[OS X] Making IE *go away*, and getting fonts.
Peter Seebach
to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
security holes.
Confronted with the horrible knowledge that OS X has only two monospaced
fonts (Monaco and Courier - and I suppose Courier New), I thought I'd click
on the "get fonts" option... which starts IE. I don't want to start IE.
Is there a way to get decent monospaced fonts without starting IE? In an
ideal world, I'd be able to get Lucida Typewriter, the font I've used in
X on Unix systems since the dawn of history (or at least, '95 or '96).
So, two questions:
1. How can I get fonts without running IE?
2. Is there a more general way to make IE go away and never darken my door
again? What is it with this system-provided widget that doesn't honor my
specified browser preferences?
-s
--
Copyright 2001, all wrongs reversed. Peter Seebach / se...@plethora.net
$ chmod a+x /bin/laden Please do not feed or harbor the terrorists.
C/Unix wizard, Pro-commerce radical, Spam fighter. Boycott Spamazon!
Consulting, computers, web hosting, and shell access: http://www.plethora.net/
ZnU
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> IE is not my default browser. I do not want to use IE. I do not want IE
> to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
> security holes.
>
> Confronted with the horrible knowledge that OS X has only two monospaced
> fonts (Monaco and Courier - and I suppose Courier New), I thought I'd click
> on the "get fonts" option... which starts IE. I don't want to start IE.
>
> Is there a way to get decent monospaced fonts without starting IE? In an
> ideal world, I'd be able to get Lucida Typewriter, the font I've used in
> X on Unix systems since the dawn of history (or at least, '95 or '96).
>
> So, two questions:
>
> 1. How can I get fonts without running IE?
You're not missing anything. "Get Fonts" just takes you to
<http://www.apple.com/fonts/buy/>, where you can't actually get any
fonts.
> 2. Is there a more general way to make IE go away and never darken my door
> again? What is it with this system-provided widget that doesn't honor my
> specified browser preferences?
It honers mine. Is it possible that IE really is your default browser?
The preference gets reset to IE if, for example, you delete one version
of your preferred browser and install another.
--
"We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial
flavors,and furniture polish is made from real lemons."
--Alfred E. Newman
Jerry Kindall
<se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> IE is not my default browser. I do not want to use IE. I do not want IE
> to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
> security holes.
Hey, don't just leave us hanging -- how about a list of those security
holes? I'd probably stop using IE if I discovered it was not secure.
Also, can you tell us precisely which files actually contain the slime?
--
Jerry Kindall, Seattle, WA
http://www.jerrykindall.com/
nnicoletis
> 2. Is there a more general way to make IE go away and never darken my door
> again? What is it with this system-provided widget that doesn't honor my
> specified browser preferences?
you have 2 choices:
1/ trash it
2/ stuff it and leave it on your hard disk, it will not show again :-)
--
nathalie nicoletis
ne...@nicoletis.com
Jeremy
> IE is not my default browser. I do not want to use IE. I do not want IE
> to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
> security holes.
Are you sure you're not carrying over some resentment from the world of
Windows? Do you realize that IE on Mac is *not* the same as IE on Windows?
That IE Mac is almost unimaginably better then IE Windows, and as actually
widely acknowledged to be quite possibly the best browser available, on
any platform? It's still got a few interesting "features", but by and
large, you probably shouldn't blame it for the shortcomings of its Windows
cousin.
> Confronted with the horrible knowledge that OS X has only two monospaced
> fonts (Monaco and Courier - and I suppose Courier New), I thought I'd click
> on the "get fonts" option... which starts IE. I don't want to start IE.
Don't worry about "get fonts". It's just a URL link to a page where you
can't get any fonts.
> Is there a way to get decent monospaced fonts without starting IE?
Decent monospaced fonts are hard to find. I still have yet to find the
Holy Grail of monospaced fonts, and I think that I shall soon get myself
a good font editor and make one. In the meantime, I find that Monaco
works well for me.
But yes, you can get fonts any way you like. OS X is, happily, not very
picky at all about what kind of fonts you want to use. You can use
Postscript or Truetype, Mac or Windows format.
> In an ideal world, I'd be able to get Lucida Typewriter, the font I've
> used in X on Unix systems since the dawn of history (or at least, '95
> or '96).
Well, you can get the real, honest-to-ghod Lucida Typewriter from Adobe.
Look here: http://www.adobe.com/type/browser/P/P_406.html
It's, um, not exactly cheap.
Alternatively, if you have a Lucida Typewriter on some other machine
which uses fonts in a compatible format, you can swipe it. I'm not at
all sure whether X11 fonts will work, but if you have it in Postscript,
it very well may and is probably worth a try.
> 1. How can I get fonts without running IE?
Install them in /Library/Fonts, or ~/Library/Fonts.
> 2. Is there a more general way to make IE go away and never darken my door
> again? What is it with this system-provided widget that doesn't honor my
> specified browser preferences?
Not sure about that, since IE is my default browser, but if it's just the
"get fonts" thing that is wrong, I wouldn't worry about it, since you can't
get fonts from there anyway.
--
Jeremy | jer...@exit109.com
Kevin_...@hotmail.com
> Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>
> > IE is not my default browser. I do not want to use IE. I do not want IE
> > to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
> > security holes.
>
> Are you sure you're not carrying over some resentment from the world of
> Windows? Do you realize that IE on Mac is *not* the same as IE on Windows?
> That IE Mac is almost unimaginably better then IE Windows, and as actually
> widely acknowledged to be quite possibly the best browser available, on
> any platform? It's still got a few interesting "features", but by and
> large, you probably shouldn't blame it for the shortcomings of its Windows
> cousin.
Sidebar:
a) Why doesn't IE honor my de-selection of the status bar? It returns
every time I open a new window.
b) Is there a way to fix the opening window size, rather than have it open
at the size of the last frigging ad pop-up window I killed?
TIA
KeS
Richard Weiss
"default browser"
Wes Groleau
> Jeeze, someone tell the man. System Preferences > Internet > Web tab > change
> "default browser"
Read his post:
> > > 2. Is there a more general way to make IE go away and never darken my door
> > > again? What is it with this system-provided widget that doesn't honor my
> > > specified browser preferences?
Mail doesn't honor them either.
--
Wes Groleau
http://freepages.rootsweb.com/~wgroleau
Wes Groleau
Select a URL link file.
Use Command-I or select Get Info from the menu.
change the info menu to "Open With"
Change IE to your favorite browser.
Apply to all.
Do the same with an HTML file.
Oddly, some icons will still look like IE though
they will open what you picked.
Unfortunately, new files pulled in on downloads
will still be identified as IE.
And if you are using Apple's Mail, links you click
in there will still open IE. Anyone know how to fix
that? I searched the plist files for a mention of
IE and didn't find one.
Peter Seebach
ZnU <z...@znu.dhs.org> wrote:
>It honers mine. Is it possible that IE really is your default browser?
>The preference gets reset to IE if, for example, you delete one version
>of your preferred browser and install another.
Ugh. It's possible. Maybe I need to delete IE entirely.
Yup! Good catch; I guess it reset when I upgraded iCab. What an annoying
thing! Thanks.
Peter Seebach
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>In article <3c54e64c$0$79557$3c09...@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach
><se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>> IE is not my default browser. I do not want to use IE. I do not want IE
>> to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
>> security holes.
>Hey, don't just leave us hanging -- how about a list of those security
>holes? I'd probably stop using IE if I discovered it was not secure.
IE has had more "remote site can execute code on your system" holes than
anything I can think of except *maybe* sendmail. There are fixes for a few
of these for IE 5.5 for Windows, but maybe not for other versions. Some
holes may only apply on one platform for another, but, well... I wouldn't want
to bet on it.
>Also, can you tell us precisely which files actually contain the slime?
The whole browser.
Peter Seebach
Jeremy <jer...@exit109.com> wrote:
>Are you sure you're not carrying over some resentment from the world of
>Windows?
It would be hard, considering that my sole Windows machine is a games
machine, and does nothing else.
>Do you realize that IE on Mac is *not* the same as IE on Windows?
It must not be, IE on Windows is just a naturally occurring feature of
the OS.
However, it's a Microsoft browser, carefully designed to encourage
pages to not run in any of my other browsers, and I'll never willingly
use it.
>That IE Mac is almost unimaginably better then IE Windows, and as actually
>widely acknowledged to be quite possibly the best browser available, on
>any platform?
It's also widely acknowledged that Windows is way better than the Mac, which
is why it has better market penetration.
"Widely acknowledged" buys me nothing. I will grudgingly tolerate Mozilla,
I rather like iCab, and I'm quite fond of Lynx.
>It's still got a few interesting "features", but by and
>large, you probably shouldn't blame it for the shortcomings of its Windows
>cousin.
I'm blaming it for being written by a company that, to the best of my
knowledge, has never written a *SINGLE* piece of software without obvious
and painful bugs. If I wanted Microsoft software, I'd be running Windows.
>Don't worry about "get fonts". It's just a URL link to a page where you
>can't get any fonts.
Ahh. Apple UI genius at work.
>Decent monospaced fonts are hard to find. I still have yet to find the
>Holy Grail of monospaced fonts, and I think that I shall soon get myself
>a good font editor and make one. In the meantime, I find that Monaco
>works well for me.
Someone kindly sent me a copy of a very nice font called "Lucida Typewriter" -
which is, oddly, totally and unrecognizably different from the "Lucida
Typewriter" that comes with an X distribution. I'll keep looking for the
one I really like.
>Alternatively, if you have a Lucida Typewriter on some other machine
>which uses fonts in a compatible format, you can swipe it. I'm not at
>all sure whether X11 fonts will work, but if you have it in Postscript,
>it very well may and is probably worth a try.
Unfortunately, X11 fonts are generally just bitmaps. *sigh*.
Peter Seebach
Richard Weiss <wee...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>Jeeze, someone tell the man. System Preferences > Internet > Web tab > change
>"default browser"
I knew that - what I didn't know was that it resets any time you upgrade
your other browser. :)
Paul McGrane
<Pine.GSO.4.43.020128...@adsl-66-125-9-242.dsl.sndg02
.pacbell.net>,
Kevin_...@hotmail.com wrote:
> b) Is there a way to fix the opening window size, rather than have it open
> at the size of the last frigging ad pop-up window I killed?
OmniWeb solves this problem, as well as many other IE annoyances.
However the system is frighteningly resilient about re-selecting IE as
the default web browser despite the user's intentions. Anytime I
replace OmniWeb with a newer version, the default browser is reset
(even though I copy and replace, which should interrupt neither
path-based or alias-based ways of locating it). I would like Apple to
make System Preferences more even-handed about listing available web
browsers and not foisting IE upon the few daring enough to reject it.
--
...Paul McGrane
dmeyer...@panix.com
> In article <3C557FF5...@pacbell.net>,
> Richard Weiss <wee...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >Jeeze, someone tell the man. System Preferences > Internet > Web tab > change
> >"default browser"
>
> I knew that - what I didn't know was that it resets any time you upgrade
> your other browser. :)
It's possible to fix it so that doesn't happen. There's a plist
that you have to edit (and I did it on my system) so that it never
defaults back to IE. Unfortunately, after a couple of minutes of
poking about my various prefs plists, I cannot recall which one
it was. (And that includes grepping various directories full).
If I remember, I'll post.
--d
--
Please don't use HTML in e-mail. Here's how not to:
http://support.pinehurst.net/email/nomime.html
Please don't require JavaScript on your web page. Here's why:
http://www.rahul.net/aahz/javascript.html
Kevin Stevens
<pmcg...@mac.com.REMOVETHIS.INVALID> wrote:
>In article
><Pine.GSO.4.43.020128...@adsl-66-125-9-242.dsl.sndg02
>.pacbell.net>,
> Kevin_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> b) Is there a way to fix the opening window size, rather than have it open
>> at the size of the last frigging ad pop-up window I killed?
>
>OmniWeb solves this problem, as well as many other IE annoyances.
How does OmniWeb solve a problem with IE?
Oh, I get it. You're using my problem to promulgate your own agenda. Gotcha.
I'm a licensed and registered OmniWeb owner. When it gets to the point
where it renders the web pages I use most, and doesn't crash within ten
minutes of use, I'll use it more regularly. Hopefully by then it will be
half as fast as IE is today.
KeS
Gordon Mulcaster
> 2. Is there a more general way to make IE go away and never darken
> my door again? What is it with this system-provided widget that
> doesn't honor my specified browser preferences?
Ummm, is there a reason you don't just drag it to the trash?
Jerry Kindall
<se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> In article <280120020024497802%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
> >In article <3c54e64c$0$79557$3c09...@news.plethora.net>, Peter Seebach
> ><se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> >> IE is not my default browser. I do not want to use IE. I do not want IE
> >> to so much as *start*, because it is a veritable pit of slime, laced with
> >> security holes.
>
> >Hey, don't just leave us hanging -- how about a list of those security
> >holes? I'd probably stop using IE if I discovered it was not secure.
>
> IE has had more "remote site can execute code on your system" holes than
> anything I can think of except *maybe* sendmail. There are fixes for a few
> of these for IE 5.5 for Windows, but maybe not for other versions. Some
> holes may only apply on one platform for another, but, well... I wouldn't want
> to bet on it.
Since they must share little if any code, having been developed by two
entirely separate teams and almost certainly by now little resembling
the Sypglass browser they are derived from, I don't see how they could
have exactly the same vulnerabilities. In many of the security
bulletins I've seen for Windows IE, it even explicitly states that the
Mac version is not affected.
Now, since Netscape uses largely the same code base on all platforms,
any security problem found in Netscape or Mozilla is likely to affect
the Mac in addition to Windows. Historically, in fact, I'd wager that
more security problems have been found in Netscape Mac browsers than in
Microsoft Mac browsers, for precisely this reason.
Mac IE doesn't offer ActiveX controls at all (well, technically it
does, but ActiveX controls contain platform-specific code, and there
simply aren't any ActiveX controls for the Mac), and its JavaScript
engine does not have the functionality that worries security and
privacy advocates.
Here's a scary thought: Since Mozilla is open-source, anyone could
build a bogus version that looks and acts just like the real Mozilla
but surrepetitiously gathers, say, credit card information and sends it
to some hax0r somewhere. Then they slip it into some shareware
archives, sit back, and let the contraband roll in. Worse, perhaps
someone figures out how to compromise the browser in such a way as to
allow an equally nasty exploit they have devised, but disguises their
hack well enough to get it included in the official Netscape 6.x
releases. Can you imagine the havoc that might wreak? How does
Mozilla.org prevent this from happening? The answer is, they don't and
they can't -- not without abandoning open source, which they are more
or less publicly dedicated to. It is a gaping security hole in their
development process, and one that I predict will eventually be
exploited.
There's no such thing as perfect security, of course, but Mac IE's
track record is as good as _any_ other widely-used browser and might
even be, historically speaking, better than Netscape's, if you actually
bothered to check. (I haven't myself, which is why I say "might.")
I can understand disliking Microsoft as a corporate entity, for a
multitude of reasons. You could say "I refuse to use IE because
Microsoft is an anti-competitive corporate bully" and I would not
object. But Mac IE does hold its own quite well against any browser on
any platform, except perhaps Opera 6 on Windows (O6 is truly a wonder
and I sincerely hope we eventually get it on Mac OS X), including in
security issues.
> >Also, can you tell us precisely which files actually contain the slime?
>
> The whole browser.
I tried grep, but it didn't find anything.
Wes Groleau
> OmniWeb solves this problem, as well as many other IE annoyances.
OmniWeb, for me, always opens to the same window size.
I ALWAYS have to stretch it to a more reasonable size.
> However the system is frighteningly resilient about re-selecting IE as
> the default web browser despite the user's intentions. Anytime I
> replace OmniWeb with a newer version, the default browser is reset
My preferences say OmniWeb is the default. But which
browser is opened by clicking on an HTML file is controlled
by a property of the file itself. This can be changed
in the Finder Info widget for that file.
Which browser is opened by clicking on a link in Mail
is apparently unaffected by changing the system default
in preferences. And I can find no way to change it
with Mail->Preferences.
Wes Groleau
> I'm a licensed and registered OmniWeb owner. When it gets to the point
> where it renders the web pages I use most, and doesn't crash within ten
> minutes of use, I'll use it more regularly. Hopefully by then it will be
> half as fast as IE is today.
You must be using most pages made for IE. I use OmniWeb,
but due to the preferences problem, also use IE 5.1 quite
a bit. Each has crashed ONCE for me, and neither is faster
than the other overall.
In other words, it's an even match. The tie-breaker
is the fact that one comes from M$.
dmeyer...@panix.com
> Which browser is opened by clicking on a link in Mail
> is apparently unaffected by changing the system default
> in preferences. And I can find no way to change it
> with Mail->Preferences.
It's controlled by the Internet->Web panel in System Prefs.
dmeyer...@panix.com
> Wes Groleau <wesgr...@despammed.com> writes:
>
> > Which browser is opened by clicking on a link in Mail
> > is apparently unaffected by changing the system default
> > in preferences. And I can find no way to change it
> > with Mail->Preferences.
>
> It's controlled by the Internet->Web panel in System Prefs.
Moreover, as I promised yesterday, I've dug up the info
about how to add OmniWeb to the pop-up in that panel, as
well as to force it to be the default (regardless of
IE and/or removing/updating Omniweb).
Here:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200110120742326
The short story is that it's controlled by:
/System/Library/PreferencePanes/Internet.prefPane/Contents/Resources/English.lproj/DefaultHelperApps.plist
And that browsers are "found" via the BundleIdentifier.
See the article for more details.
Kevin_...@hotmail.com
> > I'm a licensed and registered OmniWeb owner. When it gets to the point
> > where it renders the web pages I use most, and doesn't crash within ten
> > minutes of use, I'll use it more regularly. Hopefully by then it will be
> > half as fast as IE is today.
>
> You must be using most pages made for IE. I use OmniWeb,
> but due to the preferences problem, also use IE 5.1 quite
> a bit. Each has crashed ONCE for me, and neither is faster
> than the other overall.
Go browse eBay listings for fifteen minutes with OmniWeb. Random crashes
when opening listings. Same problem, essentially, on any listings page
where you repeatedly drill down and then come back to the original page.
Go to Hotmail and try to select multiple items for deletion with OmniWeb.
They select ok. Click delete. Nothing happens. Works with iCab and
Opera. Sandbox.com OmniWeb simply won't display half the time. iCab and
Opera are better. So it's hard to say it is IE-specific pages.
None are as fast rendering as IE.
> In other words, it's an even match. The tie-breaker
> is the fact that one comes from M$.
If that's your experience, great. I wish that Omni were satisfactory for
my use. It isn't.
None of this is responsive to my question about status bar in IE, BTW.
KeS
Eric Salathe
>
> > I'm a licensed and registered OmniWeb owner. When it gets to the point
> > where it renders the web pages I use most, and doesn't crash within ten
> > minutes of use, I'll use it more regularly. Hopefully by then it will be
> > half as fast as IE is today.
>
> You must be using most pages made for IE. I use OmniWeb,
> but due to the preferences problem, also use IE 5.1 quite
> a bit. Each has crashed ONCE for me, and neither is faster
> than the other overall.
Both have odd behaviors that keep me switching back and forth.
OmniWeb downloads files without launching the external application to
open them. If you have an embedded Quicktime animation, it will show it
fine (like the iMac now on Apples web page). If there is a link to a QT
file, however, it will just download it. IE will show it in an empty
browser window and begin to render the animation while downloading once
enough of the file has been buffered.
IE has trouble with some cgi pages. For example, clicking on any of the
product links at http://www.hotpoint.com/range_hood/index.htm will cause
IE to ask for an application to open the page. Navigator 6 has the same
problem. But OmniWeb handles them just fine -- as does Navigator on Unix
or Linux.
OmniWeb crashes a lot more than IE in my experience.
I somewhat prefer OmniWeb's Cocoa drawers and antialiasing to IE's
Explorer Bar and Carbon antialiasing.
IE's toolbar icons appear somewhat cleaner to me.
Eric Salathe
Peter Seebach
Concern that the Mac will spontaneously destroy its filesystem in a fit
of pique if I try to remove a "non-optional" component.
Peter Seebach
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>Since they must share little if any code, having been developed by two
>entirely separate teams and almost certainly by now little resembling
>the Sypglass browser they are derived from, I don't see how they could
>have exactly the same vulnerabilities. In many of the security
>bulletins I've seen for Windows IE, it even explicitly states that the
>Mac version is not affected.
Fascinating. Still, I don't trust it; MS has lied in the past about
security vulnerabilities, so I just plain don't trust their code.
>Now, since Netscape uses largely the same code base on all platforms,
>any security problem found in Netscape or Mozilla is likely to affect
>the Mac in addition to Windows. Historically, in fact, I'd wager that
>more security problems have been found in Netscape Mac browsers than in
>Microsoft Mac browsers, for precisely this reason.
Quite possibly, but at least you can turn the bulk of the stuff off.
>Mac IE doesn't offer ActiveX controls at all (well, technically it
>does, but ActiveX controls contain platform-specific code, and there
>simply aren't any ActiveX controls for the Mac), and its JavaScript
>engine does not have the functionality that worries security and
>privacy advocates.
Can it make pop-up windows? If so, I don't trust it.
>Here's a scary thought: Since Mozilla is open-source, anyone could
>build a bogus version that looks and acts just like the real Mozilla
>but surrepetitiously gathers, say, credit card information and sends it
>to some hax0r somewhere. Then they slip it into some shareware
>archives, sit back, and let the contraband roll in.
People have been saying this could happen for years, but it doesn't seem
to. It's basically Microsoft-sponsored FUD. In general, download sites
are careful about what gets put on 'em.
>Worse, perhaps
>someone figures out how to compromise the browser in such a way as to
>allow an equally nasty exploit they have devised, but disguises their
>hack well enough to get it included in the official Netscape 6.x
>releases. Can you imagine the havoc that might wreak? How does
>Mozilla.org prevent this from happening? The answer is, they don't and
>they can't -- not without abandoning open source, which they are more
>or less publicly dedicated to. It is a gaping security hole in their
>development process, and one that I predict will eventually be
>exploited.
Can you show me a single documented case of this happening to *ANY* open
source product, *EVER*? I haven't seen one, and I know enough about the
process to doubt that it'll happen.
>There's no such thing as perfect security, of course, but Mac IE's
>track record is as good as _any_ other widely-used browser and might
>even be, historically speaking, better than Netscape's, if you actually
>bothered to check. (I haven't myself, which is why I say "might.")
It might be pretty good historically - but I don't trust them.
>I can understand disliking Microsoft as a corporate entity, for a
>multitude of reasons. You could say "I refuse to use IE because
>Microsoft is an anti-competitive corporate bully" and I would not
>object. But Mac IE does hold its own quite well against any browser on
>any platform, except perhaps Opera 6 on Windows (O6 is truly a wonder
>and I sincerely hope we eventually get it on Mac OS X), including in
>security issues.
It may be pretty good. Still, MS covers up known vulnerabilities, and thus,
I have no reason to believe there aren't holes they simply haven't mentioned
yet.
Furthermore, I can offer a single definitive proof that IE sucks:
<MARQUEE>Whee.</MARQUEE>.
Wes Groleau
dmeyer...@panix.com wrote:
> Moreover, as I promised yesterday, I've dug up the info
> about how to add OmniWeb to the pop-up in that panel, as
> well as to force it to be the default (regardless of
> IE and/or removing/updating Omniweb).
>
> http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200110120742326
THANK YOU. I missed that promise, but I'm glad
you posted the URI. I'm also disturbed that I knew
enough to look in .plist files but must have mistyped
the command. Sigh....
Wes Groleau
> > Which browser is opened by clicking on a link in Mail
> > is apparently unaffected by changing the system default
> > in preferences. And I can find no way to change it
> > with Mail->Preferences.
>
> It's controlled by the Internet->Web panel in System Prefs.
My point is, IT IS NOT. I have set that many times.
I have toggled it to Explorer and back to OmniWeb
several times. Through it all, URIs in e-mails
continue to launch IE 5.1
Furthermore, I have used 'find' and 'grep -i'
to search for "explorer" in .plist files and
Resource directories, and haven't found it.
Speaking of the Internet preferences pane,
how cool is it that the default newsreader
is a program that has never existed ?!?
Wes Groleau
> Go browse eBay listings for fifteen minutes with OmniWeb. Random crashes
> when opening listings. Same problem, essentially, on any listings page
> where you repeatedly drill down and then come back to the original page.
I'll take your word for it. The kind of CRAP places like eBay put on
Web pages is certainly a good test of browser robustness. :-)
And OmniWeb is certainly a long way from being "complete."
> None of this is responsive to my question about status bar in IE, BTW.
True. And neither has much to do with the subject line. :-)
Ron Goodman
> Concern that the Mac will spontaneously destroy its filesystem in a fit
> of pique if I try to remove a "non-optional" component.
>
> -s
That's why OS X has those annoying permissions. Trash it!
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----
Kevin_...@hotmail.com
> > Go browse eBay listings for fifteen minutes with OmniWeb. Random crashes
> > when opening listings. Same problem, essentially, on any listings page
> > where you repeatedly drill down and then come back to the original page.
>
> I'll take your word for it. The kind of CRAP places like eBay put on
> Web pages is certainly a good test of browser robustness. :-)
> And OmniWeb is certainly a long way from being "complete."
Yes, but it's not just eBay. I suspect Omni has a problem that manifests
itself whenever you recursively delve into a page and then back out
multiple times. I really don't want to use IE; I deleted it from my
system initially. However, I've come to the conclusion that for my needs
it is so far superior to the other entries that there's no contest
presently.
> > None of this is responsive to my question about status bar in IE, BTW.
>
> True. And neither has much to do with the subject line. :-)
True again; I'll repost in another thread.
KeS
Kevin Michael Vail
<wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote:
> OmniWeb, for me, always opens to the same window size.
> I ALWAYS have to stretch it to a more reasonable size.
Stretch it once, then select "Save Window Size" from the Browser menu.
Apologies if you've already tried this and it doesn't work.
--
Kevin Michael Vail | a billion stars go spinning through the night,
ke...@vaildc.net | blazing high above your head.
. . . . . . . . . | But _in_ you is the presence that
. . . . . . . . . | will be, when all the stars are dead. (Rainer Maria Rilke)
Verne Arase
(in message <pmcgrane-45EF0C...@news.newsguy.com>):
> However the system is frighteningly resilient about re-selecting IE as
> the default web browser despite the user's intentions. Anytime I
> replace OmniWeb with a newer version, the default browser is reset
> (even though I copy and replace, which should interrupt neither
> path-based or alias-based ways of locating it). I would like Apple to
> make System Preferences more even-handed about listing available web
> browsers and not foisting IE upon the few daring enough to reject it.
Well, I'd imagine that if the system detects that the browser you've chosen
has vanished, it reverts to the one shipped with the system.
I don't find that unreasonable behavior.
Of course, I actually _like_ Internet Explorer. When Apple fixed the bug
which caused IE to die in 10.1.x (don't actually remeber which rev fixed the
font problem), I went back to it from OmniWeb.
Jerry Kindall
<se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> <MARQUEE>Whee.</MARQUEE>.
MARQUEE {display: none !important}
Put that in your user style sheet and alllll the scrolling text
disappears. ;)
dmeyer...@panix.com
> > > Which browser is opened by clicking on a link in Mail
> > > is apparently unaffected by changing the system default
> > > in preferences. And I can find no way to change it
> > > with Mail->Preferences.
> > It's controlled by the Internet->Web panel in System Prefs.
>
> My point is, IT IS NOT. I have set that many times.
> I have toggled it to Explorer and back to OmniWeb
Let me rephrase. It's _supposed_ to be. And on mine,
that's exactly how it works. IE only comes up if I
explicitly start IE. I click on a link in Mail.app and
Omniweb starts up (if necessary) and displays it.
> Speaking of the Internet preferences pane,
> how cool is it that the default newsreader
> is a program that has never existed ?!?
Isn't it OE? I dunno - I never looked at it. I read
news with gnus via emacs...
Wes Groleau
> Stretch it once, then select "Save Window Size" from the Browser menu.
>
> Apologies if you've already tried this and it doesn't work.
Ah, I never even looked for that. I am accustomed
to tools that save trivial things like that automatically.
Thanks.
Wes Groleau
> > Speaking of the Internet preferences pane,
> > how cool is it that the default newsreader
> > is a program that has never existed ?!?
>
> Isn't it OE? I dunno - I never looked at it. I read
> news with gnus via emacs...
Yes, it's OE. Which does not exist for OS X.
ZnU
Wes Groleau <wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote:
> > Stretch it once, then select "Save Window Size" from the Browser menu.
> >
> > Apologies if you've already tried this and it doesn't work.
>
> Ah, I never even looked for that. I am accustomed
> to tools that save trivial things like that automatically.
> Thanks.
Saving this sort of thing automatically isn't the greatest idea. IE does
that, for example, and the problem is that if some website opens a small
pop-up window, the next new window you create in IE will be the same
size.
--
"We are living in a world today where lemonade is made from artificial
flavors,and furniture polish is made from real lemons."
--Alfred E. Newman
Peter Seebach
Wes Groleau <wesgr...@despammed.com> wrote:
>Ah, I never even looked for that. I am accustomed
>to tools that save trivial things like that automatically.
I am too, and I hate them with a passion. I want to tell my browser
"this is the size and position of the first window you open", not have it
use the last window I closed (often a pop-up).
Wes Groleau
> Saving this sort of thing automatically isn't the greatest idea. IE does
> that, for example, and the problem is that if some website opens a small
> pop-up window, the next new window you create in IE will be the same
> size.
I see the point. But Netscape on windows always opens to the
size of the last window up when I last quit. And new windows
seem to go to that size.
declan_...@hotmail.com
>Subject: Re: [OS X] Making IE *go away*, and getting fonts.
>From: Paul McGrane <pmcg...@mac.com.REMOVETHIS.INVALID>
>Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 20:45:56 -0500
>
>In article
><Pine.GSO.4.43.020128...@adsl-66-125-9-242.dsl.sndg02
>.pacbell.net>,
> Kevin_...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>> b) Is there a way to fix the opening window size, rather than have it open
>> at the size of the last frigging ad pop-up window I killed?
>
>OmniWeb solves this problem, as well as many other IE annoyances.
>
>However the system is frighteningly resilient about re-selecting IE as
>the default web browser despite the user's intentions. Anytime I
>replace OmniWeb with a newer version, the default browser is reset
>(even though I copy and replace, which should interrupt neither
>path-based or alias-based ways of locating it). I would like Apple to
>make System Preferences more even-handed about listing available web
>browsers and not foisting IE upon the few daring enough to reject it.
>
>--
>...Paul McGrane
Until Apple is more even-handed, you can make any browser you choose to be the default, and add as many browsers to the selector as you wish. See this article:
http://www.macosxhints.com/article.php?story=200110120742326
Gordon Mulcaster
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <gozer-A540D2....@clgrps10.telusplanet.net>,
> Gordon Mulcaster <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Ummm, is there a reason you don't just drag it to the trash?
>
> Concern that the Mac will spontaneously destroy its filesystem in a
> fit of pique if I try to remove a "non-optional" component.
:-)
Gordon Mulcaster
Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> I can understand disliking Microsoft as a corporate entity, for a
> multitude of reasons. You could say "I refuse to use IE because
> Microsoft is an anti-competitive corporate bully" and I would not
> object. But Mac IE does hold its own quite well against any browser
> on any platform, except perhaps Opera 6 on Windows (O6 is truly a
> wonder and I sincerely hope we eventually get it on Mac OS X),
> including in security issues.
Until IE supports image filters, java script filters and handles
cookies* at least as well as iCab, I won't be using it. The fact that it
comes from MS (and therefore is subject to serious security and privacy
issues) is secondary.
* That's the short list, see http://www.icab.de
Gordon Mulcaster
Paul McGrane <pmcg...@mac.com.REMOVETHIS.INVALID> wrote:
> However the system is frighteningly resilient about re-selecting IE
> as the default web browser despite the user's intentions. Anytime I
> replace OmniWeb with a newer version, the default browser is reset
> (even though I copy and replace, which should interrupt neither
> path-based or alias-based ways of locating it).
That will totally destroy alias based locating, of course the system
should then "fix" it based on the path.
Gordon Mulcaster
Verne Arase <VAr...@pobox.com> wrote:
> Well, I'd imagine that if the system detects that the browser you've
> chosen has vanished, it reverts to the one shipped with the system.
>
> I don't find that unreasonable behavior.
When I've replaced it with a later version with the same name and in the
same location that is unreasonable behaviour.
> Of course, I actually _like_ Internet Explorer.
Professional help is available.
Verne Arase
(in message <gozer-B625AC....@clgrps10.telusplanet.net>):
>> Well, I'd imagine that if the system detects that the browser you've
>> chosen has vanished, it reverts to the one shipped with the system.
>>
>> I don't find that unreasonable behavior.
>
> When I've replaced it with a later version with the same name and in the
> same location that is unreasonable behaviour.
The persistant change is probably made when the old choice is no longer
available.
>> Of course, I actually _like_ Internet Explorer.
>
> Professional help is available.
At least it renders most web sites readibly and reliably - unlike a lot of
other browsers.
Faster than most, too.
Peter Seebach
Gordon Mulcaster <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>Until IE supports image filters, java script filters and handles
>cookies* at least as well as iCab, I won't be using it. The fact that it
>comes from MS (and therefore is subject to serious security and privacy
>issues) is secondary.
I generally agree, although the privacy issues are a big one for me.
Still, iCab is great. On OS X, it even handles secure sites; it doesn't
work well on OS 9, because URL Access is a misbegotten son of a badly-coded
goat. With that one feature fixed, well, you can bet I'll be buying the
"final" version.
Gordon Mulcaster
se...@plethora.net (Peter Seebach) wrote:
> In article <gozer-13FED2....@clgrps10.telusplanet.net>,
> Gordon Mulcaster <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > Until IE supports image filters, java script filters and handles
> > cookies* at least as well as iCab, I won't be using it. The fact
> > that it comes from MS (and therefore is subject to serious security
> > and privacy issues) is secondary.
>
> I generally agree, although the privacy issues are a big one for me.
I said secondary, not unimportant.
> Still, iCab is great. On OS X, it even handles secure sites; it
> doesn't work well on OS 9, because URL Access is a misbegotten son of
> a badly-coded goat. With that one feature fixed, well, you can bet
> I'll be buying the "final" version.
I already bought my copy...
zoara
Seconded, though with OmniWeb, not iCab.
I never realised how irritating adverts were.... until I turned them all
off. ALL OF THEM!! BWAAAAAH-HAAA-HAAA-HAAA! Watch me destroy the foul
stench of advertising with my browser of power!
*ahem*
Anyone remember the days when web pages *didn't* have huge great
animated adverts right in the middle of every article?
-z-
--
The devil may have the best tunes, but his operating system sucks.
Are you posting responses that are easy for others to follow?
http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2000/06/14/quoting
zoara
> >> Of course, I actually _like_ Internet Explorer.
> >
> > Professional help is available.
>
> At least it renders most web sites readibly and reliably - unlike a lot of
> other browsers.
Sick, twisted, spawn of Satan!
Okay, but seriously... a hefty part of the reason for this is because MS
has so effectively forced IE down the throats of the majority of the
computing community. This encourages Bad Coding Practices - coding to
the bugs found in IE's rendering engine.
At least when there *isn't* a dominant browser, coders are forced to
ensure that they code to widely accepted and adopted standards, to
ensure that the page is viewable by the highest number of people
possible.
> Faster than most, too.
That's as maybe.
ZnU
n...@all.valid (zoara) wrote:
> Gordon Mulcaster <go...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <290120020126108902%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> > Jerry Kindall <jerryk...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> >
> > > I can understand disliking Microsoft as a corporate entity, for a
> > > multitude of reasons. You could say "I refuse to use IE because
> > > Microsoft is an anti-competitive corporate bully" and I would not
> > > object. But Mac IE does hold its own quite well against any browser
> > > on any platform, except perhaps Opera 6 on Windows (O6 is truly a
> > > wonder and I sincerely hope we eventually get it on Mac OS X),
> > > including in security issues.
> >
> > Until IE supports image filters, java script filters and handles
> > cookies* at least as well as iCab, I won't be using it. The fact that it
> > comes from MS (and therefore is subject to serious security and privacy
> > issues) is secondary.
>
> Seconded, though with OmniWeb, not iCab.
>
> I never realised how irritating adverts were.... until I turned them all
> off. ALL OF THEM!! BWAAAAAH-HAAA-HAAA-HAAA! Watch me destroy the foul
> stench of advertising with my browser of power!
>
> *ahem*
>
> Anyone remember the days when web pages *didn't* have huge great
> animated adverts right in the middle of every article?
I remember being impressed the first time I saw a GIF animation. They
were a new relatively obscure but cool feature in Netscape. I was
impressed at the time. Little did I know....
Jerry Kindall
<n...@all.valid> wrote:
> Verne Arase <VAr...@pobox.com> wrote:
>
> > >> Of course, I actually _like_ Internet Explorer.
> > >
> > > Professional help is available.
> >
> > At least it renders most web sites readibly and reliably - unlike a lot of
> > other browsers.
>
> Sick, twisted, spawn of Satan!
>
> Okay, but seriously... a hefty part of the reason for this is because MS
> has so effectively forced IE down the throats of the majority of the
> computing community. This encourages Bad Coding Practices - coding to
> the bugs found in IE's rendering engine.
Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
the first to market with world-class standards support?
IE does have a mode where it (intentionally) emulates _Netscape's_
bugs. But if you include a strict doctype, it is pretty damn good.
For a long time it was the best. Mozilla/Netscape 6 may finally have
matched it, although that's certainly not to say that that browser
doesn't have bugs of its own.
Peter Seebach
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
>the first to market with world-class standards support?
No, the one which carefully extended the standards, and was used as a wedge
to drive people away from code that would work in other browsers. Embrace
and extend, and all that.
What do you mean by "world-class standards support"? Will IE warn me when
a page's code is invalid? iCab will.
Matt McLeod
Peter Seebach <se...@plethora.net> wrote:
>In article <040220022200441467%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
>Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>>Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
>>the first to market with world-class standards support?
>
>No, the one which carefully extended the standards, and was used as a wedge
>to drive people away from code that would work in other browsers. Embrace
>and extend, and all that.
Netscape behaved in much the same way. If anything, they were doing
precisely that kind of thing long before Microsoft even admitted that this
Innernut thing might just be a better bet than The Microsoft Network.
W3C standards have a long and dishonourable history of being completely
ignored by both the major browser vendors. It's only relatively recently
that both of them have decided that standards-compliance, rather than adding
atrocities like the MARQUEE tag, might just be a selling point.
>What do you mean by "world-class standards support"? Will IE warn me when
>a page's code is invalid? iCab will.
As will lynx.
--
I saw part of a telecast of some Wagner opera or other on TV one time. It
took two characters the best part of an hour to say "Oh! Hello!" to each
other. At that point I turned it off, even though I was in grave danger of
missing the first five or six minutes of "How're you doing?" -- Dave Brown
Jerry Kindall
> In article <040220022200441467%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
> >Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
> >the first to market with world-class standards support?
>
> No, the one which carefully extended the standards, and was used as a wedge
> to drive people away from code that would work in other browsers. Embrace
> and extend, and all that.
Can you give an example of a Web standard which Mac IE "embraced and
extended" in any significant way? (Something like <MARQUEE> doesn't
count; nobody uses IE just so they can see annoying scrolly text.)
> What do you mean by "world-class standards support"? Will IE warn me when
> a page's code is invalid? iCab will.
And once iCab has warned you about bad HTML on a site, what are you
supposed to do about it -- fix it for them? It's visual clutter that
provides no real end-user functionality. iCab is full of stuff like
that; they spent their time on geeky tweaky features instead of a good
rendering engine. Which is fine if you want the geeky tweaky features
more than standards support. Some people like that.
IE supports more of CSS than iCab (or any browser other than
Mozilla/Netscape 6) does, and it does it pretty much by the book. iCab
fails many CSS1 rendering tests, never mind CSS2. IE5 supports nearly
all of CSS1 and parts of CSS2, and was the first browser on any
platform to include CSS support so extensive. It also adheres strictly
to HTML 4 rendering when in "strict mode" (toggled by doctype), while
including a "Netscape bug emulation mode" for backward compatibility
with pages authored for Netscape 4.x. IE has since been surpassed by
Mozilla in standards support, I think, but it held the lead for a long,
long time. iCab really isn't even in that race yet.
Matthew Russotto
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
><n...@all.valid> wrote:
>
>> Okay, but seriously... a hefty part of the reason for this is because MS
>> has so effectively forced IE down the throats of the majority of the
>> computing community. This encourages Bad Coding Practices - coding to
>> the bugs found in IE's rendering engine.
>
>Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
>the first to market with world-class standards support?
I think he's referring to IE on Windows, before version 6 (I know
nothing about IE 6 for Windows)
--
Matthew T. Russotto mrus...@speakeasy.net
=====
Dmitry is free, but the DMCA survives. DMCA delenda est!
"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice, and moderation in pursuit
of justice is no virtue."
Jerry Kindall
<russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> In article <040220022200441467%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
> >In article <1f71oqh.17t3wv1vp3qtfN%n...@all.valid>, zoara
> ><n...@all.valid> wrote:
> >
> >> Okay, but seriously... a hefty part of the reason for this is because MS
> >> has so effectively forced IE down the throats of the majority of the
> >> computing community. This encourages Bad Coding Practices - coding to
> >> the bugs found in IE's rendering engine.
> >
> >Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
> >the first to market with world-class standards support?
>
> I think he's referring to IE on Windows, before version 6 (I know
> nothing about IE 6 for Windows)
But the topic of discussion is IE on Mac OS X. Why would he be talking
about the Windows version?
IE 6 for Windows seems to be on par with IE 5 for Mac in standards
compliance, but I like Opera for Windows better.
Wes Groleau
> all of CSS1 and parts of CSS2, and was the first browser on any
> platform to include CSS support so extensive. It also adheres strictly
That's not what the Opera fans claim.
One thing I know about IE and CSS. When first
I put SIMPLE CSS on my web site, I got soundly
chewed out by an IE users, because even though
my web pages were purely English, and the CSS
was actually copied from a W3C spec, it caused
IE to retrieve and install a plug-in to support
bi-directional text and completely hose up the
rendering.
On the other hand, Netscape 3.x up to 4.79
STILL completely screws up the inheritance
rules for CSS.
Matthew Russotto
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>In article <u601tm6...@corp.supernews.com>, Matthew Russotto
><russ...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <040220022200441467%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
>> Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>> >In article <1f71oqh.17t3wv1vp3qtfN%n...@all.valid>, zoara
>> ><n...@all.valid> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Okay, but seriously... a hefty part of the reason for this is because MS
>> >> has so effectively forced IE down the throats of the majority of the
>> >> computing community. This encourages Bad Coding Practices - coding to
>> >> the bugs found in IE's rendering engine.
>> >
>> >Oh, you mean the highly-standards-compliant rendering engine which was
>> >the first to market with world-class standards support?
>>
>> I think he's referring to IE on Windows, before version 6 (I know
>> nothing about IE 6 for Windows)
>
>But the topic of discussion is IE on Mac OS X. Why would he be talking
>about the Windows version?
Because he's referring to the "majority of the computing community",
which isn't us Mac users unfortunately.
Peter Seebach
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>Can you give an example of a Web standard which Mac IE "embraced and
>extended" in any significant way? (Something like <MARQUEE> doesn't
>count; nobody uses IE just so they can see annoying scrolly text.)
Go back and look at old Frontpage output.
>And once iCab has warned you about bad HTML on a site, what are you
>supposed to do about it -- fix it for them? It's visual clutter that
>provides no real end-user functionality.
It's very helpful when a page doesn't work to have some feedback as to
what may have gone wrong.
And, at least once, I *have* fixed a page, because it was the processing
section for downloading a software package, and I needed to fix it to get
through it.
>iCab is full of stuff like
>that; they spent their time on geeky tweaky features instead of a good
>rendering engine. Which is fine if you want the geeky tweaky features
>more than standards support. Some people like that.
IE's "support" for standards includes carefully trying to make sure that
special Microsoft extensions look their best, and everything else sucks
a little.
>IE supports more of CSS than iCab (or any browser other than
>Mozilla/Netscape 6) does, and it does it pretty much by the book.
Wonderful. It also does VBScript, ActiveX, and MARQUEE.
>iCab fails many CSS1 rendering tests, never mind CSS2. IE5 supports nearly
>all of CSS1 and parts of CSS2, and was the first browser on any
>platform to include CSS support so extensive.
And yet, I can read most pages in iCab, and a lot of pages are unreadable
in IE.
>It also adheres strictly
>to HTML 4 rendering when in "strict mode" (toggled by doctype), while
>including a "Netscape bug emulation mode" for backward compatibility
>with pages authored for Netscape 4.x. IE has since been surpassed by
>Mozilla in standards support, I think, but it held the lead for a long,
>long time. iCab really isn't even in that race yet.
iCab can read just about everything I've tried.
Browse in a browser other than IE. Sooner or later, you'll find pages
rendered in 3-point type. Why? Because, in IE, it gets expanded and it
looks readable, and you have to specify it that way to make it come out okay.
IE has carefully tweaked its interface so that a site designed to work in IE
can't be used reasonably in other browsers. That's embrace-and-extend.
Go do your own research. IE's standards "support" is like the "POSIX support"
in NT; there for checklist purposes, totally unusable in practice.
Wes Groleau
> >Can you give an example of a Web standard which Mac IE "embraced and
> >extended" in any significant way? (Something like <MARQUEE> doesn't
> >count; nobody uses IE just so they can see annoying scrolly text.)
>
> Go back and look at old Frontpage output.
Can't blame IE for that. IE was unable to render
some of the output of FrontPage in those days.
(Which, when you think about it, is an indictment
of the company that produced both products)
Peter Seebach
>Can't blame IE for that. IE was unable to render
>some of the output of FrontPage in those days.
You can blame IE for being the basis of the attempt to create "special"
output that would work better in IE than other browsers. Of course, if you
have a slightly old system, you can't even upgrade to a current version of
IE - Microsoft's page requires a current version before you can get to the
download page to get the current version.
>(Which, when you think about it, is an indictment
>of the company that produced both products)
Yes.
Jerry Kindall
<se...@plethora.net> wrote:
> In article <050220020030035494%jerryk...@nospam.invalid>,
> Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
> >Can you give an example of a Web standard which Mac IE "embraced and
> >extended" in any significant way? (Something like <MARQUEE> doesn't
> >count; nobody uses IE just so they can see annoying scrolly text.)
>
> Go back and look at old Frontpage output.
Dude, output from early FrontPage was _equally_ broken on Netscape and
IE. That thing reeked.
> IE's "support" for standards includes carefully trying to make sure that
> special Microsoft extensions look their best, and everything else sucks
> a little.
>
> >IE supports more of CSS than iCab (or any browser other than
> >Mozilla/Netscape 6) does, and it does it pretty much by the book.
>
> Wonderful. It also does VBScript, ActiveX, and MARQUEE.
IE/Mac does not do VBScript. It technically does do ActiveX, but there
are no ActiveX controls for Mac, and probably never will be, so it's a
moot point. MARQUEE we've already dismissed as being something nobody
would bother upgrading their browser to get.
So out of the three things you mentioned, exactly none of them are
relevant to your argument, since we are in fact discussing the level of
standards compliance in the Mac version of IE. Try again?
> >iCab fails many CSS1 rendering tests, never mind CSS2. IE5 supports nearly
> >all of CSS1 and parts of CSS2, and was the first browser on any
> >platform to include CSS support so extensive.
>
> And yet, I can read most pages in iCab, and a lot of pages are unreadable
> in IE.
Funny, it's the other way around for me. But then, we probably just
visit different sites.
Here's an excellent example of what I'm talking about:
http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.html
Mozilla: Yep. IE 5.1 Mac: Yep. OmniWeb: Nope. iCab: Nope, but much
closer than it used to be.
All code on that page validates 100% to standards (a few warnings on
the CSS, but no errors).
Your first argument was that IE didn't support standards. Then your
argument shifted to "well, it supports standards, but extends them to
show favor to IE." That wasn't _my_ statement at all, but in any case,
for a true standards-compliant page such as the one above, IE renders
it basically identically to Mozilla (because both browsers adhere
closely to standards).
> >It also adheres strictly
> >to HTML 4 rendering when in "strict mode" (toggled by doctype), while
> >including a "Netscape bug emulation mode" for backward compatibility
> >with pages authored for Netscape 4.x. IE has since been surpassed by
> >Mozilla in standards support, I think, but it held the lead for a long,
> >long time. iCab really isn't even in that race yet.
>
> iCab can read just about everything I've tried.
>
> Browse in a browser other than IE. Sooner or later, you'll find pages
> rendered in 3-point type. Why? Because, in IE, it gets expanded and it
> looks readable, and you have to specify it that way to make it come out okay.
No, it's because IE converts point-size measures to pixel-size measures
at 96DPI, _in_adherence_to_the_spec._ (In Mac IE you can change this,
but you shouldn't, because most pages _are_ authored to the spec and
will render text at three points tall, as you note, if you change it.)
And, hmm, wouldn't rendering type at the correct size make IE _more_
readable than browsers that don't support current specs, contrary to
your assertion above? Although it looks like iCab is doing it
correctly now; good for them.
> IE has carefully tweaked its interface so that a site designed to work in IE
> can't be used reasonably in other browsers. That's embrace-and-extend.
>
> Go do your own research. IE's standards "support" is like the "POSIX support"
> in NT; there for checklist purposes, totally unusable in practice.
I have done my own research. I've just done more than you, is all, and
have therefore reached different conclusions. How many Web sites have
you designed for paying clients again? I did my first one in 1995 and
did one as recently as last year (my current job does not involve Web
development), and all my sites have been developed without the aid of a
WYSIWYG tool. Not that argument from authority proves anything, but if
you want to play the "you would agree completely with me if you were
really informed" game, I'm certainly willing!
Again, I'm not saying Microsoft has never attempted to "embrace and
extend" the Web with IE. However, as far as I can tell, that strategy
has failed and they are now producing highly standards-compliant
browsers. My initial statement was that Mac IE is highly
standards-compliant, more so than any alternative browser aside from
Mozilla, and that adherence to standards is a good thing. Mac IE's
adherence to a given standard can be objectively tested, and it does
very well. Now that Mozilla and Opera 6 both have good standards
support, nobody gains anything by authoring pages with IE-specific
markup, because sticking to the standards is actually easier and
produces more predictable results across multiple browsers and
platforms. This allows browser developers to begin competing on
features other than markup support, which is certainly a welcome
change.
Peter Seebach
Jerry Kindall <use...@jerrykindall.com> wrote:
>So out of the three things you mentioned, exactly none of them are
>relevant to your argument, since we are in fact discussing the level of
>standards compliance in the Mac version of IE. Try again?
IE is hostile to standardization. It sucks. It's insecure.
>Your first argument was that IE didn't support standards.
Not exactly. It's hostile to them. MS carefully adopted Kerberos - ensuring
that their version was subtly incompatible with everyone else's. They adopted
TCP/IP, and PPP - and in both cases, they have special "extensions" which make
MS systems talk to each other just a *little* bit better than to everyone
else.
It may well handle standard-compliant code tolerably - but it's still
hostile to standardization.
>> Browse in a browser other than IE. Sooner or later, you'll find pages
>> rendered in 3-point type. Why? Because, in IE, it gets expanded and it
>> looks readable, and you have to specify it that way to make it come out okay.
>No, it's because IE converts point-size measures to pixel-size measures
>at 96DPI, _in_adherence_to_the_spec._ (In Mac IE you can change this,
>but you shouldn't, because most pages _are_ authored to the spec and
>will render text at three points tall, as you note, if you change it.)
I think you've got this backwards. I'm working on a 150dpi or so display.
Sites that are "optimized for IE" tend to specify point sizes that look okay
in IE - and look horrible in other browsers, because my display is set to
a very high resolution.
>And, hmm, wouldn't rendering type at the correct size make IE _more_
>readable than browsers that don't support current specs, contrary to
>your assertion above? Although it looks like iCab is doing it
>correctly now; good for them.
If that were the case, I'd expect that IE would also get the unreadable
effect - but apparently, all the IE users think these sites are easy to
read.
>I have done my own research. I've just done more than you, is all, and
>have therefore reached different conclusions. How many Web sites have
>you designed for paying clients again?
Not many. On the other hand, I'm a usability columnist. :)
>WYSIWYG tool. Not that argument from authority proves anything, but if
>you want to play the "you would agree completely with me if you were
>really informed" game, I'm certainly willing!
:) You obviously have different goals than I do.
>Again, I'm not saying Microsoft has never attempted to "embrace and
>extend" the Web with IE. However, as far as I can tell, that strategy
>has failed and they are now producing highly standards-compliant
>browsers.
I don't think that's true at all. That strategy *worked* - that's why so
many sites are carefully designed not to work *except* in IE. Not because
the designer has ever heard of a standard, or the code is standardized, but
because MS pushed solutions that were known not to be widely reliable, and
encouraged people to use code that only worked in one browser.
>My initial statement was that Mac IE is highly
>standards-compliant, more so than any alternative browser aside from
>Mozilla, and that adherence to standards is a good thing.
Adherence to standards is, in general, a good thing. However, the kind of
"adherence" Microsoft engages in is actually, in the long run, destructive
of standardization.
>very well. Now that Mozilla and Opera 6 both have good standards
>support, nobody gains anything by authoring pages with IE-specific
>markup, because sticking to the standards is actually easier and
>produces more predictable results across multiple browsers and
>platforms. This allows browser developers to begin competing on
>features other than markup support, which is certainly a welcome
>change.
Yes, it would be. As soon as IE can be told to warn people when a page may
not work well in other browsers, rather than encouraging non-portable
constructions, it'll be a good tool. For now, anyone who makes the mistake
of "testing" pages in IE is only contributing to the Microsoft hegemony.
People gain something very important by writing for IE: Microsoft has managed
to pay Apple enough to get it included as the default on MacOS, and has
strong-armed PC vendors into not bundling Netscape, so they have a huge market
share lead, carefully built on a foundation of incompatible extensions, and
they're still pushing people to ignore the standards and write code that only
works in IE.
Wes Groleau
> because MS pushed solutions that were known not to be widely reliable, and
> encouraged people to use code that only worked in one browser.
And then when someone complains that something generated by
an MS product won't work in Netscape or on an Apache web server,
Microsoft has the audacity to blame it on the other guy
not implementing the standard. (They don't tell you that
they define "standard" as "the secret protocol that we
created and that we change everytime someone else figures
it out.")
Wes Groleau
> have a slightly old system, you can't even upgrade to a current version of
> IE - Microsoft's page requires a current version before you can get to the
> download page to get the current version.
When I first got the iMac (OS 9) I immediately
deleted Outlook Express and most of the IE stuff.
Then I noticed that Netscape was version 4.6.
Since I knew that 4.75 was available. I tried
to upgrade and couldn't. NS 4.6 was incapable
of upgrading itself! I had to resurrect IE
in order to upgrade netscape!