Hi. I am planning to publish a website in a few weeks. I don't have a PC 
but I'm trying some software called CrossOver that lets me run iE6 and 
IE7 for Windows on my Mac.

CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  

Thanks

In article <snanny-5D6FA3.16114101092009@free.teranews.com>,
 Snanny Jones <snanny@verizon.net> wrote:

> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  

Firefox is Firefox.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <snanny-5D6FA3.16114101092009@free.teranews.com>,
 Snanny Jones <snanny@verizon.net> wrote:

>  I'm wondering if 
> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  

There is no difference that is likely to be of any importance to you.

-- 
dorayme

In article <snanny-5D6FA3.16114101092009@free.teranews.com>,
 Snanny Jones <snanny@verizon.net> wrote:

> Hi. I am planning to publish a website in a few weeks. I don't have a PC 
> but I'm trying some software called CrossOver that lets me run iE6 and 
> IE7 for Windows on my Mac.
> 
> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  
> 
> Thanks

It really should not matter.  As long as you validate your web pages at:

http://validator.w3.org/

all browsers (except maybe IE) will render your website nicely.

-- 

Chester

In article 
<DoNotReply-9A5EEE.21423001092009@feeder.eternal-september.org>,
 Chester K <DoNotReply@ForgetIt.invalid> wrote:

> In article <snanny-5D6FA3.16114101092009@free.teranews.com>,
>  Snanny Jones <snanny@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> > Hi. I am planning to publish a website in a few weeks. I don't have a PC 
> > but I'm trying some software called CrossOver that lets me run iE6 and 
> > IE7 for Windows on my Mac.
> > 
> > CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
> > anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
> > identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  
> > 
> > Thanks
> 
> It really should not matter.  As long as you validate your web pages at:
> 
> http://validator.w3.org/
> 
> all browsers (except maybe IE) will render your website nicely.

What gives you the idea that validity makes *nice* rendering is a 
mystery!

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-564FD3.13361802092009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> What gives you the idea that validity makes *nice* rendering is a 
> mystery!

Now now. "Niceness" has nothing to do with quiddity.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Warren Oates a �crit:
> In article <snanny-5D6FA3.16114101092009@free.teranews.com>,
>  Snanny Jones <snanny@verizon.net> wrote:
> 
>> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
>> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
>> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  
> 
> Firefox is Firefox.

Yes and Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer... But it has been proven 
that Internet Explorer for Mac behaved differently than Internet 
Explorer for PC, so Firefox may well be Firefox, but a Mac isn't a "PC".

In article <4a9ed103$0$13617$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>, Anic297
<here@nowhere.mk> wrote:

> >> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
> >> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
> >> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  
> > 
> > Firefox is Firefox.
> 
> Yes and Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer... But it has been proven 
> that Internet Explorer for Mac behaved differently than Internet 
> Explorer for PC, so Firefox may well be Firefox, but a Mac isn't a "PC".

the difference is that firefox is a cross platform app that should be
the same on all platforms. 

internet explorer was never cross platform, they only shared the same
name. it was two *totally* different apps with entirely different html
rendering engines.

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> In article <4a9ed103$0$13617$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>, Anic297
> <here@nowhere.mk> wrote:
> 
> > >> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if
> > >> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are
> > >> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  
> > > 
> > > Firefox is Firefox.
> > 
> > Yes and Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer... But it has been proven
> > that Internet Explorer for Mac behaved differently than Internet 
> > Explorer for PC, so Firefox may well be Firefox, but a Mac isn't a "PC".
> 
> the difference is that firefox is a cross platform app that should be
> the same on all platforms. 

Nah. It doesn't necessarily render the same even on the same platform.
That's because there are user-setable options that can change things
significantly. I know this first hand because I run into it all the
time. In particular, I have trouble reading the small print, so I bump
up the default font size quite a bit. Lots of sites completely botch up
the display as a result. A "properly" constructed site ought to be able
to deal with the font size change, but we all know that lots of sites
aren't "properly" constructed.

So I would argue quite strongly that it is not the case that "Firefox is
Firefox", at least if the subject is testing whether a site displays
properly (which did seem to be the subject). Odds are high that my
Firefox does not display at all like your Firefox, even if we are on the
same versions of Firefox, the OS, and everything else possibly relevant.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <1j5f4k3.xbo271ryom8iN%nospam@see.signature>, Richard Maine
<nospam@see.signature> wrote:

> Nah. It doesn't necessarily render the same even on the same platform.
> That's because there are user-setable options that can change things
> significantly. 

and those options exist on all platforms. presumably one compares it
with the settings set the same way, otherwise the comparison is
invalid.

> I know this first hand because I run into it all the
> time. In particular, I have trouble reading the small print, so I bump
> up the default font size quite a bit. Lots of sites completely botch up
> the display as a result. A "properly" constructed site ought to be able
> to deal with the font size change, but we all know that lots of sites
> aren't "properly" constructed.

crap html is a problem for any browser. some handle it better than
others.

with internet explorer, even if you set the mac and windows versions
the same way, it could look very different. the engines were not the
same.

In article <001a3ed6$0$11368$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-564FD3.13361802092009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > What gives you the idea that validity makes *nice* rendering is a 
> > mystery!
> 
> Now now. "Niceness" has nothing to do with quiddity.

The person I was replying to was the one who introduced the attribute of 
niceness. As for quiddity, this could simply mean that the browser that 
follows the standards in so far as they are not ambiguous, will render 
the page about the same as any other browser doing the same.

-- 
dorayme

In article <020920091325011192%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> 
> internet explorer was never cross platform, they only shared the same
> name. it was two *totally* different apps with entirely different html
> rendering engines.

The team that developed the Mac version at least knew more what they 
were doing and especially with CSS rendering. MacIE (now, of course, 
quite dated and largely unused) was not a bad browser in its time.

-- 
dorayme

In article <doraymeRidThis-37E8A9.12013703092009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> The team that developed the Mac version at least knew more what they 
> were doing and especially with CSS rendering. MacIE (now, of course, 
> quite dated and largely unused) was not a bad browser in its time.

It was *the* most conformant browser. It was nothing like it's PC 
counterpart. It conformed to HTML and CSS better than any other browser 
at the time it was introduced. Hi, dorayme.

leo

In article <leoblaisdell-3797C0.00221403092009@individual.net>,
 Leonard Blaisdell <leoblaisdell@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-37E8A9.12013703092009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > The team that developed the Mac version at least knew more what they 
> > were doing and especially with CSS rendering. MacIE (now, of course, 
> > quite dated and largely unused) was not a bad browser in its time.
> 
> It was *the* most conformant browser. It was nothing like it's PC 
> counterpart. It conformed to HTML and CSS better than any other browser 
> at the time it was introduced. Hi, dorayme.
> 
> leo

Hi Leo! Yes indeed. You know, I still fire it up now and then, it's in 
my dock! Sometimes to get a teensy weensy clue on something or other. A 
bit like when I go down a complicated mine, I feel safer with a bunch of 
different sorts of canaries. <g>

-- 
dorayme

In article <4a9ed103$0$13617$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>,
 Anic297 <here@nowhere.mk> wrote:

> Yes and Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer... But it has been proven 
> that Internet Explorer for Mac behaved differently than Internet 
> Explorer for PC, so Firefox may well be Firefox, but a Mac isn't a "PC".

That's not the same thing.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <1j5f4k3.xbo271ryom8iN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> A "properly" constructed site ought to be able
> to deal with the font size change, but we all know that lots of sites
> aren't "properly" constructed.

How does such a "properly" constructed site know what changes the user 
has made to his browser settings?
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j5f4k3.xbo271ryom8iN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > A "properly" constructed site ought to be able
> > to deal with the font size change, but we all know that lots of sites
> > aren't "properly" constructed.
> 
> How does such a "properly" constructed site know what changes the user
> has made to his browser settings?

I'm not an expert in html. I'll defer the details to those who are. But
I do know that the relevant standards cover this and I have at least a
vague understanding of the nature of where some sites go wrong. My
understanding is that html is not supposed to be a page layout tool.
Part of its basic idea is that the site does not specify exactly where
on the page things go, but instead specifies relationships between
things is a somewhat more general manner, leaving the exact layout to
the browser.  When you try to misuse it as a page layout tool, things
break all over the place.

More detail than that I can't give you. But I do know that it very
specifically is designed to work with such things as different font
sizes. If you want the details, see the relevant standards and some of
the standards checking tools.

-- 
Richard Maine                    | Good judgment comes from experience;
email: last name at domain . net | experience comes from bad judgment.
domain: summertriangle           |  -- Mark Twain

In article <1j5gla4.t0w90iaf1pqoN%nospam@see.signature>,
 nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:

> I'm not an expert in html. I'll defer the details to those who are. But
> I do know that the relevant standards cover this and I have at least a
> vague understanding of the nature of where some sites go wrong. My
> understanding is that html is not supposed to be a page layout tool.
> Part of its basic idea is that the site does not specify exactly where
> on the page things go, but instead specifies relationships between
> things is a somewhat more general manner, leaving the exact layout to
> the browser.  When you try to misuse it as a page layout tool, things
> break all over the place.

Maybe in 1990. 

I'm pretty good at HTML, meself, and no, it's not for page layout, but 
CSS is, and it's pixel-perfect in 3 dimensions.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

nospam a �crit:
> In article <4a9ed103$0$13617$5402220f@news.sunrise.ch>, Anic297
> <here@nowhere.mk> wrote:
> 
>>>> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if 
>>>> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are 
>>>> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac.  
>>> Firefox is Firefox.
>> Yes and Internet Explorer is Internet Explorer... But it has been proven 
>> that Internet Explorer for Mac behaved differently than Internet 
>> Explorer for PC, so Firefox may well be Firefox, but a Mac isn't a "PC".
> 
> the difference is that firefox is a cross platform app that should be
> the same on all platforms. 
> 
> internet explorer was never cross platform, they only shared the same
> name. it was two *totally* different apps with entirely different html
> rendering engines.

Thank you for the information!

In article <001bc5bb$0$11734$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <1j5gla4.t0w90iaf1pqoN%nospam@see.signature>,
>  nospam@see.signature (Richard Maine) wrote:
> 
> > ... My
> > understanding is that html is not supposed to be a page layout tool.
> > Part of its basic idea is that the site 

HTML does not deal in sites but lets suppose "document" is meant

> > does not specify exactly where
> > on the page things go, but instead specifies relationships between
> > things is [in] a somewhat more general manner

There is nothing particularly general about it, it is pretty specific. A 
HTML document marks up text.

> > , leaving the exact layout to
> > the browser.  

Yes, this is true. What the user gets depends on either a default CSS 
stylesheet supplied by the author and linked to it, or to one supplied 
by the browser or (in older browsers) styles wired into the browser 
itself.

A reasonably intuitive way of thinking of the HTML doc quiddity (after 
all, Warren is a fan of this notion) is to think the *default 
presentation*, the no-frills presentation. For example, what you get 
when you turn off author style sheets (often a damned good idea to 
improve the reading and relieve oneself of the pain of seeing horrible 
things)  

> > When you try to misuse it as a page layout tool, things
> > break all over the place.
>

This is pretty obscure in meaning and fact. One is *helplessly* 
committed to layout by the mere use of HTML (because of default style). 
So, knowing default styling, for example that a DIV following another 
DIV will make for a new line (because DIVs are by default display: 
block), one cannot help but use this knowledge to lay out a page.

The same thing goes in principle for using tables. The author can lay 
out the information he has with no styling at all but confident how it 
will present because he knows how the defaults go.

It is the *default* styling that makes it possible to misuse HTML for 
layout purposes.

For example all HTML authors know that ULs generate list markers by 
default. So, if a website maker, who has no *list of things* to present, 
uses a UL because it merely gets him the nice round dot, the bullet, 
then he is most definitely misusing HTML. For a start, it would confound 
some non visual users who would be expecting a real list.

We need to distinguish the purer aspects of HTML from the presentational 
attributes that are still part of all the main standards. If we take 
away all the presentational attributes (many are deprecated - meaning 
you should use CSS instead, and a few other meanings too), there is 
still plenty of page layout possible and even legitimate.

Perhaps what is meant is that if you use tables for layout, this misuses 
HTML. Yes, there is a definite meaning to "misusing tables". The table 
element itself (and its 'child') elements are best used to display the 
relationships between lists of things. The rows and columns having a 
meaning (that can be described even by table headings). All this is well 
known. 

But there is no way that committing these poorer practices make "things 
break all over the place". They break because the authors are bad 
criminals and are incompetent. If they knew how tables work, how cells 
work, how, especially, images work (when and when not to display them as 
block in particular), *nothing* would "break" for visual users. 

Cross modality (hearing, braille) there can be trouble though. And there 
can be a lot breaking and gnashing of teeth in purist brains and mouths.
 
> Maybe in 1990. 
> .
> I'm pretty good at HTML, meself, and no, it's not for page layout, but 
> CSS is, and it's pixel-perfect in 3 dimensions.

I have yet to see pixel perfect in complex sites in 2 dimensions, the 
idea usually conjured up by this is folk specifying lots and lots of 
widths and heights in pixels and getting all right. In practice it 
usually leads to grief. Especially cross browser grief!

-- 
dorayme

On Sep 1, 6:11=A0pm, Snanny Jones <sna...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Hi. I am planning to publish a website in a few weeks. I don't have a PC
> but I'm trying some software called CrossOver that lets me run iE6 and
> IE7 for Windows on my Mac.
>
> CrossOver doesn't support Firefox for Windows. So, I'm wondering if
> anyone here knows whether websites rendered by Firefox on a PC are
> identical or different from Firefox on a Mac. =A0
>
> Thanks

Try http://browsershots.org/

In article <doraymeRidThis-F6DF08.12370004092009@news.albasani.net>,
 dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> I have yet to see pixel perfect in complex sites in 2 dimensions, the 
> idea usually conjured up by this is folk specifying lots and lots of 
> widths and heights in pixels and getting all right. In practice it 
> usually leads to grief. Especially cross browser grief!

All the flavours of browser have different default settings (as you've 
pointed out) so layout can be difficult, so I always start by setting 
all the boundaries and margins and padding and whatnot to zero in my 
stylesheet and this works very well, even with abortions like IE.
-- 
Suddenly he realized that he was alone 
with a giant halfwit on a dark deserted street.
  -- Chester Himes

In article <0099fc40$0$23065$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com>,
 Warren Oates <warren.oates@gmail.com> wrote:

> In article <doraymeRidThis-F6DF08.12370004092009@news.albasani.net>,
>  dorayme <doraymeRidThis@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> > I have yet to see pixel perfect in complex sites in 2 dimensions, the 
> > idea usually conjured up by this is folk specifying lots and lots of 
> > widths and heights in pixels and getting all right. In practice it 
> > usually leads to grief. Especially cross browser grief!
> 
> All the flavours of browser have different default settings (as you've 
> pointed out) so layout can be difficult, so I always start by setting 
> all the boundaries and margins and padding and whatnot to zero in my 
> stylesheet and this works very well, even with abortions like IE.

Well, I guess this is not the place to discuss this. But my view is that 
this is not a good idea. Better to design for where it does not matter 
whether something is a pixel here or there. But keep your shirt on, 
there are are some contexts where that is not such a bad move. It is 
just a bad policy in general. And the argument is really simple: much 
intelligent thought has gone into the defaults for element styling. To 
zero *all* these means you have to reinvent the wheel (and in a 
complicated site, believe me, that is some work).

-- 
dorayme