Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Re: where can i get IE for os x?

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: where can i get IE for os x?

 
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Griffin <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> In article
> <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Michael Vilain <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> > > In article
> > > <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > > dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> > >

> > snip
> > >
> > > One point, thought. The way IE 5.23 misbehaves on MacOS X is different
> > > from how IE 6 misbehaves on Windows.

> >
> > You are not wrong about this, IE Mac is almost useless for the
> > purpose of ensuring your site is not too bad on IE Win.
> >
> > > So, to really test my sites, I
> > > have to use VPC and XP to see how it displays and code special CSS
> > > sheets for the IE 6 browser.

> >
> > What I do is have an old PC next to my Mac and look at things on
> > it.

>
> You may find this site helpful. All you need do is enter your URL;
> wait a while; check back for all the browser screen shots you requested.
>
> <http://browsershots.org/>
>
> Mission Statement
> The web should look good for all users.


HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about 'looks'
you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.

'Best viewed in 1024x768' - best example that your web site is designed by
a monkey.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dorayme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> > > > dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> > > What I do is have an old PC next to my Mac and look at things on
> > > it.

>
> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about 'looks'
> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.



You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
so easily.

--
dorayme
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dave Hinz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:51:31 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about 'looks'
>> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.


> You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
> 'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
> so easily.


Wow. You're actually for real, aren't you. It's like this caracature
of someone without the slightest clue or background, it's so _perfect_.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Dave Hinz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:51:31 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about
> >> 'looks'
> >> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.

>
> > You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
> > 'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
> > so easily.

>
> Wow. You're actually for real, aren't you. It's like this caracature
> of someone without the slightest clue or background, it's so _perfect_.


YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread
<http://tinyurl.com/h2b9b> some years ago. That guy's ignorance was
astounding and his efforts to explain it were pathetic.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
Bruce Grubb wrote:

> YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
> insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread


I did. You came out of that sufficiently badly to warrant an immediate
<plonk>.

> That guy's ignorance was astounding and his efforts to explain it were pathetic.


No, he was merely ignorant (when was HTML a required skill for games
developers who'd bought a duff tool and had already expressed interest
in fixing the problem?). However he showed every sign of remedying
this.

You looked like a spoiled teenager who was using a trivial situation to
excuse a pointless flamewar. Bit like this thread really. Shame you
don't even appear to have grown up in the past years - what are you
now, about 24?

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) om>,
"Andy Dingley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Bruce Grubb wrote:
>
> > YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
> > insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread

>
> I did. You came out of that sufficiently badly to warrant an immediate
> <plonk>.


How so? VPenman was the one making one idiotic statement after another.

>
> > That guy's ignorance was astounding and his efforts to explain it were
> > pathetic.

>
> No, he was merely ignorant (when was HTML a required skill for games
> developers who'd bought a duff tool and had already expressed interest
> in fixing the problem?). However he showed every sign of remedying
> this.


Remedying it? Give me a freaking break. He defended his HTML on crack with
one stupid piece of idiocy after another.


> You looked like a spoiled teenager who was using a trivial situation to
> excuse a pointless flamewar.


NO I showed that VPenman and his happy crew had NO CLUE about HTML and
every claim he made was WRONG. And he was hired by TSR because he and his
company 'knew' HTML. Showing them to be a bunch of Bonzos is not acting
like a spoiled teenager. Continuing to defend the mistakes after showing
they know about as much about writing HTML as flying a rocket ship to Mars
is.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) om>,
"Andy Dingley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Bruce Grubb wrote:
>
> > YOu think this is a laugh riot go read the excuses VPenman gave for his
> > insanely poor HTML in the "CR2 Expansion Bug/Feature" thread

>
> I did. You came out of that sufficiently badly to warrant an immediate
> <plonk>.
>
> > That guy's ignorance was astounding and his efforts to explain it were
> > pathetic.

>
> No, he was merely ignorant (when was HTML a required skill for games
> developers who'd bought a duff tool and had already expressed interest
> in fixing the problem?). However he showed every sign of remedying
> this.


No he didn't. He just defended the idiocy as Bryan J. Maloney and I basicly
showed him to be not only ignorant but outright stupid. Like claiming HTML
is an "internet standard" which it was not and is not.

I should point out this was one example of how TSR was handling things at
the time <http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/539/539628p4.html> and this was
one of the things WotC got stuck with when they bought TSR in 1997.

Oh I just noticed something about the CR2 Expansion CD-ROM - its
copyrighted TSR 1999. Mind explaining THAT when TSR didn't exist and was
part of the WotC in 1999?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-26-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
Dave Hinz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Apr 2006 12:51:31 +1000, dorayme <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
> > In article <(E-Mail Removed)>,
> > Bruce Grubb <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >
> >> HTML is NOT a page layout format people. The moment you talk about
> >> 'looks'
> >> you are trying to force it into that role and give yourself headaches.

>
> > You are just being silly now. "The moment you talk about
> > 'looks'..." ! You need to step back from jumping to conclusions
> > so easily.

>
> Wow. You're actually for real, aren't you. It's like this caracature
> of someone without the slightest clue or background, it's so _perfect_.


I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
shoots the whole IE testing idea down. Stuff that HTML 4.0.1 allowed is a
major no no with XHTML 1.0 as they have to be XML conforming. This alone
shows a lot of messing around with the format because now EVERY XML
compliant program in EVERY version must have the same bug as IE for it to
work.

Since some Microsoft program like Excel 2003 support XML how likely is that
going to happen? About the same chances as Apple buying up Microsoft (ie
slim to none).
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andy Dingley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-27-2006

Bruce Grubb wrote:

> I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
> shoots the whole IE testing idea down.


Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
broken CSS rendering?

XHTML still means Appendix C, pretty much any browser you use. That in
itself isn't a specific criticism of IE or its competition.

> Stuff that HTML 4.0.1 allowed is a
> major no no with XHTML 1.0 as they have to be XML conforming.


Other than the simple low-level question of XML well-formedness, just
what stuff? XHTML 1.0 was just a transcoding from parsing models, not a
change of the underlying spec.

> This alone
> shows a lot of messing around with the format because now EVERY XML
> compliant program in EVERY version must have the same bug as IE for it to
> work.


I have absolutely no idea what you mean here. What "IE bugs" have
relevance for "XML compliant programs" ?


> Since some Microsoft program like Excel 2003 support XML


My toaster "supports electricity" in much the same way that Excel
supports XML. It doesn't mean that I can web author in Excel though,
or that I can use my toaster as a battery charger.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Bruce Grubb
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      04-28-2006
In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
"Andy Dingley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Bruce Grubb wrote:
>
> > I agree. Also the web is slowly moving from HTML 4.0.1 to XHTML 1.0 which
> > shoots the whole IE testing idea down.

>
> Ok, that's pretty clueless. How does HTML / XHTML have an effect on the
> relative "usefulness" of IE, which is by and large a question of IE's
> broken CSS rendering?


Carefull as the last version of IE for the Mac had pretty good CSS
rendering. Just because the Windows team programmed with its toes does not
mean through throw out the standard.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wireless can get internet but can't see network -- can when wired 02befree Computer Support 0 12-24-2007 09:10 PM
Hi I have one web application and i want to get the number of users who are currently accessing the application. Also I want to get the user details of each user, which is stored in a database. How can I do this? Pls help. Getting No: and anu Java 11 05-12-2005 03:25 PM
How can I get attribute values to not get converted from &apos; to ' or &amp; to & or &lt; to > ? Sammy XML 12 05-06-2005 10:14 PM
Javascript can get time, can it get milliseconds, or actually just tenths of seconds? Guy Javascript 2 12-05-2003 04:00 PM



Advertisments