Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [NH] web pages and Netscape

Expand Messages
  • stephen riddle
    Hi Adam et al. That s ok. I dislike IE, maybe not as strongly as some, It s a pretty ok browser at any rate, but I gave up flaming browsers last year. There
    Message 1 of 29 , Jul 19, 2002
    • 0 Attachment
      Hi Adam et al.

      That's ok. I dislike IE, maybe not as strongly as some, It's a pretty ok
      browser at any rate, but I gave up flaming browsers last year. There are
      several IE-specific CSS extensions. (I think they call them filters or
      something like that.) I have not checked out IE-6 completely, but there were
      a few things in the STANDARDS that IE-5 did not do. Since I can't remember
      what they are, they must not be that important. And since IE-6 ate up IE-5
      and, maybe a few other files, I can't re-check the situation out.
      I've also noted that you can't believe everything you read. There have been
      times I've read about a bug in one brand of browser (in books I paid for, no
      less), but hav it work fine in that browser (at least for me), but not in the
      other one. (And it's gone both ways.) I have a lot of bi-lateral dyslexia,
      if there are dyads, I need to repeatedly check my data that I'm calling a
      spade a spade and a club a club, not the other way around. I think some of
      the on-line and in-print gurus do the same thing except forget to check, so,
      checking for yourself is always a good thang.


      On Friday 19 July 2002 10:11, you wrote:
      > My bad... I thought hover was a MS-specific, but as you implied, I should
      > have checked before opening my mouth.
      >
      > (OK "hate" was too strong a word, but I still "dislike" NS ;-) )
      >
      > -Adam
      >
    • stephen riddle
      Hi Fay, Because browsers are so individual, it seems (and even your user s settings will alter the way a web page looks), remember that your page will only
      Message 2 of 29 , Jul 19, 2002
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi Fay,
        Because browsers are so individual, it seems (and even your user's settings
        will alter the way a web page looks), remember that your page will only look
        identical in assorted browsers if it is nothing but plain text with a .txt
        extension. Trying to control everything about every user's experience with
        your page will only leave you verrry disgusted with something or other.
        What you need to do is decide what is most important, and go for that, then
        next most important, and then. . . I have a friend who designs for one
        browser and says the other looks like bat dung. When I visit her site, with
        the despicable browser, it looks fine to me. She is upset because a line
        here or there is not showing "properly". I try not to tell her she's being
        silly. . .

        One way to (kind of) test for old browsers, without actually having one, that
        is, is to turn off scripting, CSS, and anything else on your browser. (I
        believe in IE, it's under Internet Options, I'm in Linux at the moment, and
        can't check, as I don't have a Linux-compatible IE (really don't think there
        is one) so someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
        I am getting to where I like the older browsers better, myself. The load
        pages quickly and ignore the fluff.
        Take care and good luck,
        Stephen

        On Friday 19 July 2002 16:01, you wrote:
        > All the html sites said "Make sure it works in old browsers".
        > So I got one, and it didn't.
        > I have no way of knowing how many people would be using NS4.
        (You should have some kind of site stats or logs available, somewhere.)
        > IE suits me well, but I'd like my pages to look reasonable everywhere.
        > Thanks.
        > Fay.
        >
        > --
      • Fay
        Thanks for this informative and encouraging answer, Stephen. We only have possums here to befoul, and the pages weren t that bad, but background colours were
        Message 3 of 29 , Jul 19, 2002
        • 0 Attachment
          Thanks for this informative and encouraging answer, Stephen.
          We only have possums here to befoul, and the pages weren't that bad, but
          background colours were missing and everything was black and blue on white.
          Lotta has taken me a long way to correction, and explained that some things
          aren't possible. I'm well pleased--but gosh I have a lot of correction to
          do!
          Cheers, Fay.
        • Ian Rastall
          ... One important concept in the world of HTML is that web pages should degrade gracefully. This means that when accomodating something like NS4, you don t
          Message 4 of 29 , Jul 19, 2002
          • 0 Attachment
            On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 09:01:25 +1000, you wrote:

            >All the html sites said "Make sure it works in old browsers".
            >So I got one, and it didn't.
            >I have no way of knowing how many people would be using NS4.

            One important concept in the world of HTML is that web pages should
            degrade gracefully. This means that when accomodating something like
            NS4, you don't have to make everything exactly the same, as long as it
            looks pretty good, and works fine. Not having hover on NS4 is just
            fine. One thing I like to do is to remove the underline on links, by
            writing:

            a {text-decoration: none;}

            and combined with no hover, sometimes it's hard to see links. But I do
            it anyway, and I figure most net users are so used to the context of
            links that they'll have no trouble knowing which is which.

            There's a movement out there to exclude NS4 from everything. A lot of
            people now won't code for that browser at all. Some will detect the
            browser, and if NS4 is detected, the user will be forwarded to a
            screen telling them to update their browser. That's not terribly fair
            for people on slow connections, though (especially in under-developed
            nations). Some people will write the stylesheet without taking NS4
            into account at all. They'll detect the browser, and if it's NS4, it
            gets the plain version.

            I do something different. I use the @import hack. There are different
            ways of introducing a stylesheet, and one of them is to write:

            <style type="text/css">
            @import "foo.css";
            </style>

            Every browser recognizes this, *except* NS4. So if you introduce an
            external stylesheet, like so:

            <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="foo2.css" />

            you can make that the stylesheet that Netscape recognizes, and make
            your @import stylesheet the one that all the other browsers recognize.
            You put all your main CSS in the Netscape sheet, and then anything
            that needs to be overridden, you put in the other one. Because
            style-sheets cascade, anything in @import will take precedence over
            anything in <link>.

            Sorry for the long explanation. Hope this helps.

            Ian
            --
            That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
            with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

            http://www.aspipes.org/
          • loro
            ... Not really. It also takes care of IE Windows 4 and below. :) http://pixels.pixelpark.com/~koch/hide_css_from_browsers/summary/ Lotta
            Message 5 of 29 , Jul 19, 2002
            • 0 Attachment
              At 04:21 2002.07.20, Ian Rastall wrote:
              ><style type="text/css">
              >@import "foo.css";
              ></style>
              >
              >Every browser recognizes this, *except* NS4.

              Not really. It also takes care of IE Windows 4 and below. :)
              http://pixels.pixelpark.com/~koch/hide_css_from_browsers/summary/

              Lotta
            • Ed Brown
              You should always code for NS 4. The only thing wrong and it is not wrong, with NS 4 is that it demands that your coding be correct. If it is not then the
              Message 6 of 29 , Jul 19, 2002
              • 0 Attachment
                You should always code for NS 4. The only thing wrong and it is not wrong,
                with NS 4 is that it demands that your coding be correct. If it is not then
                the chances are about 99% you have made mistakes in your coding. The other
                1% is IE has some coding that works only with it, and so it should probably
                not be used, only use what works with all browsers as much as possible. In
                IE 6 the positions are somewhat reversed, I have found it demands more
                correct coding than it ever did before and NS 6 will work even if you have
                made some little errors in your coding. Good luck and check your code if it
                does not work with NS 4.0
                Ed
                ----- Original Message -----
                From: "Ian Rastall" <idrastall@...>
                To: <ntb-html@yahoogroups.com>
                Sent: Friday, July 19, 2002 9:21 PM
                Subject: Re: [NH] web pages and Netscape


                On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 09:01:25 +1000, you wrote:

                >All the html sites said "Make sure it works in old browsers".
                >So I got one, and it didn't.
                >I have no way of knowing how many people would be using NS4.

                One important concept in the world of HTML is that web pages should
                degrade gracefully. This means that when accomodating something like
                NS4, you don't have to make everything exactly the same, as long as it
                looks pretty good, and works fine. Not having hover on NS4 is just
                fine. One thing I like to do is to remove the underline on links, by
                writing:

                a {text-decoration: none;}

                and combined with no hover, sometimes it's hard to see links. But I do
                it anyway, and I figure most net users are so used to the context of
                links that they'll have no trouble knowing which is which.

                There's a movement out there to exclude NS4 from everything. A lot of
                people now won't code for that browser at all. Some will detect the
                browser, and if NS4 is detected, the user will be forwarded to a
                screen telling them to update their browser. That's not terribly fair
                for people on slow connections, though (especially in under-developed
                nations). Some people will write the stylesheet without taking NS4
                into account at all. They'll detect the browser, and if it's NS4, it
                gets the plain version.

                I do something different. I use the @import hack. There are different
                ways of introducing a stylesheet, and one of them is to write:

                <style type="text/css">
                @import "foo.css";
                </style>

                Every browser recognizes this, *except* NS4. So if you introduce an
                external stylesheet, like so:

                <link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="foo2.css" />

                you can make that the stylesheet that Netscape recognizes, and make
                your @import stylesheet the one that all the other browsers recognize.
                You put all your main CSS in the Netscape sheet, and then anything
                that needs to be overridden, you put in the other one. Because
                style-sheets cascade, anything in @import will take precedence over
                anything in <link>.

                Sorry for the long explanation. Hope this helps.

                Ian
                --
                That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                http://www.aspipes.org/




                Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
              • Ian Rastall
                ... Writing valid HTML is crucial. NS4 doesn t handle CSS very well, though. So if you re working with CSS, especially if you re trying to do a site without
                Message 7 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                • 0 Attachment
                  On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:31:45 -0500, you wrote:

                  >You should always code for NS 4. The only thing wrong and it is not wrong,
                  >with NS 4 is that it demands that your coding be correct.

                  Writing valid HTML is crucial. NS4 doesn't handle CSS very well,
                  though. So if you're working with CSS, especially if you're trying to
                  do a site without using tables for layout, you end up having to do
                  workarounds.

                  On the main site that I run, I've managed to use one stylesheet for
                  all the browsers, and that's because I use tables for everything. (I
                  don't see that as very cool, but it's how I got everything to work.)
                  There are a couple things that don't show up in NS4, but the site
                  still works fine.

                  Ian
                  --
                  That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                  with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                  http://www.aspipes.org/
                • Fay
                  I m getting way behind with acknowledging the reams of help I ve been getting on this question. Some letters I ll have to keep and study later, so that I can
                  Message 8 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm getting way behind with acknowledging the reams of help I've been
                    getting on this question.
                    Some letters I'll have to keep and study later, so that I can get things
                    working reasonably well asap and then go back and improve.
                    I'm really grateful that so many people have had the kindness to share their
                    knowledge with me, and rest assured that not one word will be wasted. I see
                    there's heaps to learn, but now I have my own personal "manual"! I thank
                    you all very much indeed.
                    Fay
                  • Fay
                    Ian, Long explanations are usually careful and detailed, easier to understand and much appreciated. I ve copied yours into a text file and go over it
                    Message 9 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Ian,
                      Long explanations are usually careful and detailed, easier to understand and
                      much appreciated.
                      I've copied yours into a text file and go over it carefully.
                      I'll work on the matter of the two style sheets once I've conquered the
                      earlier steps.
                      I'm glad you think that people with old equipment and software shouldn't be
                      ignored, and my own pride wants it to be that if only six people in the
                      whole world look at my site they'll see the best I can manage.
                      (I haven't a clue what a "fungo" is. Is it a mushroom? Would we have them in
                      Australia?)
                      Thanks,
                      Fay
                    • Ian Rastall
                      ... Thanks. Glad it helped. ... It usually comes into play when you re messing around with CSS, and discovering what works in different browsers. That s just a
                      Message 10 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                      • 0 Attachment
                        On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 18:31:48 +1000, you wrote:

                        >Long explanations are usually careful and detailed, easier to understand and
                        >much appreciated.

                        Thanks. Glad it helped.

                        >I'll work on the matter of the two style sheets once I've conquered the
                        >earlier steps.

                        It usually comes into play when you're messing around with CSS, and
                        discovering what works in different browsers. That's just a technique
                        that will allow you to do two things at the same time, which saves a
                        lot of headache.

                        >(I haven't a clue what a "fungo" is. Is it a mushroom? Would we have them in
                        >Australia?)

                        I don't know what that means either. That's why I think it's so funny.
                        :)

                        Ian
                        --
                        That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                        with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                        http://www.aspipes.org/
                      • Ed Brown
                        ... From: Ian Rastall To: Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 2:58 AM Subject: Re: [NH] web pages and Netscape
                        Message 11 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                        • 0 Attachment
                          ----- Original Message -----
                          From: "Ian Rastall" <idrastall@...>
                          To: <ntb-html@yahoogroups.com>
                          Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 2:58 AM
                          Subject: Re: [NH] web pages and Netscape


                          On Fri, 19 Jul 2002 23:31:45 -0500, you wrote:

                          >You should always code for NS 4. The only thing wrong and it is not wrong,
                          >with NS 4 is that it demands that your coding be correct.

                          Writing valid HTML is crucial. NS4 doesn't handle CSS very well,
                          though. So if you're working with CSS, especially if you're trying to
                          do a site without using tables for layout, you end up having to do
                          workarounds.

                          On the main site that I run, I've managed to use one stylesheet for
                          all the browsers, and that's because I use tables for everything. (I
                          don't see that as very cool, but it's how I got everything to work.)
                          There are a couple things that don't show up in NS4, but the site
                          still works fine.

                          Ian
                          --
                          But there is many thousands still using NS 4. the question becomes do you
                          want them to read your pages?? Perhaps not. I do. I will use CSS and
                          still try to make the changes in styles that NS 4 can use or avoid styles
                          altogether on some pages. In many 3rd world countries they who have the
                          least pay more to get on the internet. In fact in some of the richer
                          countries people pay by the minute. Do you want them to see your pages?
                          This means the simplest designs will reach the most people. It seems that
                          simply design loads faster, prints better and the information is available
                          faster, so CSS is not the answer in many cases at least at the present time.
                          If you are working in a corporation and only trying to reach those on a
                          closed circuit and the capability is there for them to read your page then
                          you can do whatever seems good. I design for the masses and try to avoid
                          using anything that would slow down page loading including photos. I use
                          photos and lots of them, but I let people know this is a page with images so
                          that they can skip those. But every situation is different. If you design
                          only for a few segments of the population of the world then you do what is
                          best to reach those people. Or you can make two, three or even four
                          different pages and according to the browser send them to a page that they
                          can easily view. So as long as your site works fine for the few people that
                          you want to view your site, that is good, but remember it does not work
                          fine for those using NS 4, or 3. And I think maybe, there are still some
                          using NS 2. Does it work fine for reader browsers? And how does the large
                          population of males that are color blind see your site?
                          Ed
                        • Don Passenger
                          So @import is an external stylesheet, given local stylesheet precedence? ... I like to code to ns4 because at least until lately there were still a fair
                          Message 12 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                          • 0 Attachment
                            So @import is an external stylesheet, given local stylesheet precedence?

                            > <style type="text/css">
                            > @import "foo.css";
                            > </style>

                            I like to code to ns4 because at least until lately there were still a fair
                            percentage of users on it. Although now with Opera (which is also picky in
                            some ways -- or correct to standards if you prefer) and both 6.2 and 7.0 ns
                            out there, I think ns4 is beginning to slip away pretty fast. Some of the
                            reading I have been doing now suggests three sets of styles if you are doing
                            multiple styles. I personally try to avoid that, prefering to compromise
                            all a little in the interest of simplicity. Others may have more time or a
                            programmer on staff 8^)
                          • Ian Rastall
                            ... Ed, I get the feeling you re arguing with me. I m not going to do that. Ian -- That oughta be like hittin fungoes with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)
                            Message 13 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                            • 0 Attachment
                              On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 07:56:11 -0500, you wrote:

                              >But there is many thousands still using NS 4. the question becomes do you
                              >want them to read your pages?? Perhaps not. I do.

                              Ed, I get the feeling you're arguing with me. I'm not going to do
                              that.

                              Ian
                              --
                              That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                              with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                              http://www.aspipes.org/
                            • hsavage
                              ... them in ... Hi, For purposes of enlightenment, which is what these lists are about. hrs ... http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fungo fun·go
                              Message 14 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                              • 0 Attachment
                                > Fay wrote:
                                >
                                > Ian,
                                > I've copied yours into a text file and go over it carefully.
                                > I'll work on the matter of the two style sheets once I've conquered the
                                > earlier steps.

                                > (I haven't a clue what a "fungo" is. Is it a mushroom? Would we have
                                them in
                                > Australia?)
                                > Thanks,
                                > Fay
                                >

                                Hi,

                                For purposes of enlightenment, which is what these lists are about.

                                hrs

                                ----------
                                http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=fungo

                                fun·go Pronunciation Key (fngg) - the key didn't travel well.
                                n. Baseball pl. fun·goes

                                A fly ball hit for fielding practice by a player who tosses the ball up
                                and hits it on its way down with a long, thin, light bat.

                                [Origin unknown.]
                                ------------
                              • loro
                                ... It happens on the spot you put it, so to speak. The way the above is written, yes it would get the dignity of an embedded style sheet. If you import a
                                Message 15 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  At 15:34 2002.07.20, Don Passenger wrote:
                                  >So @import is an external stylesheet, given local stylesheet precedence?
                                  >
                                  > > <style type="text/css">
                                  > > @import "foo.css";
                                  > > </style>


                                  It happens on the spot you put it, so to speak. The way the above is
                                  written, yes it would get the dignity of an embedded style sheet. If you
                                  import a style sheet into another CSS document it would be the same as
                                  writing it at the top of that document in the first place.

                                  Lotta
                                • loro
                                  ... Ahem, the OP asked about CSS. There is everything wrong with Netscape 4 when it comes to CSS. Hiding the CSS it can t handle, as someone suggested, is a
                                  Message 16 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    At 06:31 2002.07.20, Ed Brown wrote:
                                    >You should always code for NS 4. The only thing wrong and it is not wrong,
                                    >with NS 4 is that it demands that your coding be correct.

                                    Ahem, the OP asked about CSS. There is everything wrong with Netscape 4
                                    when it comes to CSS. Hiding the CSS it can't handle, as someone
                                    suggested, is a way of protecting it from getting a totally unreadable
                                    document. It doesn't mean it won't get the content. It will, just more
                                    plain looking.

                                    Netscape this and IE that. That isn't what this is about. Sigh.

                                    Lotta
                                  • Ian Rastall
                                    ... Yeah, from what I understand. It s CSS1. So it s been in there from the beginning. It s just that nobody uses it. I mean, why bother, if you can choose
                                    Message 17 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 09:34:51 -0400, you wrote:

                                      >So @import is an external stylesheet, given local stylesheet precedence?

                                      Yeah, from what I understand. It's CSS1. So it's been in there from
                                      the beginning. It's just that nobody uses it. I mean, why bother, if
                                      you can choose between <link> and an inline style sheet.

                                      What I use it for is if I have one or two problems that can't be
                                      worked out with all browsers. (I'm talking CSS problems.) That second
                                      style sheet (the @import one) only needs to contain a couple things.
                                      Say you want to use absolute positioning, but you can't do that with
                                      NS4 because its support is so buggy. You can use "float", for
                                      instance, in your regular stylesheet, and then write in your second
                                      sheet:

                                      div.foo {float: none ! important; position: absolute; left: foopx;
                                      top: foopx;}

                                      and in that way, you've just used two different ways of positioning
                                      your div's, and it works across browsers. And I don't think the
                                      "important" part is needed, but I guess it pays to be careful. Anyone
                                      who tries to go "table-less" either has to use @import or just not
                                      code for Netscape, because using CSS for layout is pretty much
                                      impossible when the support is so buggy.

                                      I tried slogging through the W3C CSS1 page a while back, and gave up.
                                      They talk about inheritance on there, and I wouldn't be surprised if
                                      inline style over-rides @import, though why you would need 3
                                      stylesheets I have no idea.

                                      Ian
                                      --
                                      That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                                      with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                                      http://www.aspipes.org/
                                    • Ian Rastall
                                      ... That just about made my day. :) Ian -- That oughta be like hittin fungoes with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward) http://www.aspipes.org/
                                      Message 18 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 09:38:21 -0500, you wrote:

                                        >fun·go Pronunciation Key (fngg) - the key didn't travel well.
                                        >n. Baseball pl. fun·goes
                                        >
                                        >A fly ball hit for fielding practice by a player who tosses the ball up
                                        >and hits it on its way down with a long, thin, light bat.

                                        That just about made my day. :)

                                        Ian
                                        --
                                        That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                                        with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                                        http://www.aspipes.org/
                                      • loro
                                        ... Hey Stephen, where can I download that Etch-a-Sketch? It sounds like the thing I need right now and I promise that I ll at least try it once before I tell
                                        Message 19 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          At 01:55 2002.07.19, stephen riddle wrote:
                                          >Hover will not work in Netscape four, but then again it's a product from
                                          >before hover was invented. Hover also does not work on an Etcha-a-Sketch.
                                          >Think I'll start hating Etcha-a-Sketches!
                                          >Almost everything works on Netscape 6.
                                          >Good thing some folks actually try it.
                                          >Good Luck,
                                          >Stephen

                                          Hey Stephen, where can I download that Etch-a-Sketch? It sounds like the
                                          thing I need right now and I promise that I'll at least try it once before
                                          I tell newbies that it sucks.


                                          Lotta
                                        • Ed Brown
                                          No, not arguing, just not getting all my ducks in a row, but Adam Weston said it perfectly. Thanks Adam. Ed ... From: Ian Rastall
                                          Message 20 of 29 , Jul 20, 2002
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            No, not arguing, just not getting all my ducks in a row, but Adam Weston
                                            said it perfectly. Thanks Adam.
                                            Ed
                                            ----- Original Message -----
                                            From: "Ian Rastall" <idrastall@...>
                                            To: <ntb-html@yahoogroups.com>
                                            Sent: Saturday, July 20, 2002 9:10 AM
                                            Subject: Re: [NH] web pages and Netscape


                                            On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 07:56:11 -0500, you wrote:

                                            >But there is many thousands still using NS 4. the question becomes do you
                                            >want them to read your pages?? Perhaps not. I do.

                                            Ed, I get the feeling you're arguing with me. I'm not going to do
                                            that.

                                            Ian
                                            --
                                            That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                                            with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                                            http://www.aspipes.org/




                                            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
                                          • Ian Rastall
                                            ... That s interesting. I ll bet there s still people using IE 4.x, although I never take it into consideration. Probably the most common thing is to just use
                                            Message 21 of 29 , Jul 21, 2002
                                            • 0 Attachment
                                              On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 05:01:37 +0200, loro <loro@...> wrote:

                                              >http://pixels.pixelpark.com/~koch/hide_css_from_browsers/summary/

                                              That's interesting. I'll bet there's still people using IE 4.x,
                                              although I never take it into consideration. Probably the most common
                                              thing is to just use whatever browser came with your operating system.
                                              I doubt most people actually download browsers at all. Many people
                                              don't even know how to download.

                                              Does anyone here code for the AOL browser? Is that just Netscape?

                                              Ian
                                              --
                                              That oughta be like hittin' fungoes
                                              with a corked bat. (Nathaniel Ward)

                                              http://www.aspipes.org/
                                            • loro
                                              ... According to the often cited but probably not reliable stats of companies like thecounter Netscape4 has 4% and IE4 3%...
                                              Message 22 of 29 , Jul 21, 2002
                                              • 0 Attachment
                                                At 16:25 2002.07.21, Ian Rastall wrote:
                                                >On Sat, 20 Jul 2002 05:01:37 +0200, loro <loro@...> wrote:
                                                >
                                                > >http://pixels.pixelpark.com/~koch/hide_css_from_browsers/summary/
                                                >
                                                >That's interesting. I'll bet there's still people using IE 4.x,

                                                According to the often cited but probably not reliable stats of companies
                                                like thecounter Netscape4 has 4% and IE4 3%...
                                                http://www.thecounter.com/stats/2002/May/browser.php

                                                I think the reason that everyone's concern is Netscape 4 and not old
                                                browsers in general is partly due to the fact that many companies and
                                                institutions standardized on that browsers long ago and they often don't
                                                see a reason to change. IE4 is probably almost exclusively in private use.
                                                But I'm guessing about that.

                                                Another reason is of course that it's easy to test in Netscape of any
                                                version on Windows but not so easy with IE if you don't have the resources
                                                needed to set up several OS or buy one of those Virtual PC thingies. Same
                                                with Mac and *nix browsers.

                                                >Does anyone here code for the AOL browser? Is that just Netscape?

                                                Last I heard the Gecko was beta tested. So there is IE AOL and Gecko AOL.
                                                As I've heard the only problem is that image compression they are playing
                                                with though.

                                                Hey, I just downloaded a WebTV emulator. It's fun - and better than I
                                                though. :p

                                                Lotta
                                              • stephen riddle
                                                Hi All, I had something very witty to say, can t remember what it was, but yes, the AOL users are among the most problematic. AOL still does some rather odd
                                                Message 23 of 29 , Jul 21, 2002
                                                • 0 Attachment
                                                  Hi All,
                                                  I had something very witty to say, can't remember what it was, but yes, the
                                                  AOL users are among the most problematic. AOL still does some rather odd
                                                  things to web pages. Last I heard, AOL/Macintosh users had the most problems,
                                                  but anyone with a computer more than a year or two old using AOL, may be
                                                  having a browser that just barely does JavaScript and probably not CSS.
                                                  To check AOL out, go to aol.com and click webmaster info. You can browse to
                                                  a table which lists the AOL browsers currently in use. The range from IE3 to
                                                  IE5.5. I had heard that they used Netscape, but it does not look like it
                                                  (even though they own Netscape.) However, only 20% of their users have the
                                                  latest browser (IE6.6). 25% use IE5.0.
                                                  AOL also uses a proxy cache to control and manage their users internet use.
                                                  (Yes, they "guide" thier users, but you'll notice that hardly ever does spam
                                                  come from an AOL user.) This can do wierd things with graphics, but in
                                                  general should not cause intrinsic rendering dificulties.
                                                  T'care,
                                                  Stephen
                                                  > Does anyone here code for the AOL browser? Is that just Netscape?
                                                  >
                                                  > Ian
                                                Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.