maintain a document like this is in SGML
or some other (even simpler) markup language.  Then you generate the
text, PDF, HTML, XHTML content automagically based on a single source
document.

If you don't need the powertool that SGML is, you can always consider
one of the simpler document forms, like DocBook.  DocBook is sort of
SGML-lite, and was designed exactly for things like HOWTOs and FAQs.
0
8/17/2005 8:38:37 PM
Are YOU having problems accessing the FAQ?  If so, what problems are you having?

Again, I am happy to try and "fix" any problems that get reported to me.  So far 
(less than one day in this location) I haven't heard any.  The FAQ has been 
created this way for SEVERAL years now, and I haven't heard complaints about 
people not being able to read it or use it.

As far as others "taking it over,"  that isn't a concern of mine.  If it ever 
becomes so, I will be happy to consider another approach.

As far as the size of the HTML file generated, I understand that, .... and 
anyone who is using a 300 or 2400 baud dial-up to read it, can feel free to 
contact me (at my email address which is easily available) and I will send them 
a "plain text" version.

   ***

Sorry to be sarcastic, but, although I understand others problems with M$ and 
its products, they do what I want to do and work fine for me.  I certainly do 
NOT force others to use them and I am seriously interested in hearing about any 
problems the current FAQ (or the FAQ from the last several years) causes for 
non-IE users.

-- 
Bill Klein
 wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
"clvrmnky" <clvrmnky-uunet@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote in message 
news:hfNMe.7748$p5.2092@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
> On 17/08/2005 10:03 AM, William M. Klein wrote:
>> Did you have problems accessing it - and if so, what problems?
>>
>> I (personally) really LIKE the Microsoft Word -> Web-page facility and will 
>> try
>> and "fix" problems that it causes (if significant), but otherwise will
>> (probably) stick with what works easily for me.
>>
>
> Sure, authoring such pages in Word is easy.  However, it generates
> almost completely non-standard content.  This means you have almost no
> guarantee that anyone will be able to read it.  This is not just
> nit-picking.  Do you intend everyone in the intended audience to be able
> to read it?  What if they don't have IE?  What if they need to use a
> screen-reader because of sight difficulties?
>
> The HTML it makes is also many, many times larger than it needs to be,
> and is nearly impossible to maintain with any other editor.  You are
> also tied to a proprietary second-level file format.  There is no
> guarantee that your document will render to HTML in a similar or
> reasonable way in the future.
>
> Woe betide anyone who takes over the editorship of your Word file in the
> future.  For the skys will run red with poorly validated CSS applied
> (and re-applied) to each and every HTML tag, and spurious and missing
> end-tags.
>
> The way, IMHO, the ideal way to maintain a document like this is in SGML
> or some other (even simpler) markup language.  Then you generate the
> text, PDF, HTML, XHTML content automagically based on a single source
> document.
>
> If you don't need the powertool that SGML is, you can always consider
> one of the simpler document forms, like DocBook.  DocBook is sort of
> SGML-lite, and was designed exactly for things like HOWTOs and FAQs. 


0
wmklein (2605)
8/17/2005 9:24:58 PM
 
Bill, I just accessed it with Firefox and had no problems with seeing it. (I 
found some bad links, but that was not the fault of your FAQ or my 
Browser... Objectz is definitely having problems; and I found a link on the 
FAQ for people who want a COBOL tutor  (without being told to do their own 
homework :-)) was empty.

I honestly think too much is made of this.

I don't like using WORD to generate web pages, for all the reasons that 
Clvrmnky outlined, but I am happy to let other people do it. If I intend to 
publish something that has been created with WORD, I run it through 
Dreamweaver first, using the tool that DW provides to 'Clean up WORD HTML'.

Although the word stuff is verbose, and a lot of it is unnecessary, it isn't 
true that it can't be resolved by other Browsers.

I have been doing a lot of experimenting with Firefox lately and find it 
excellent. But it still isn't my 'default Browser' and I'm still not 
persuaded to drop IE in favour of it. My first ventures into Linux have been 
disastrous and I have fled back to Win XP Pro with renewed appreciation of 
it. I simply don't have time for the learning curve on Linux at the moment. 
I'll look at it again when I have retired...:-).

Netscape 8.0 apparently emulates IE when it needs to, to resolve MS Jscript 
and HTML interpretations. I have not noted any Firefox problems with stuff 
developed for IE (apart from bgsound tags, which is fair enough...I have it 
on my list to fix this on pages that use it...)

My server logs show that over 90% of all access is via IE. I intend to keep 
using it as my target platform for web page developments, but I do check 
them with Firefox now to keep IE honest... :-)

I don't thnk you are wrong to use whatever tools you have available for 
this. You are not being paid for the FAQ and there is no reason you should 
spend money on tools like Dreamweaver or Front Page or Cold Fusion in order 
to put a few pages onto a FAQ.

The COBOL FAQ is a useful service and it is simply churlish to whinge about 
it not being State of the Art, or Cross Browser friendly.

Pete.

TOP POST no more below.




"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote in message 
news:JWNMe.9074$VZ6.7676@fe03.news.easynews.com...
>
> Are YOU having problems accessing the FAQ?  If so, what problems are you 
> having?
>
> Again, I am happy to try and "fix" any problems that get reported to me. 
> So far (less than one day in this location) I haven't heard any.  The FAQ 
> has been created this way for SEVERAL years now, and I haven't heard 
> complaints about people not being able to read it or use it.
>
> As far as others "taking it over,"  that isn't a concern of mine.  If it 
> ever becomes so, I will be happy to consider another approach.
>
> As far as the size of the HTML file generated, I understand that, .... and 
> anyone who is using a 300 or 2400 baud dial-up to read it, can feel free 
> to contact me (at my email address which is easily available) and I will 
> send them a "plain text" version.
>
>   ***
>
> Sorry to be sarcastic, but, although I understand others problems with M$ 
> and its products, they do what I want to do and work fine for me.  I 
> certainly do NOT force others to use them and I am seriously interested in 
> hearing about any problems the current FAQ (or the FAQ from the last 
> several years) causes for non-IE users.
>
> -- 
> Bill Klein
> wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
> "clvrmnky" <clvrmnky-uunet@coldmail.com.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:hfNMe.7748$p5.2092@nnrp.ca.mci.com!nnrp1.uunet.ca...
>> On 17/08/2005 10:03 AM, William M. Klein wrote:
>>> Did you have problems accessing it - and if so, what problems?
>>>
>>> I (personally) really LIKE the Microsoft Word -> Web-page facility and 
>>> will try
>>> and "fix" problems that it causes (if significant), but otherwise will
>>> (probably) stick with what works easily for me.
>>>
>>
>> Sure, authoring such pages in Word is easy.  However, it generates
>> almost completely non-standard content.  This means you have almost no
>> guarantee that anyone will be able to read it.  This is not just
>> nit-picking.  Do you intend everyone in the intended audience to be able
>> to read it?  What if they don't have IE?  What if they need to use a
>> screen-reader because of sight difficulties?
>>
>> The HTML it makes is also many, many times larger than it needs to be,
>> and is nearly impossible to maintain with any other editor.  You are
>> also tied to a proprietary second-level file format.  There is no
>> guarantee that your document will render to HTML in a similar or
>> reasonable way in the future.
>>
>> Woe betide anyone who takes over the editorship of your Word file in the
>> future.  For the skys will run red with poorly validated CSS applied
>> (and re-applied) to each and every HTML tag, and spurious and missing
>> end-tags.
>>
>> The way, IMHO, the ideal way to maintain a document like this is in SGML
>> or some other (even simpler) markup language.  Then you generate the
>> text, PDF, HTML, XHTML content automagically based on a single source
>> document.
>>
>> If you don't need the powertool that SGML is, you can always consider
>> one of the simpler document forms, like DocBook.  DocBook is sort of
>> SGML-lite, and was designed exactly for things like HOWTOs and FAQs.
>
>
> 



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/18/2005 2:03:18 AM
    HTML and related technologies (XHTML, CSS, etc.) are standardized by the 
World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). If you care about standard compliance, the 
W3C has a page where you can validate your HTML for compliance: 
http://validator.w3.org/

    In my experience, when Firefox and IE differ in their interpretation of 
HTML and especially CSS, I find that usually Firefox is implementing the 
(W3C endorsed) standard and IE is deviating from it (or equivalently, is 
implementing the "defacto standard").

    An example of this is the ALT attribute of the IMG tag. The IMG tag 
looks like <img src="myPicture.jpg" alt="text1" title="text2"/>. In older 
versions of IE (they fixed this recently), ALT and TITLE were essentially 
interchangeable and both contained the text that should be displayed when 
the mouse hovers over the tooltip (i.e. mouseovers), and the text that 
should display if the image cannot be displayed for some reason (e.g. the 
image file doesn't exist, or the user is blind and using a screenreader, or 
the user just decided to disable images).

    In Firefox (and in more recent versions of IE now), the two tags have 
different semantics. ALT is the text that should be displayed if the image 
cannot be displayed, and TITLE is the text that should appear during mouse 
overs. These semantics also happens to be the semantics that W3C describes 
in their standards document for HTML.

    The problem is that before Firefox came along, almost nobody knew about 
the TITLE tag and everyone was using the ALT tag, sometimes explicitly for 
its mouse-over behaviour. So there was a big debate about whether Firefox 
should stubbornly stick to the W3C standard, or whether it should "emulate" 
IE (as almost all other browsers, e.g. Opera, have been doing up till then). 
It seems that they chose to go with the former.

    Now there's a big argument as to whether IE should switch to using the 
W3C semantics rather than its own. On the one hand, IE's non compliance is 
holding back further development of HTML and related technologies. The W3C 
is working on CSS3, but it's almost a big joke, because IE doesn't even 
support CSS2 yet, and IE has something like 90% marketshare. So 90% of 
Internet users aren't even reaping the advancements in CSS2. [*]

    On the other hand, because IE has 90% marketshare, a lot of web 
developers make sure their sites work in IE first, and Firefox second. As 
such, if IE did switch to the W3C semantics, then a lot of web developers 
would have to redesign their sites, possibly almost from scratch, depending 
on how much IE-specific behaviour they were depending on.

    - Oliver

[*] If you want to see some demonstrations of the truly beautiful things you 
can accomplish with CSS2, check out Zen Garden http://www.csszengarden.com/ 
(using Firefox or some other CSS2 enabled browser). It's the same HTML 
content, but with different CSS2 stylesheet applied. One of my favourites is 
killer style 
(http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://adjustafresh.com/zen/mozattack.css) 
where I was really impressed of how the author managed to create the effect 
of a blade slicing through the page as you scroll down. For those who do 
some of web developing, note that this is pure CSS and no JavaScript, DHTML, 
Flash, Java, QuickTime, or any other plugin was used. 


0
owong (6177)
8/18/2005 2:02:35 PM
On 17-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> I have been doing a lot of experimenting with Firefox lately and find it
> excellent. But it still isn't my 'default Browser' and I'm still not
> persuaded to drop IE in favour of it. My first ventures into Linux have been
> disastrous and I have fled back to Win XP Pro with renewed appreciation of
> it. I simply don't have time for the learning curve on Linux at the moment.
> I'll look at it again when I have retired...:-).
>
> Netscape 8.0 apparently emulates IE when it needs to, to resolve MS Jscript
> and HTML interpretations. I have not noted any Firefox problems with stuff
> developed for IE (apart from bgsound tags, which is fair enough...I have it
> on my list to fix this on pages that use it...)
>
> My server logs show that over 90% of all access is via IE. I intend to keep
> using it as my target platform for web page developments, but I do check
> them with Firefox now to keep IE honest... :-)

I know that the default setting of Opera is to lie to web sites about what
browser it is using.   This is because so many web sites have logic that is too
limited.

Both Firefox and Opera have decided that Active-X is too dangerous to implement.

Most pages don't test against the de jure standards, only the de facto standard
(does it work with IE).
0
howard (6283)
8/18/2005 2:19:30 PM
 
Thanks Oliver,

I found this interesting and informative.

You are right about the CSS capabilities, and the Zen garden site is superb.

I checked all the designs with both Firefox and IE and saw no detectable 
difference. I am using IE 6 with all updates applied, and Firefox 1.0.6 with 
MacroMedia plugins (Flash 7.0) and QuickTime plugin.

I am using CSS more and more (though I haven't got to this level yet :-)... 
I am inspired by the site and will study their HTML/CSS) and in some 
recently published poetry on the Tauranga Writers web site 
(http://taurangawriters.org.nz), I was able to offer people different colour 
schemes and formats with no effort, thanks to CSS. (Oddly enough, nearly all 
of them chose the same colour scheme, quite independently! I deliberately 
posted one poem in a different scheme ("On hearing Segovia in Tauranga") so 
they could get the idea, but nobody wanted to change their scheme...)

Pete.

TOP POST - nothing new below.


"Oliver Wong" <owong@castortech.com> wrote in message 
news:%x0Ne.191160$HI.120930@edtnps84...
>
>    HTML and related technologies (XHTML, CSS, etc.) are standardized by 
> the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C). If you care about standard 
> compliance, the W3C has a page where you can validate your HTML for 
> compliance: http://validator.w3.org/
>
>    In my experience, when Firefox and IE differ in their interpretation of 
> HTML and especially CSS, I find that usually Firefox is implementing the 
> (W3C endorsed) standard and IE is deviating from it (or equivalently, is 
> implementing the "defacto standard").
>
>    An example of this is the ALT attribute of the IMG tag. The IMG tag 
> looks like <img src="myPicture.jpg" alt="text1" title="text2"/>. In older 
> versions of IE (they fixed this recently), ALT and TITLE were essentially 
> interchangeable and both contained the text that should be displayed when 
> the mouse hovers over the tooltip (i.e. mouseovers), and the text that 
> should display if the image cannot be displayed for some reason (e.g. the 
> image file doesn't exist, or the user is blind and using a screenreader, 
> or the user just decided to disable images).
>
>    In Firefox (and in more recent versions of IE now), the two tags have 
> different semantics. ALT is the text that should be displayed if the image 
> cannot be displayed, and TITLE is the text that should appear during mouse 
> overs. These semantics also happens to be the semantics that W3C describes 
> in their standards document for HTML.
>
>    The problem is that before Firefox came along, almost nobody knew about 
> the TITLE tag and everyone was using the ALT tag, sometimes explicitly for 
> its mouse-over behaviour. So there was a big debate about whether Firefox 
> should stubbornly stick to the W3C standard, or whether it should 
> "emulate" IE (as almost all other browsers, e.g. Opera, have been doing up 
> till then). It seems that they chose to go with the former.
>
>    Now there's a big argument as to whether IE should switch to using the 
> W3C semantics rather than its own. On the one hand, IE's non compliance is 
> holding back further development of HTML and related technologies. The W3C 
> is working on CSS3, but it's almost a big joke, because IE doesn't even 
> support CSS2 yet, and IE has something like 90% marketshare. So 90% of 
> Internet users aren't even reaping the advancements in CSS2. [*]
>
>    On the other hand, because IE has 90% marketshare, a lot of web 
> developers make sure their sites work in IE first, and Firefox second. As 
> such, if IE did switch to the W3C semantics, then a lot of web developers 
> would have to redesign their sites, possibly almost from scratch, 
> depending on how much IE-specific behaviour they were depending on.
>
>    - Oliver
>
> [*] If you want to see some demonstrations of the truly beautiful things 
> you can accomplish with CSS2, check out Zen Garden 
> http://www.csszengarden.com/ (using Firefox or some other CSS2 enabled 
> browser). It's the same HTML content, but with different CSS2 stylesheet 
> applied. One of my favourites is killer style 
> (http://www.csszengarden.com/?cssfile=http://adjustafresh.com/zen/mozattack.css) 
> where I was really impressed of how the author managed to create the 
> effect of a blade slicing through the page as you scroll down. For those 
> who do some of web developing, note that this is pure CSS and no 
> JavaScript, DHTML, Flash, Java, QuickTime, or any other plugin was used.
>
> 



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/19/2005 12:26:52 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> I have been doing a lot of experimenting with Firefox lately and find it 
> excellent. But it still isn't my 'default Browser' and I'm still not 
> persuaded to drop IE in favour of it. My first ventures into Linux have been 
> disastrous and I have fled back to Win XP Pro with renewed appreciation of 
> it. I simply don't have time for the learning curve on Linux at the moment. 
> I'll look at it again when I have retired...:-).

What sort of disaster did you encounter?

(When I bought my last desktop, I put Linux on it - two days later, the 
power supply died.  My wife, being good-naturedly anti-Linux, told me it 
was Linux's fault!  ;>  Of course, I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy 
it now.)

> My server logs show that over 90% of all access is via IE. I intend to keep 
> using it as my target platform for web page developments, but I do check 
> them with Firefox now to keep IE honest... :-)

That's interesting.  Firing up my webalizer report for August (current 
up to yesterday), IE doesn't even crack the top 5 - it's first entry was 
#6.  This thing captures unique browser identification strings - so, for 
example, each version has a different row.  I wish it would give me a 
roll-up/drill-down report, but it's not a big deal.  Of 4,170 hits and 
the top 15 browser hits, Firefox has 1,529, IE has 353, and Konqueror 
(the K Desktop Environment's integrated file/web browser) has 133.  Bots 
are the other entries in the top 15 - Google at 236, MSN with 128, and 
ConveraCrawler (???) with 55 hits.

(Of course, the fact that I host Linux resources probably skews that 
just a little...  ;>  )


-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
8/21/2005 9:26:58 PM
 

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:845ea$4308f19e$45491c57$29304@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> I have been doing a lot of experimenting with Firefox lately and find it 
>> excellent. But it still isn't my 'default Browser' and I'm still not 
>> persuaded to drop IE in favour of it. My first ventures into Linux have 
>> been disastrous and I have fled back to Win XP Pro with renewed 
>> appreciation of it. I simply don't have time for the learning curve on 
>> Linux at the moment. I'll look at it again when I have retired...:-).
>
> What sort of disaster did you encounter?
>
I realise it is a sensitive subject and I really don't want to start a war 
on it, Dan. I'm sure it is very good, but for me it lacks facilities I need 
(like WSH, Fujitsu PowerCOBOL, and I found some applications I use for 
Project Management  risk evaluation, and costing, simply won't run under 
it...these are essential for me.) The Unix command interface requires a 
learning curve I simply don't have time or inclination for. For everyday 
users who are not going to use the finer points of the OS, I realise this 
doesn't matter too much, but for guys like me who require more,  it is too 
esoteric to be picked up quickly (or maybe I'm just too thick... :-)). One 
good thing that happened is that I realised how much investment I already 
have in Windows.

XP Pro does it for me and I am happy with it.

I'm NOT anti Linux or anti- everything non-Microsoft. I'll look at it again 
but not right now. I am extremely impressed with Firefox and find it very 
useful as an independent yardstick for my web development.

> (When I bought my last desktop, I put Linux on it - two days later, the 
> power supply died.  My wife, being good-naturedly anti-Linux, told me it 
> was Linux's fault!  ;>  Of course, I didn't buy it then, and I don't buy 
> it now.)

Coincidences, in some societies, are considered warnings from a Greater 
Power... :-)

>
>> My server logs show that over 90% of all access is via IE. I intend to 
>> keep using it as my target platform for web page developments, but I do 
>> check them with Firefox now to keep IE honest... :-)
>
> That's interesting.  Firing up my webalizer report for August (current up 
> to yesterday), IE doesn't even crack the top 5 - it's first entry was #6. 
> This thing captures unique browser identification strings - so, for 
> example, each version has a different row.  I wish it would give me a 
> roll-up/drill-down report, but it's not a big deal.  Of 4,170 hits and the 
> top 15 browser hits, Firefox has 1,529, IE has 353, and Konqueror (the K 
> Desktop Environment's integrated file/web browser) has 133.  Bots are the 
> other entries in the top 15 - Google at 236, MSN with 128, and 
> ConveraCrawler (???) with 55 hits.
>
> (Of course, the fact that I host Linux resources probably skews that just 
> a little...  ;>  )
>
 I'll certainly get back to you when I am serious about Linux...

Pete.



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/22/2005 1:31:42 AM
 

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote in message 
news:de25di$37i$1@peabody.colorado.edu...
>
>
> On 17-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>> I have been doing a lot of experimenting with Firefox lately and find it
>> excellent. But it still isn't my 'default Browser' and I'm still not
>> persuaded to drop IE in favour of it. My first ventures into Linux have 
>> been
>> disastrous and I have fled back to Win XP Pro with renewed appreciation 
>> of
>> it. I simply don't have time for the learning curve on Linux at the 
>> moment.
>> I'll look at it again when I have retired...:-).
>>
>> Netscape 8.0 apparently emulates IE when it needs to, to resolve MS 
>> Jscript
>> and HTML interpretations. I have not noted any Firefox problems with 
>> stuff
>> developed for IE (apart from bgsound tags, which is fair enough...I have 
>> it
>> on my list to fix this on pages that use it...)
>>
>> My server logs show that over 90% of all access is via IE. I intend to 
>> keep
>> using it as my target platform for web page developments, but I do check
>> them with Firefox now to keep IE honest... :-)
>
> I know that the default setting of Opera is to lie to web sites about what
> browser it is using.   This is because so many web sites have logic that 
> is too
> limited.
>
> Both Firefox and Opera have decided that Active-X is too dangerous to 
> implement.
>
> Most pages don't test against the de jure standards, only the de facto 
> standard
> (does it work with IE).
>
Yes, I agree. There is such a huge effort in developing decent pages, that 
anything that complicates the process (like considering the implications of 
different Browsers) is pushed down the priority stack. Just like most IT, 
the top priority is "Get it working...". Even with a good toolset, it is not 
a simple matter to ensure Browser compatibility once you step beyond the 
most basic facilities. I was certainly guilty of only testing with IE, but 
the server logs and general feedback indicated that was OK. It is only since 
discussing it here and listening to the other viewpoints that I have even 
wanted to improve the situation.

Firefox installed easily, is not resource hungry, and runs very well.

(Unlike Netscape 6.0 which was so slow on my system that I had to remove it. 
It seemed to be paging everything all the time because disk activity went 
berserk and rendering time was just unacceptable. I probably needed to 
configure it, but had neither the time, inclination, nor knowledge to do 
so.) Firefox, on the other hand runs like a champion straight out of the 
box.

All new pages I develop are now checked with Firefox and it has been very 
useful. Pages I know are not working outside IE I have a stack of and am 
working my way through it. Firefox has been useful and helpful.

I have no experience with Netscape 8 and would be interested to know if 
anyone here is using it. It is supposed to have an 'IE compatibility' 
function and I'd be very interested to hear of any experiences anyone has 
had with that.(Pages that previously didn't 'work' now do so...?)

Pete. 



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/22/2005 1:47:57 AM
> It is supposed to have an 'IE compatibility'

There are dozens of extensions for Firefox, one of which is 'view in IE
mode'.

The ones that I have installed include Adblock (there is an Adblock
plus that I should get),  FlashBlock, Anidisable, Objection, ImageZoom
and SpellBound.

0
riplin (4127)
8/22/2005 3:24:34 AM
 

Thanks Richard.

I only looked at the "plug-ins" on the  Firefox web site. Didn't realize 
there are extensions.

I didn't see a Firefox plug-in for IE compatibility. I heard there was such 
a facility for Netscape 8.

I know they share a common engine (Mozilla) but believe there may be version 
differences.

Your post seems to equate Firefox with Netscape 8. Or am I misunderstanding?

Pete.

TOP POST

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1124681074.576279.115180@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> It is supposed to have an 'IE compatibility'
>
> There are dozens of extensions for Firefox, one of which is 'view in IE
> mode'.
>
> The ones that I have installed include Adblock (there is an Adblock
> plus that I should get),  FlashBlock, Anidisable, Objection, ImageZoom
> and SpellBound.
>
> 



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/22/2005 11:56:36 AM
Pete Dashwood wrote:
> 
> All new pages I develop are now checked with Firefox and it has been very 
> useful. Pages I know are not working outside IE I have a stack of and am 
> working my way through it. Firefox has been useful and helpful.

I don't know what extensions you're using, but there is one called "HTML 
Validator (based on Tidy)" which is exactly what the name implies. 
While its main use is helping to write "standards-compliant" code, it 
can also be handy in showing things like unclosed tags (which can cause 
strange behaviour).  It sits in the status bar, and will have either a 
round green checkmark (ok), a triangular exclamation point (warnings), 
or a round red X (errors).

And, I'm sure you've found the "JavaScript Console" under the Tools menu 
- if your JavaScript isn't doing anything, that'll probably show you 
why.  :)  I've got a website at work (it's the help file for our 
database layout, which has linked maps and data dictionary definitions) 
that only worked in IE.  Using those two tools, I've now got almost 
everything working in several different browsers.

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
0
lxi0007 (1830)
8/22/2005 12:19:37 PM
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:3mtsroF18lkg5U1@individual.net...
> I only looked at the "plug-ins" on the  Firefox web site. Didn't realize 
> there are extensions.

    As far as I know, there aren't two distinct things, one being called 
"plug-ins" and another called "extensions". I think the "official" name is 
"extensions", but I believe that both names refer to the same concept.

> I didn't see a Firefox plug-in for IE compatibility. I heard there was 
> such a facility for Netscape 8.

    I haven't seen such an extension either, but I have seen one that does 
something very similar. It adds an item to the right-click menu: "Open in 
IE", presumably to be used when you accidentally stumble upon an IE-only 
site while using Firefox.

    - Oliver 


0
owong (6177)
8/22/2005 6:45:22 PM
> Didn't realize there are extensions.

'Tools', 'Extensions', 'Get More Extensions'.

> Firefox plug-in for IE compatibility.

It is an extension. Plug-Ins are separate programs that can be loaded
by a browser and can use the window. Plug-ins may be used by Firefox,
Netscape or Konqueror.
Extensions are scripts executed by Firefox and are specific to that
script engine.

https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=35&application=firefox

> Your post seems to equate Firefox with Netscape 8. Or
> am I misunderstanding?

Probably the latter, but the relationship between Netscape and Mozilla
Firefox is often misunderstood.

http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A//www.mozillaquest.com/Mozilla-02/Mozilla_is_Netscape-02-01_Story-01.html&ei=vScKQ_uvObLuYLGj7IAK

0
riplin (4127)
8/22/2005 7:55:45 PM
 
Thanks Daniel,

very helpful. I'll try and do likewise.

Pete.

TOP POST nothing new below.

"LX-i" <lxi0007@netscape.net> wrote in message 
news:6e752$4309c2d4$45491c57$16738@KNOLOGY.NET...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>>
>> All new pages I develop are now checked with Firefox and it has been very 
>> useful. Pages I know are not working outside IE I have a stack of and am 
>> working my way through it. Firefox has been useful and helpful.
>
> I don't know what extensions you're using, but there is one called "HTML 
> Validator (based on Tidy)" which is exactly what the name implies. While 
> its main use is helping to write "standards-compliant" code, it can also 
> be handy in showing things like unclosed tags (which can cause strange 
> behaviour).  It sits in the status bar, and will have either a round green 
> checkmark (ok), a triangular exclamation point (warnings), or a round red 
> X (errors).
>
> And, I'm sure you've found the "JavaScript Console" under the Tools menu - 
> if your JavaScript isn't doing anything, that'll probably show you why. 
> :)  I've got a website at work (it's the help file for our database 
> layout, which has linked maps and data dictionary definitions) that only 
> worked in IE.  Using those two tools, I've now got almost everything 
> working in several different browsers.
>
> -- 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> ~   /   \  /         ~        Live from Montgomery, AL!       ~
> ~  /     \/       o  ~                                        ~
> ~ /      /\   -   |  ~          daniel@thebelowdomain         ~
> ~ _____ /  \      |  ~      http://www.djs-consulting.com     ~
> ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
> ~ GEEKCODE 3.12 GCS/IT d s-:+ a C++ L++ E--- W++ N++ o? K- w$ ~
> ~ !O M-- V PS+ PE++ Y? !PGP t+ 5? X+ R* tv b+ DI++ D+ G- e    ~
> ~ h---- r+++ z++++                                            ~
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/22/2005 9:39:30 PM
 
Thanks for the clarification and the links, Richard.

Pete.

TOP POST - nothing new below.

"Richard" <riplin@Azonic.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:1124740545.376548.185100@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>> Didn't realize there are extensions.
>
> 'Tools', 'Extensions', 'Get More Extensions'.
>
>> Firefox plug-in for IE compatibility.
>
> It is an extension. Plug-Ins are separate programs that can be loaded
> by a browser and can use the window. Plug-ins may be used by Firefox,
> Netscape or Konqueror.
> Extensions are scripts executed by Firefox and are specific to that
> script engine.
>
> https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/moreinfo.php?id=35&application=firefox
>
>> Your post seems to equate Firefox with Netscape 8. Or
>> am I misunderstanding?
>
> Probably the latter, but the relationship between Netscape and Mozilla
> Firefox is often misunderstood.
>
> http://www.google.co.nz/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A//www.mozillaquest.com/Mozilla-02/Mozilla_is_Netscape-02-01_Story-01.html&ei=vScKQ_uvObLuYLGj7IAK
>
> 



0
dashwood1 (2140)
8/22/2005 9:40:46 PM
Reply: