Safe Browser???

Yet another rabid *nix zealot..

Speck of foam on the corner of your mouth there, B.

There have been instances of disgruntled web developers at well-known mainstream websites pulling stuff like this. Or the NIMDA and Code Red worms, which commonly infected legitimate websites and further hurt IIS's reputation and market share early this decade.

Though the STD for HTTP refers to the W3C's recommendations as the standard for HTTP, so, by extension, the W3C's recommendations are the standard.



Opera, Chrome, Safari, Konqueror...

That would be a good reason to drop Hotmail.

Oh, so now the STDs don't exist?
http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/std/std-index.html

The RFC's are requests for comments in development of the STDs.

I've fired "web developers" who were pinheaded enough to say that before. You go with the W3C standards and test against the validator and pretty much any browser but IE. If it doesn't work in IE; fuck 'em, it's not like Microsoft's publishing how their browser is different form the standard everyone-but-Microsoft is playing by.



Go get a job at Microsoft, then. They like deluded people like you.

You... should stop posting to this thread until you learn a bit more about the W3C and get up to speed on things. Browser vendors are in on the W3C, and a big part about why the W3C is "slow" is because some members (microsoft, sun) have a tendency to throw wrenches into the works deliberately at times.

Last I heard, Safari used the KHTML rendering engine from the KDE project, and other than for the UI, Konqueror and Safari were the same.

First, no ad hominem attacks. Second, I didn't say anything about unix. Third, nothing said about Hotmail or IE is being disputed. So what's with the flippant attitude to sound advice?

The vast majority of standards on the Internet never proceed past RFC status. A lot never get past Draft RFC status, even after they've been in use for a decade. What STDs (and FYIs and BCPs) provide is a reference for the most important RFCs... the rest of the RFCs are no less "standards" for not being described that way.

Dude, Chill. He *is* learning.

Webkit is pretty much a fork of KHTML. KHTML and Webkit are developed in parallel.

Oh, I know about W3C. If you read my posts, you might learn something yourself. Specifically that W3C does *not* create standards. I'll spell it out for you since you seem to by blissfully unaware...

W3C do not have any authority to decide the way that anything should be done on the web, so they come up with some recommendations instead. *IF* the browsers implement their recommendation then they become standars. I.e. in the absence of an official body, it's those users again who create the standards. In this case, the users are the browser makers. In practise some of W3C's recommendations have become standards, but many haven't. I hope that helps.

It's the other outfits that I'm not up to speed on. Not that I particularly want to be, but it's interesting.

Hotmail works fine in Firefox, Safari and Chrome.

Microsoft is not coding it exclusively for IE.

Because of the current IE security scare, I'm now using Firefox and I have to say, it lacks something. It can't seem to load pages at the bottom. E.g. when I get a page of forum posts that should load with the view at the bottom (Last page, for instance) it displays above the bottom and the last post is either out of sight or only showing partially. Another example is refreshing the Transaction History page when I'm at the bottom, but it loads and stays at the top. I'll use it until the security thing is fixed but it's bad in loading pages when they should be displayed below the top.

When I click to post this I should receive the page with this post showing, but Firefox doesn't do it. It shows the post above with this post out of sight below. It's a bit basic to get so wrong.

I think there's something funny about the targets on this board, the issue seems peculiar to Firefox and this BBS. I don't have the problem on Camino or Safari on the Mac. And Camino is using the same rendering engine as Firefox.

That could be it - this board, or more likely LL's website design people, because the Transactions History page doesn't display properly. The table that contains the data stretches an inch further to the right than it should. It was all probably designed for IE and nothing else.

Correction:
This board wasn't designed by LL so cancel my remark about LL's people doing it. They did the Transactions page though.

The reality of the situation is the IETF delegated this task to the W3C. Thanks for following the paper trail I left for you on that.

Not able to reproduce either bug myself, in Windows or Linux in Firefox 2 or 3; are you sure you haven't somehow broken your install or have some add-on that's doing this to you?

I can confirm the bug, and Argent seems to imply that he has experienced it as well.

As someone suggested earlier, just chill dude. You're kind of grasping at straws now, finding tiny insignificant reasons to hammer away at Phil, and being needlessly condescending in the process.

This could still be a helpful and informative thread if you don't screw it all up in order to show off the awesome might of your knowledge in these areas.

And why my primary is now Gmail. Shame. I'd been with Hotmail since before Microsoft bought it.

And who gave the IETF the authority to do that? Don't misunderstamd that question (and don't answer it because there is nobody in authority who can give such authority).

Agreeing protocols such as TCP/IP is essential, authority or not, or the internet wouldn't work. But we are not discussing the workings of the internet - we are discussing browsers - specifically the display of webpages in browsers. Anyone can create a browser, without any reference to W3C, and it will work, but it won't necessarily display webpages in quite the same way as other browsers display them. Display elements don't require the overall agreement that protocols need. NS4's layer tag is a glaring example of how agreements are totally unnecessary for browsers to function.

W3C has no authority to decide standards (there is nobody who can give them the authority), so they don't do it. They decide what to recommend, and no current browser fully implements their recommendations; i.e. no browser is fully W3C compliant, which is the problem we've been discussing. Some browsers say they are compliant because what they do implement is in compliance with the W3C recommendations, but they pick and choose which recommendations to implement, and different browsers pick, or leave out, different things. As an example of the universal non-compliance, website designers are unable to use many CSS attributes that W3C recommends, even though they are implemented in, say, IE, because they are not implemented in, say, Firefox. Or, if they are used, then workarounds need to be included for them. And that brings us back to the start of this particular discussion.

An example is the way that IE displays the Transactions History page in the way that the designer indended, but Firefox doesn't. I'm not going to dig to find out which browser isn't implementing a W3C recommendation, because all browsers miss things out, but one of them isn't doing it.

Quite sure. I'm using Vista, which might make a difference.

don't use Hotmail it is hackable use gmail it's so much better and firefox is sooo much better than IE

Back to topic:

I received an auto-update last night. Unfortunately updates don't say what they are. Does anyone know if MS has sent a fix out for the browser problem?