new litescript version

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

58 Replies - 7854 Views - Last Post: 19 February 2002 - 07:25 AM

#46 Lord Manimal  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 413
  • Joined: 07-April 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 15 February 2002 - 03:14 AM

You've got a valid point mate. I personally don't feel that I should pander to people that won't use a real internet browser (I.E. ANYTHING) either. If you DO cater to them, and dumb down your sites coding so that P.O.S.'s like Opera and NetScape can view them, where is that getting us in the long run? If we all stuck together, then maybe Netscape would get better. Give people enough webpages they can't view, and pretty soon they'll switch. If they can't use NetScape to view the internet, then WTF are they gonna use it for? Answer: They won't. And Netscape will either fix their problems, or kiss off. Either way would make life easier for the rest of us. Pandering to them, is only keeping code like CSS from being used, instead of making them bring their coding up to CSS standards. Think about that one for a minute.

Stick with CSS man. Netscape needs to get off their asses and do something right for a change. Get their heads out of the courtroom, and into a frigging code class.

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#47 supersloth  Icon User is offline

  • serial frotteur - RUDEST MEMBER ON D.I.C.
  • member icon


Reputation: 4664
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28,487
  • Joined: 21-March 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 15 February 2002 - 04:13 PM

w00t to that. manimal, we need more of your rants. :)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#48 iamcenz  Icon User is offline

  • You wish you were my hand!
  • member icon

Reputation: 7
  • View blog
  • Posts: 2,443
  • Joined: 26-March 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 15 February 2002 - 05:11 PM

i totally agree with that one.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#49 codeman  Icon User is offline

  • w3c fanatic

Reputation: 3
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,190
  • Joined: 13-August 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 15 February 2002 - 07:22 PM

Not quite. The truth is it's just OLD browsers period that are bad. Netscape 6, Opera 5+, IE5+, and others can all handle CSS and standards wonderfully. Don't pick on Netscape and Opera because you obviousely don't know that they can handle themselves and compete perfectly with IE. I use IE because I prefer it. But NS and Opera ARE standards compliant. Did you know that one of the worst NEW browsers as far as standards go is IE5.5/win? The best is IE5/mac. This may be iE6 now but I don't know. This has nothing to do with companies but with the browsers age. No more coding for IE4, NS4, Opera 4, or any other 4.0 browser. But all things that are standards compliant work in ALL companies newer browsers. Whew! That felt good! :)
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#50 Quik  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 2
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,750
  • Joined: 06-March 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 15 February 2002 - 08:34 PM

lol.. i so disagree.. Last time I checked.. I code my sites for OTHERS to view.. for OTHER companies.. for OTHER people interested in the site. Not for I!
Yes, i agree people should use only IE but unfortunatlly thats now how our world works! We can't change it.. M$ can! So untill they do (and succeed) I code for all. or 95% of the population.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#51 codeman  Icon User is offline

  • w3c fanatic

Reputation: 3
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,190
  • Joined: 13-August 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 16 February 2002 - 12:13 AM

Did you NOT read what I wrote? I said that I code for standards compliant browsers. That INCLUDES Netscape 6, and Opera 5+. I don't code for one browser user! I code for all NEW browsers! Please, don't use netscape as a euphamism for a bad, out of date, browser.
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#52 Lord Manimal  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Regular

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 413
  • Joined: 07-April 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 17 February 2002 - 11:50 AM

And don't use the term "rag head" to describe people that wear rags on their heads right?

(There's some subtle sarcasm going on there, for those that aren't quick to pick up on the nuances of my humour.)

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#53 Quik  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 2
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,750
  • Joined: 06-March 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 17 February 2002 - 12:03 PM

"I use IE because I prefer it. But NS and Opera ARE standards compliant. "

ok, and
MILLIONS OF OTHERS use NETSCAPE 4/5/6 !! Therfore I wish to target the full or 95% audience. Not 60 or 70%.

If there IS a way of scripting somthing to work for more people I do it! I don't want to be lazy and go the easy way around somthing.


FOR EXAMPLE:
Your site.. Its messed up in Netscape right now..
if I can visually make it look perfect
scripting it differently WHY WOULDNT YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF DOING SO?


Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#54 skrilla monkey  Icon User is offline

  • goat.face

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 838
  • Joined: 14-January 02

Re: new litescript version

Posted 18 February 2002 - 05:33 PM

this thread has gotten funny! I personally like Netscape for one reason: created the first easy-to-use web browser. I *am* rather angry at Microsoft bcuz they took the code from Netscape (not really took, but basically they work the same way).  Either way, I still much prefer IE because it SUPPORTS NEW INTERNET TECHNOLOGY! Netscape really needs to get going; IE comes out with an update like every 3 months (5.0 > 5.5 etc) to further support internet features and other tehcnologies; netscape sits back and does (presumably) nothing. I have respect for their first-person-to-make-a-good-browser aspect. I dont use it because they don't support ANYTHING. And most people don't use NS so there really isn't much to worry about.  This *is* just an opinion, and there are probably a few things that are false in my statements (facts etc), but o well. This is how i see things :)

-PETE
-meh!

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#55 Quik  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 2
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,750
  • Joined: 06-March 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 18 February 2002 - 06:20 PM

I'll pull out two facts which arnt true..

I dont use it because they don't support ANYTHING. And most people don't use NS so there really isn't much to worry about.

#1.. They do support a whole lot.. everything you need to make a good looking website.  (im talking about 4-4.5+ )
take a look at http://gamershq.madonion.com/ This site has over 500 users ONLINE at once.  Tell me now that netscape compatibility isnt neccecary.

#2 @home high speed cable has thousands of people using their service.. They have netscape included in there installation package. Millions use netscape, but millions use IE aswell.

All im trying to say is that it is VERY POSSIBLE to make a VERY NICE site with netscape compatibility.

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#56 whiz2004  Icon User is offline

  • New D.I.C Head

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 28
  • Joined: 14-February 02

Re: new litescript version

Posted 18 February 2002 - 06:27 PM

<><> #### pete you even start touble online? <><><>
R6 web dev :: si si senor:: lol
Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#57 codeman  Icon User is offline

  • w3c fanatic

Reputation: 3
  • View blog
  • Posts: 1,190
  • Joined: 13-August 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 18 February 2002 - 06:37 PM

Okay, here's why I shouldn't have to code for older browsers: I want to use XHTML for my webpages and here's why I want to do that:

Quote

A painless transition to more advanced technology
The web is moving to XML, a powerfully enabling technology. Writing well–formed, valid XHTML pages is the easiest way to begin this transition. All it takes is learning a few simple rules of XHTML markup.
Cleaner, more logical markup
XHTML brings uniformity to document structure. The rules of XHTML help restore the structural integrity of documents that was lost during the web’s rapid commercial expansion between 1994 and 2001. This is critical for large organizations such as ours, whose web pages must interface with logically–marked–up documents in legacy systems and databases.
Increased interoperability
Unlike old–style HTML pages, valid, well–formed XHTML documents can easily be “transported” to wireless devices, Braille readers and other specialized web environments. Moreover, XHTML’s insistence on clean, rule–based markup helps us avoid the kind of errors that can make web pages fail even in traditional browsers like Microsoft Internet Explorer, Netscape Navigator, and Opera Software’s Opera browser.
Greater accessibility
Because they follow strict rules and avoid non–standard markup, well–authored XHTML pages are more accessible than old–school HTML pages, helping the library comply with U.S. laws and accessibility guidelines.
------------------------------------------------------------
Prepared for NYPL October 2001 by NotLimitedNYC, LLC. Copyright © 2001 New York Public Library. Contact: [email protected]

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#58 Quik  Icon User is offline

  • D.I.C Lover
  • member icon

Reputation: 2
  • View blog
  • Posts: 3,750
  • Joined: 06-March 01

Re: new litescript version

Posted 18 February 2002 - 06:51 PM

oh, now its xhtml? wernt we discussing the whole idea of CSS?
But anyways, if you want to get on this now.. here i go

"accessible than old ;school HTML pages"

the writer is.. right. HTML pages are old school.. And this is why half of the good websites have such scripting as php/mysql, asp, cgi/pearl, cold fusion.. need i say more? Oh, i forgot about flash.. you know the most dynamic plug-in for the internet..

"Cleaner, more logical markup
XHTML brings uniformity to document structure"

with such little info about XHTML I cant really argue all its features.. But when was this published? holy ####.. They say clearner more logical markup.. They obviouslly didnt research other codes and scripting. such as a DATABASE? (mysql) How cleaner can you organize somthing?

Im not saying that xhtml is bad, but the writer didnt do very well. he is  Very biased in the direction of xhtml.

I can bet you i can find the somewhat same type of article involving php instead. Of asp. or flash.


Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

#59 skrilla monkey  Icon User is offline

  • goat.face

Reputation: 0
  • View blog
  • Posts: 838
  • Joined: 14-January 02

Re: new litescript version

Posted 19 February 2002 - 07:25 AM

::states his opinion of XHTML::

ahem...

XHTML is junk; its HTML with its features and limitations and some structure of XML without its functionality.  Its only use: start making things uniform and standard (and start getting people used to XML structure.) What's the point?

<edit>
::gasp!::  BluntedByNature has become a site-chek mod?! HOW?!
</edit>

-PETE
-meh!

(Edited by skrilla monkey at 9:26 am on Feb. 19, 2002)

Was This Post Helpful? 0
  • +
  • -

  • (4 Pages)
  • +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4