Q.: for testing HTML browser-rendering, ... ?

[tlvp]

A web site <http://utilu.com/IECollection/> offers its Utilu collection
(50+ MB worth) of stand-alone IE browsers for site spinners hoping to see
how their creations render under older versions (1-8) of IE. Their pitch:

: Utilu IE Collection contains multiple standalone versions of the
: browser Internet Explorer, which can be used at the same time.

My question(s): have you any experience with that suite of IE versions? If
so, would you encourage or discourage its use (and why)? Thank you!

Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[David E. Ross]

I prefer to test my Web pages with the W3C tools:
<http://validator.w3.org/> for HTML
<http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/> for CSS

I feel it is the responsibility of the browser developers to make their
browsers compliant with the W3C specifications and not my responsibility
to make my Web pages compliant with their browser's quirks.

--
David E. Ross

Pharmaceutical companies claim their drug prices are
so high because they have to recover the costs of developing
those drugs. Two questions:

1. Why is the U.S. paying the entire cost of development while
prices for the same drugs in other nations are much lower?

2. Manufacturers of generic drugs did not have those
development costs. Why are they charging so much for generics?

[Barry Margolin]

In article <n41l06$f3i$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> I feel it is the responsibility of the browser developers to make their
> browsers compliant with the W3C specifications and not my responsibility
> to make my Web pages compliant with their browser's quirks.

Since old versions of browsers don't have developers any more, how do
you expect that to happen? IE8 isn't going to get any more
W3C-compliant, no matter what you feel. So you either deal with its
quirks, or tell your users to switch browsers.

--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE post questions in newsgroups, not directly to me ***

[David E. Ross]

On 12/6/2015 9:36 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> In article <n41l06$f3i$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>
>> I feel it is the responsibility of the browser developers to make their
>> browsers compliant with the W3C specifications and not my responsibility
>> to make my Web pages compliant with their browser's quirks.
>
> Since old versions of browsers don't have developers any more, how do
> you expect that to happen? IE8 isn't going to get any more
> W3C-compliant, no matter what you feel. So you either deal with its
> quirks, or tell your users to switch browsers.
>

Yes, I suggest updating to a newer version of their browsers.

In the case of Internet Explorer, I tell them to update to newer
versions of the browser. I do not consider IE8 to be a different
browser than IE11, just an older version of IE. Similarly, SeaMonkey
2.39 is the newest version of the Mozilla Suite, which was a newer
version of Netscape Communicator. Of course, there are differences; but
I have been successful in updating incrementally from Netscape
Communicator through Mozilla Suite to SeaMonkey. The names changed, the
user interface evolved, and capabilities were added. However, the
concept remained the same; and I was able to install versions with new
names and capabilities over the older versions.

In the case where there are no newer versions, I give a list of browsers
that are still being updated along with the URIs to get them.

[Barry Margolin]

In article <n43792$cmc$1...@news.albasani.net>,

"David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:

> On 12/6/2015 9:36 PM, Barry Margolin wrote:
> > In article <n41l06$f3i$1...@news.albasani.net>,
> > "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
> >
> >> I feel it is the responsibility of the browser developers to make their
> >> browsers compliant with the W3C specifications and not my responsibility
> >> to make my Web pages compliant with their browser's quirks.
> >
> > Since old versions of browsers don't have developers any more, how do
> > you expect that to happen? IE8 isn't going to get any more
> > W3C-compliant, no matter what you feel. So you either deal with its
> > quirks, or tell your users to switch browsers.
> >
>
> Yes, I suggest updating to a newer version of their browsers.
>
> In the case of Internet Explorer, I tell them to update to newer
> versions of the browser. I do not consider IE8 to be a different
> browser than IE11, just an older version of IE.

What about OS-dependencies? Doesn't IE11 also require a recent Windows
release?

I'm still running OS X 10.6.8, so I can't upgrade to the current version
of Safari, and Apple has stopped fixing bugs in Safari 5. That's one of
the reasons I generally use Chrome as my browser.

But my overall point is that you don't just feel it's the responsibility
of browser developers, you also feel it's the responsibility of users to
upgrade to current versions of software. Sometimes there are constraints
that make upgrading difficult.

[Jonathan N. Little]

David E. Ross wrote:
> I do not consider IE8 to be a different
> browser than IE11, just an older version of IE.

Really? I maybe not alone here but each iteration of IE requires a
different set up "adjustments" to accommodate its quirks! Since the
blessed death of Netscape 4.x and wretched <LAYERS> basic development
was followed this horror:

if (W3 compliant browser) {
basically all other browsers
} elseif ( MSIE < 6 ) {
} elseif ( MSIE == 6 ) {
} elseif ( MSIE == 7 ) {
} elseif ( MSIE == 8 ) {
} elseif ( MSIE == 9 ) {
} elseif ( MSIE == 10 ) {
} elseif ( MSIE == 11 ) {
finally 11 is close enough to be handled like the rest!
}


BTW, MS just threw down the gauntlet to kill off WinXP and push Win10,
no more patches for MSIE 10 and below:

<http://www.zdnet.com/article/millions-of-internet-explorer-users-face-patch-security-showdown/?tag=nl.e589&s_cid=e589&ttag=e589&ftag=TREc64629f>

"Resistance is futile" ;-)

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Barry Margolin wrote:

> "David E. Ross" <nob...@nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> In the case of Internet Explorer, I tell them to update to newer
>> versions of the browser. I do not consider IE8 to be a different
>> browser than IE11, just an older version of IE.
>
> What about OS-dependencies? Doesn't IE11 also require a recent Windows
> release?

IE 11 requires at least Windows 7 SP1, released 2011-02-22 (more than 4
years ago). But IE 9 requires only Windows Vista SP2, released 2009-05-26,
or Windows 7, released 2009-10-22 (more than 6 years ago, respectively).


PointedEars
--
When all you know is jQuery, every problem looks $(olvable).

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> David E. Ross wrote:
>> I do not consider IE8 to be a different
>> browser than IE11, just an older version of IE.
>
> Really? I maybe not alone here but each iteration of IE requires a
> different set up "adjustments" to accommodate its quirks!

No.

> Since the blessed death of Netscape 4.x and wretched <LAYERS> basic
> development was followed this horror:
>
> if (W3 compliant browser) {
> basically all other browsers
> } elseif ( MSIE < 6 ) {
> } elseif ( MSIE == 6 ) {
> } elseif ( MSIE == 7 ) {
> } elseif ( MSIE == 8 ) {
> } elseif ( MSIE == 9 ) {
> } elseif ( MSIE == 10 ) {
> } elseif ( MSIE == 11 ) {
> finally 11 is close enough to be handled like the rest!
> }

I hope for you that this is only paraphrasing what you really did.

[Jonathan N. Little]

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>
>> David E. Ross wrote:
>>> I do not consider IE8 to be a different
>>> browser than IE11, just an older version of IE.
>>
>> Really? I maybe not alone here but each iteration of IE requires a
>> different set up "adjustments" to accommodate its quirks!
>
> No.

So you never found inconsistencies with each version of MSIE? I guess MS
came up with the awful mechanism "conditional comments" just for the
hell of it.

>
>> Since the blessed death of Netscape 4.x and wretched <LAYERS> basic
>> development was followed this horror:
>>
>> if (W3 compliant browser) {
>> basically all other browsers
>> } elseif ( MSIE < 6 ) {
>> } elseif ( MSIE == 6 ) {
>> } elseif ( MSIE == 7 ) {
>> } elseif ( MSIE == 8 ) {
>> } elseif ( MSIE == 9 ) {
>> } elseif ( MSIE == 10 ) {
>> } elseif ( MSIE == 11 ) {
>> finally 11 is close enough to be handled like the rest!
>> }
>
> I hope for you that this is only paraphrasing what you really did.

It's pseudo-code to describe what some folks do to get constants display
for their sites.

No, I only adjusted my approach to avoid most issues. I do not use the
"MSIE CSS hacks" and conditional comments and only use a few special CSS
or a bit of JavaScript to prevent complete failure in some older
versions of IE.

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

Jonathan N. Little wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
>> Jonathan N. Little wrote:
>>> Really? I maybe not alone here but each iteration of IE requires a
>>> different set up "adjustments" to accommodate its quirks!
>> No.
>
> So you never found inconsistencies with each version of MSIE?

Yes.

> I guess MS came up with the awful mechanism "conditional comments" just
> for the hell of it.

Conditional comments can be necessary, but not as you imply.

>>> Since the blessed death of Netscape 4.x and wretched <LAYERS> basic
>>> development was followed this horror:
>>>
>>> if (W3 compliant browser) {
>>> basically all other browsers
>>> } elseif ( MSIE < 6 ) {

>>> [?]

>>> } elseif ( MSIE == 11 ) {
>>> finally 11 is close enough to be handled like the rest!
>>> }
>>
>> I hope for you that this is only paraphrasing what you really did.
>
> It's pseudo-code to describe what some folks do to get constants display
> for their sites.

Cite evidence. I never had to do such a thing, neither professionally nor
in private, and not because those Web sites had a trivial design.

> I do not use the "MSIE CSS hacks" and conditional comments and only use a
> few special CSS or a bit of JavaScript to prevent complete failure in some
> older versions of IE.

I do, if necessary. It should be noted, though, that conditional comments
cannot detect Compatibility Mode in IE 9+.


PointedEars
--
Danny Goodman's books are out of date and teach practices that are
positively harmful for cross-browser scripting.
-- Richard Cornford, cljs, <cife6q$253$1$8300...@news.demon.co.uk> (2004)

[Stan Brown]

On Sun, 06 Dec 2015 23:29:21 -0700, Barry Margolin wrote:
> But my overall point is that you don't just feel it's the responsibility
> of browser developers, you also feel it's the responsibility of users to
> upgrade to current versions of software. Sometimes there are constraints
> that make upgrading difficult.
>

And some users get intensely annoyed at a Web site arrogantly telling
them to switch browsers. The PP may not consider IE11 a different
browser from IE8, but I do and I suspect most users do too. Switching
to IE11 is another download and install, just like switching to
Chrome or Firefox.

Of course, switching to Chrome or Firefox one must typically re-enter
settings. One would hope that the IE-to-IE switch at least preserves
settings, but I wouldn't bet the farm on it.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://BrownMath.com/
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2.1 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
Why We Won't Help You: http://preview.tinyurl.com/WhyWont

[Jukka K. Korpela]

7.12.2015, 23:32, Stan Brown wrote:

> And some users get intensely annoyed at a Web site arrogantly telling
> them to switch browsers.

To put it mildly, yes. What do you think of the following?

“This Web site is best viewed using Internet Explorer version 4.0 or
higher and/or Netscape version 4.0 or higher."

I just found it on a NASA page in quick casual googling (with "best
viewed with ie").

--
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[Stan Brown]

On Tue, 8 Dec 2015 00:00:27 +0200, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 7.12.2015, 23:32, Stan Brown wrote:
>
> > And some users get intensely annoyed at a Web site arrogantly telling
> > them to switch browsers.
>
> To put it mildly, yes. What do you think of the following?
>

> ?This Web site is best viewed using Internet Explorer version 4.0 or

> higher and/or Netscape version 4.0 or higher."

That it hasn't been updated in a looooooooonnnnnnggggggg time.

My medical clinic has a similar note on its home page.