Please read first: This is old news. I don't really keep up with MS's latest crap.

For those of you who use IE or a IE-derived browser (like MyIE2 or Netscape), reap the benefits of using mildly less rusty technology with Microsoft's IE7 Preview Release.

Note that it will only work on XP Service Pack 2 systems with Microsoft Genuine Advantage.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/ie7betaredirect.mspx

It doesn't live up to Firefox 1.5 in its wildest dreams, but spare us web developers some pain and drop IE6 already.

I downloaded an earlier version of the IE7 beta, and thought that the interface looked like [CENSORED]. Now looking at this new one, nothing's changed. It looks like they tried to fit everything that could be possible into as small a space as they could.

At least they've tried implementing CSS though.

i posted this about a month ago

You obviously didn't read first. Come on, it's the first line.

Search feature :)...

Saying its old news to him doesn't excuse that fact.

I couldnt install it because I dont have a legal version of XP professional or some sniatch

 Quote:Originally posted by SoulsnipaSearch feature :)...

Saying its old news to him doesn't excuse that fact.


I put "This is old news" on the first line to keep people from spamming my topic. Saying "use the search" does doesn't excuse folks from that. Not only has the forum search function lost its manhood since the early forum years, but b00sta has said that it only puts further strain on an already stressed server.

Edit: I like my description better than yours :P

cough[URL]cough

*cough*
unsupported freeware
*cough*

Ok, ok... Opera is better than IE6, but not nearly as functional as Firefox. If you're going for raw speed, Opera is for you.

except... hasn't IE7 already been out and released (not beta or anything, just released and such) ?

not saying that I support using it. Use firefox or at the very least use opera

i like IE for the sole fact that sml supports it and looks 10x better in ie then any other browser. Go ie for making my website look good. :)

... "I like IE because my site was made to support it"

...



the reason it looks proper in IE is because your site doesn't follow all the proper CSS and HTML standards, but IE makes the best of it and tries to display it.

Any properly made site would show correctly in all browsers

 Quote:Originally posted by Soulsnipai like IE for the sole fact that sml supports it and looks 10x better in ie then any other browser. Go ie for making my website look good. :)


Opera can make things look like IE. So can Netscape.

/me ponders; 'the ultimate spyware and virii collection' or 'IE7', hmmm.. wich one to install..

Opera and Netscape can indentify as IE when communicating with servers ? it still displays pages as opera / netscape :D wich mostly pwn IE ;)

Mmm, i cant install it since i have win98. I'm not an IE fan, but i have used it with no problems all this time.

Opera just kicks way more ass for my needs. It loads faster than anything, I can make sexy bookmark trees, you can wipe out all your data or just the data you select, you can add or reomve toolbars and aspects on those, and there's features everywhere. Also, unlike my experience with firefox, tabbing is incredibly easy and streamlined, making for browsing multiple sites lightning fast easy and pooping.

IE is also the most attacked browser, because there's [CENSORED]loads more people who know very little about computers and the internets, and use it and hit all the popups and virii and whathaveyou. Opera and Firefox are just years ahead of anything windows will be busting out any time soon.

I added Netscape to my small comment on IE-derived browsers since it has the option to view pages using the IE engine as well as Gecko.

Safari ftw.

 Quote:Originally posted by vash763Safari ftw.
Isn't safari the firefox for macs. We are talking windows... Macs are Uber suxor

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888 Quote:Originally posted by vash763Safari ftw.
Isn't safari the firefox for macs. We are talking windows... Macs are Uber suxor


You are thinking about Camino. Camino is a browser for Mac that uses the Gecko engine. Safari is the default browser that comes with Mac.

What the hell was that "Macs are Uber suxor" thing about? Safari is the only browser that passes the Acid2 test. That's more than Opera can say.

Safari is based on the KHTML engine used in Konqueror on Linux, so Konqueror passes Acid2 too. Not that that means much, because Acid2 only tests certain functions, and to pass it, the developers only need to add those functions.

I think Opera's close to passing Acid2 anyway, and Mozilla's probably trying to comply while implementing the rest of CSS with it.

You got me. It's true that Safari is based on KHTML. You might not know this, but the Safari KHTML-based engine is managed by a separate group than the official KHTML engine. Safari technically passed Acid2 first and then gave patches to the KHTML team. Sorry that I totally forgot about KHTML.

Damn, I was just saying that cause it's the only thing I use. The browser itself is very small and leaves a lot of room for the page. It runs super fast too.

Didn't know it was really that good haha.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterSafari is the only browser that passes the Acid2 test.

Wrong. WebCore/KHTML is not the only browser engine that passes Acid2.

<-- not a mac user

Opera weekly released today passes Acid2. It's not a stable version though...

weird timing....

Do opera programmers play soldat?

 Quote:Originally posted by Aquarius Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterSafari is the only browser that passes the Acid2 test.

Wrong. WebCore/KHTML is not the only browser engine that passes Acid2.


At the time I posted this, it was the only browser engine that passed the Acid2 test.

 Quote:At the time I posted this, it was the only browser engine that passed the Acid2 test.
Public beta of iCab 3 passed it a long time ago. And Prince, thought it's not a browser but HTML/XML to PDF converter. Now only Firefox and Internet Exploiter are struggling behind...

Who designed the Acid2 test? How do we know that the test is not flawed?

Why are you holding that as the standard for a good browser?

(I am Jacks Rebellious Soul)

 Quote:Originally posted by Aquarius Quote:At the time I posted this, it was the only browser engine that passed the Acid2 test.
Public beta of iCab 3 passed it a long time ago. And Prince, thought it's not a browser but HTML/XML to PDF converter. Now only Firefox and Internet Exploiter are struggling behind...


Obviously I haven't been keeping up with the times. Although I would hardly call not passing Acid2 "struggling". Whether or not a browser passes the Acid2 test does not determine the overall quality of the browser.

Hmm... Opera doesn't even have a built-in WYSIWYG text editor, so hah! :P

who cares? lol

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterWYSIWYG text editor
...not make since those words do.

WYSIWUG != text editor

All I care about what I see is what the browser shows me.

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterWYSIWYG text editor
...not make since those words do.

WYSIWUG != text editor


WYSIWYG is an acronym for "What you see is what you get". That means it doesn't necessarily relate to dragging and dropping elements on forms. Do a search for "WYSIWYG text editor". I believe there are whole lists of them nicely laid out on a couple websites.

 Quote:Originally posted by SoulsnipaAll I care about what I see is what the browser shows me.


... and you do not care what the people visiting your site see? If I went to a website and saw crap, I wouldn't even bother to check if it worked in IE/Opera/Firefox/Safari. I just wouldn't visit that site anymore.

 Quote:Originally posted by Soulsnipai like IE for the sole fact that sml supports it and looks 10x better in ie then any other browser. Go ie for making my website look good. :)

I'm suprised you site shows anything with code like this:

[code]<link href="main.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /><center><font style=font-size:11px;><html>


<body bgcolor="#879870">


<head>[/code]

Head inside body element, link element outside html oO

You should learn HTML before you try to make a site, or at least use a good WYSIWYG editor.

Ouch.

Hint: <HEAD> is usually before <BODY>, not in the middle of it.

Oh! You mean syntax highlighting, not WYSIWUG. You silly goose!

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888Oh! You mean syntax highlighting, not WYSIWUG. You silly goose!
Are you really that stupid?

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888Oh! You mean syntax highlighting, not WYSIWUG. You silly goose!


Stop saying WYSIWUG! Gah! Syntax highlighting and WYSIWYG are completely different animals. I would never confuse the two.

 Quote:Originally posted by Aquarius Quote:Originally posted by Soulsnipai like IE for the sole fact that sml supports it and looks 10x better in ie then any other browser. Go ie for making my website look good. :)

I'm suprised you site shows anything with code like this:

[code]<link href="main.css" rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" /><center><font style=font-size:11px;><html>


<body bgcolor="#879870">


<head>[/code]

Head inside body element, link element outside html oO

You should learn HTML before you try to make a site, or at least use a good WYSIWYG editor.



I dont need to hear your criticism. Changing where the head of the html code wont change anything. Also I believe that part of the page was still around when Elephant Hunter was working on it. So I'm not pointing fingers, well anyway html is not the problem it is css in browsers.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_Hunter
Hmm... Opera doesn't even have a built-in WYSIWYG text editor, so hah! :P

Please kind sir, point out the instance of a "built-in WYSIWYG text editor".

[URL]

[URL]
Mozilla Suite, Linux. Should be the same on Windows too.

...bah, typo'd the link. Oh well.

No, thats just a WYSIWYG. Open file in ASCII text program. You will see html tags.

My point...
 Quote:WYSIWYG != text editor

Saying "WYSIWYG != text editor" is like saying "stinky != fish". You're misusing the acronym. It's not a noun, and thus can not be used by itself. What Frogboy posted was a prime example of a WYSIWYG text editor.

http://www.mozilla.org/editor/midasdemo/

What I'm trying to say is that both Mozilla and IE provide functions that you can use to create "Rich Text" in a sense. Opera does not offer this functionality, and they publicly announced that they will probably never will.

Rich text...
Like bold, underline and line-though. Things that cannot be saved in a ASCII text file. Correct?

A WYSIWYG editor's only purpose is to display html (maybe other mark-up languages (do any others exist?)) in a visual format of you do not have to open it in a browser to see the final product. When you design in WYSIWYG you see rich text, tables and images. This is not a text editor. Its purpose is not to produce text. Instead it is used to generate mark-up.

A text editor is used to simply write ASCII bytes. Or any other form of character for that matter.

So, when you say... "WYSIWYG text editor" then closest thing I can think of is a mix of rich text and html structure tags.
Honestly, the words "WYSIWYG" and "text" used together confuse me. Its like saying "Directly alternating electrical current".

Personally I would not like to click "view source" and see the same though I saw in the browser. So why would you want a browser that views in WYSIWYG.

If you really really really really really really really really really really really really want that. There is one on the windows platform.
[URL]

I tried it. Did not like it!!!

 Quote:Originally posted by SoulsnipaI dont need to hear your criticism. Changing where the head of the html code wont change anything. Also I believe that part of the page was still around when Elephant Hunter was working on it. So I'm not pointing fingers, well anyway html is not the problem it is css in browsers.

But you will hear it anyway. The CSS stylesheet has over 100 errors and warning, see CSS validator:
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fsml.u13.net%2Fmain.css&usermedium=all
Your HTML code can't be even validated (it's so broken it breaks HTML validator).

IE shows everything right, because you build your site around IE6 bugs and flaws in CSS support.

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888Rich text...
Like bold, underline and line-though. Things that cannot be saved in a ASCII text file. Correct?

A WYSIWYG editor's only purpose is to display html (maybe other mark-up languages (do any others exist?)) in a visual format of you do not have to open it in a browser to see the final product. When you design in WYSIWYG you see rich text, tables and images. This is not a text editor. Its purpose is not to produce text. Instead it is used to generate mark-up.

A text editor is used to simply write ASCII bytes. Or any other form of character for that matter.

So, when you say... "WYSIWYG text editor" then closest thing I can think of is a mix of rich text and html structure tags.
Honestly, the words "WYSIWYG" and "text" used together confuse me. Its like saying "Directly alternating electrical current".

Personally I would not like to click "view source" and see the same though I saw in the browser. So why would you want a browser that views in WYSIWYG.

If you really really really really really really really really really really really really want that. There is one on the windows platform.
[URL]

I tried it. Did not like it!!!


Usually I don't get insulting very easily (well, that's a lie), but you are really thick. Do we still call textbooks with pictures "textbooks"? Yes. Are all textbooks in ASCII? No. Stop being a dolt.

Amaya is a browser built to show off the latest W3C standards. It is unique in the sense that it has a built-in WYSIWYG editor for webpages. Our conversation was about WYSIWYG text editors, which are meant to help users submit text to a webpage. You can still view the page's source, but the code for the content in the textbox is hidden so that end users don't have to use BBCode or HTML.

 Quote:Originally posted by SoulsnipaI dont need to hear your criticism. Changing where the head of the html code wont change anything. Also I believe that part of the page was still around when Elephant Hunter was working on it. So I'm not pointing fingers, well anyway html is not the problem it is css in browsers.


I'm not pointing fingers, but if you sift through the idiot box logs you might notice some comments that the page once worked fine in Firefox. Around that time I remember getting it fully validated with HTML 4.01.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterSaying "WYSIWYG != text editor" is like saying "stinky != fish". You're misusing the acronym. It's not a noun, and thus can not be used by itself. What Frogboy posted was a prime example of a WYSIWYG text editor.

http://www.mozilla.org/editor/midasdemo/

What I'm trying to say is that both Mozilla and IE provide functions that you can use to create "Rich Text" in a sense. Opera does not offer this functionality, and they publicly announced that they will probably never will.

Please, don't spread bullsh!t.

First of all, you are talking about designMode or Rich Text Editing a technology that is not a web standard, invented by Microsoft and later copied by holy Mozilla Foundation.

Second, Opera 9 does have RTE support. So you are wrong doubly. You are wrong when you say "Opera does not offer this functionality", because it does. And you are wrong when you say "they publicly announced that they will probably never will", because they never said it. Not that I'm happy about implementing twisted non-standard ideas from Microsoft, but Mozilla did it years ago and Opera has no choice.

Wait.. I think I finally get understand what your getting at.

You mean just having a textarea element in a page that allows rich text? That's all your talking about? Why the funk did you use the words "WYSIWYG" and "editor"? Why not "rich" and "input"??

Damn, I though I was bad with words...


I'm impressed, your the first who can match wits with on this level. I think that you actually know more than me.

 Quote:Originally posted by Aquarius Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_HunterSaying "WYSIWYG != text editor" is like saying "stinky != fish". You're misusing the acronym. It's not a noun, and thus can not be used by itself. What Frogboy posted was a prime example of a WYSIWYG text editor.

http://www.mozilla.org/editor/midasdemo/

What I'm trying to say is that both Mozilla and IE provide functions that you can use to create "Rich Text" in a sense. Opera does not offer this functionality, and they publicly announced that they will probably never will.

Please, don't spread bullsh!t.

First of all, you are talking about designMode or Rich Text Editing a technology that is not a web standard, invented by Microsoft and later copied by holy Mozilla Foundation.

Second, Opera 9 does have RTE support. So you are wrong doubly. You are wrong when you say "Opera does not offer this functionality", because it does. And you are wrong when you say "they publicly announced that they will probably never will", because they never said it. Not that I'm happy about implementing twisted non-standard ideas from Microsoft, but Mozilla did it years ago and Opera has no choice.


Well... I do remember one of the Opera guys writing a complaint against rich text editing and saying they don't plan to implement it. That was about a year ago.

Eh, Is Opera 9.0 released to the public? I hadn't heard.

Depends what you mean by "public" ;-) It's not final release, but everyone can download lastest Technology Preview of Opera 9 from http://labs.opera.com/.

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888weird timing....

Do opera programmers play soldat?

bja888 I doubt it, it's just a coincidence. They release a new weekly build every friday.

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888Wait.. I think I finally get understand what your getting at.

You mean just having a textarea element in a page that allows rich text? That's all your talking about? Why the funk did you use the words "WYSIWYG" and "editor"? Why not "rich" and "input"??


You are easily confused. I didn't want you to think I was talking about rich text in the sense of IBM's RTF format so I purposefully avoided saying rich text. I was assuming that you would understand (like Frogboy and Aqua.)

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888
I'm impressed, your the first who can match wits with on this level. I think that you actually know more than me.


We all have our strong areas. I'm a hobbyist programmer and work as a web developer, so that might give me a slight advantage. Just one conversation like this doesn't prove much.

The only reason I don't switch to opera...
Because it totally funks up my hub website. [URL]

Other than that, I think its good.

 Quote:Originally posted by Elephant_Hunter Quote:Originally posted by bja888Rich text...
Like bold, underline and line-though. Things that cannot be saved in a ASCII text file. Correct?

A WYSIWYG editor's only purpose is to display html (maybe other mark-up languages (do any others exist?)) in a visual format of you do not have to open it in a browser to see the final product. When you design in WYSIWYG you see rich text, tables and images. This is not a text editor. Its purpose is not to produce text. Instead it is used to generate mark-up.

A text editor is used to simply write ASCII bytes. Or any other form of character for that matter.

So, when you say... "WYSIWYG text editor" then closest thing I can think of is a mix of rich text and html structure tags.
Honestly, the words "WYSIWYG" and "text" used together confuse me. Its like saying "Directly alternating electrical current".

Personally I would not like to click "view source" and see the same though I saw in the browser. So why would you want a browser that views in WYSIWYG.

If you really really really really really really really really really really really really want that. There is one on the windows platform.
[URL]

I tried it. Did not like it!!!


Usually I don't get insulting very easily (well, that's a lie), but you are really thick. Do we still call textbooks with pictures "textbooks"? Yes. Are all textbooks in ASCII? No. Stop being a dolt.

Amaya is a browser built to show off the latest W3C standards. It is unique in the sense that it has a built-in WYSIWYG editor for webpages. Our conversation was about WYSIWYG text editors, which are meant to help users submit text to a webpage. You can still view the page's source, but the code for the content in the textbox is hidden so that end users don't have to use BBCode or HTML.

 Quote:Originally posted by SoulsnipaI dont need to hear your criticism. Changing where the head of the html code wont change anything. Also I believe that part of the page was still around when Elephant Hunter was working on it. So I'm not pointing fingers, well anyway html is not the problem it is css in browsers.


I'm not pointing fingers, but if you sift through the idiot box logs you might notice some comments that the page once worked fine in Firefox. Around that time I remember getting it fully validated with HTML 4.01.


I never said I didn't touch the css. I didnt touch <head> tags, which was the matter that was brought up.


To aqaurius, wow thanks for that. Didn't know there were css error showers. Anyway I'll fix it up now that I can see whats wrong. I worked on the page some earlier. Check it out.

 Quote:Originally posted by bja888The only reason I don't switch to opera...
Because it totally funks up my hub website. [URL]

This is because of Opera bug in handling iframes (iframes are always on top in Opera 7/8). It's fixed in Opera 9, I recommend to switch after final release of Opera 9 ;]

Bloody fanboys.

Edit: I was convinced by elephanthunter that it was wrong to move this to bash pit, expect it to be moved back to lounge soonish. Until then, all the lounge rules also apply to this topic. Sorry.

...Did this really warrant being moved to the Bash Pit? There's actual discussion going on in here that doesn't look like it's been written by a dyslexic 5 year old.

too easy on the trigger ville :P

Well this seems to be a rather funky unbashpit-worthy topic I suppose. Don't blame ville, theres a thin line between bashing and argueing...he was probably just high on catnip again.