Subject:
|
Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.admin.general
|
Date:
|
Fri, 17 Mar 2000 22:35:26 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1444 times
|
| |
|
|
"Todd Lehman" <lehman@javanet.com> wrote in message
news:FrL4wC.GsL@lugnet.com...
> In lugnet.admin.general, Mike Stanley writes:
> > Ok. Do you have a form running now that demonstrates this inability in • IE on
> > LUGNET?
>
> I called it "bug" because IMHO it is a User Interface bug. But yeah, more
> objectively, it is simply an "inability."
>
> Okie dokie, here ya go, here's a page with two forms... Type text in the
> boxes and hit Enter. If nothing happens when you hit Enter, it's a bug.
>
> http://www.lugnet.com/temp/form/msieieio.html
>
> Here's the document:
>
> <HTML><BODY>
> <FORM METHOD=GET ACTION="/">Form #1: <INPUT TYPE=TEXT NAME="q" • VALUE=""></FORM>
> <FORM METHOD=GET ACTION="/">Form #2: <INPUT TYPE=TEXT NAME="q" • VALUE=""></FORM> </BODY></HTML>
>
> Just tried this on MSIE3/Win32 and it failed. Tried MSIE4.5/MacOS and it
> worked. (One hand clapping.)
This works on IE5/Win32 (as someone pointed out). I don't have the Unix
version
or Mac IE5 beta handy to test them, but I'd venture to guess that they work
also.
I guess they got enought complaints on this to make it worth the 20 minutes
of
development it took to fix :)
> > Gotta admin, knowing your personal hatred for M$, these little "hey,
> > if you're using IE you may have a problem with this so complain to your • vendor
> > but if you're using Netscape N/C you should be fine" announcements seem • a
> > little silly sometimes.
>
> It's much more a profound professional disappointment than personal • hatred.
> (I simply ignore MSIE altogether when I make personal pages.)
>
> MSIE is/was a clone of NN. It was an amazing feat what MS did back in • 1995.
> But in the cloning process, MS flarged up quite a few things -- perhaps
> unintentionally, perhaps intentionally, but wrongly nevertheless.
Actually both IE and NN are clones of NCSA Mosaic. :)
Here's the thing though -- Netscape no more "owned" the web than Microsoft
did.
You can call having 90% of the market "owning" it (and I'm not saying that
you
are), but that sounds suspiciously like the arguments used _against_
Microsoft's
practices.
Let's be real for a moment. There are now standards in place for most
everything that once fell "de facto" style into the hands of the vendors.
That
being said, MS is way ahead of Netscape right now. Now, you can cite any
number of reasons why that is (DOJ this, monopoly that), but that doesn't
matter to the average user who wants to be wowed by nifty websites. Yeah,
MS
is still "flinging code til it sticks", but so is/was Netscape. If (and
this is a biggie) Netscape's next browser sees the light of day sometime
short of next year, and is truly 100% DOM, XML, CSS, etc. compliant, then
we've got something to talk about. Until then, lets not torch IE too bad --
it
is not just Netscape + some bugs and the <marquee> tag. :)
> Most of the incompatibilities are in the rendering engine ("devil in the
> details").
All well and good, but Netscape has bugs too.
Netscape Navigator tends to cop out when too many tables are nested. I've
seen other rendering bugs too -- elements disappearing and then reappearing
on a refresh.
But I think a lot of what we web developers tend to call bugs are really
just differences in the two browsers stemming from a fact that there were
(and still are, for some things) a lack of standards. Heck the two browsers
could both be %100 standards compliant and still have major semantic
differences.
And besides, I can code around bugs. Now, a lack of features (like, for
example, CSS-P on arbitrary elements) is just plain frustrating. Oh well,
this stuff will all be fleshed out eventually.
> > You're certainly entitled to your opinion about browsers, and I would • hardly
> > argue that both major browsers have major issues, but sometimes it • almost
> > seems like you go out of your way to label one as crap while few but • Netscape
> > employees would say different about its product. :)
>
> Nah, I'm well aware that NN has quite a few problems also. What steams me
> is that MS made MSIE 99% but not 100% compatible with NN. "Embrace, • extend,
> exterminate." Chairman Bill is only missing a monacle and a white cat.
;-)
Heh. :)
> > Not sure what that has to do with IE3/4/5, but if I were responsible for
> > administering publicly available systems (what a surprise, I am) I'd • stick
> > with NN 3.0 (were I able to make that choice) for performance and • stability
> > issues more than anything else.
>
> Me too. I liked a lot of things about NN 3.0 much better than NN 4.0+,
> especially under Win32.
Yeah, and I like Word 2.0 one hell of a load better than the abomination
they
ship today. But, whatever, that's "progress". I just smile and use
WordPad. :)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer
|
| (...) Say, you know what other braindead thing MSIE3 does/did? When you hit Enter in an edit box (when there's only one form on the page), it even gets THAT wrong -- it submits the form without setting the value of the NAME field of the <INPUT (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Why MSIE sucks for the HTML writer
|
| (...) I called it "bug" because IMHO it is a User Interface bug. But yeah, more objectively, it is simply an "inability." Okie dokie, here ya go, here's a page with two forms... Type text in the boxes and hit Enter. If nothing happens when you hit (...) (25 years ago, 17-Mar-00, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
131 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
