Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Sorry for coming back to this thread again but I wanted to make one
thing
clear about my feelings for Netscape. I agree that ALL code should be
solid
code, and if there are browsers around that do not display a page
because I
-Original Message-
From: Katherine Maltby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2002 11:53 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Sorry for coming back to this thread again but I wanted to make one
thing
clear about my feelings
Thanks Dave!
I decided to use the visibility property after I got this going.
On another note - I decided to view my page in Netscape 4.08. I was in
for a HUGE shock. My page, which uses CSS mostly at the most basic
level, totally breaks my page. Selects don't work at all when I have
the
R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 16:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Thanks Dave!
I decided to use the visibility property after I got this going.
On another note - I decided to view my page in Netscape 4.08. I
Subject: OT: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes)
Thanks Dave!
I decided to use the visibility property after I got this going.
On another note - I decided to view my page in Netscape 4.08. I was in
for a HUGE shock. My page, which uses CSS mostly at the most basic
happens!
Doesn't NS6 have javascript support??? I HATE NETSCAPE!
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Katherine Maltby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:40 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
class
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 17:00
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Here is the code that I am using for all of my select boxes. Only the
names change.
select name=expmonth class=box
For a view of the ridiculous crap that is going
Jon Hall wrote:
Lately I have been browser snifffing and just using different style sheets
for each browser. It ends up saving a lot of hassle worrying about css
compatibility.
For my own websites, I just stopped caring. I make sure I have the W3C
compliant HTML 4.01 and W3C compliant CSS
-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 16:42
To: CF-Talk
Subject: OT: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Thanks Dave!
I decided to use the visibility property after I got this going.
On another note - I decided to view my page
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Here is the code that I am using for all of my select boxes. Only the
names change.
select
a whole 'nother thread!). Anyhow, HTH!
~Val
- Original Message -
From: Trusz, Andrew [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:30 PM
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes)
The A List Apart discussion on css
12:31 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
The A List Apart discussion on css might be helpful, Matt,
http://www.alistapart.com/stories/journey/. Try sticking the @import
code in
and see what it does to the 4x browsers: style type=text/css
media
- Matt Small
-Original Message-
From: Katherine Maltby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:00 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
that is definitely some difference! I would just like to state here for
the
record
Sure - write it and I'll sign on.
Mark
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:58 AM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I'm busy writing a letter to Steve Case (Chairman
I'm up for anything involving slagging off NS!
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 17:58
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I'm busy writing a letter to Steve Case (Chairman
*uncontrollable fits of laughter*
yeah, it happened here too.
~Val
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:58 PM
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes)
I'm busy
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Mark Kruger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Katherine Maltby [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-
From: Katherine Maltby [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:58 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:16 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
Here's my rough draft. Anybody got anything to add?
- Matt Small
Dear Mr. Case,
We
- was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I'm up for anything involving slagging off NS!
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 17:58
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I'm busy
- was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I'm up for anything involving slagging off NS!
-Original Message-
From: Matthew R. Small [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 17:58
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I'm
: Valerie L. Criswell [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 12:27 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
This doesn't directly align with the standardization argument, but it still
bespeaks a major disadvantage of NS. What about
pst, just so everyone knows, Kath loves Netscape. just
don't tell her I told you :O)
-Original Message-
From: Shawn McKee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: 16 April 2002 18:34
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes
At the risk of opening a can of worms.
Which one is more standards compliant? Netscape or IE? Since I
concentrate on database stuff or functionality, I rarely use 'advanced'
layout features such as layers or CCS. Are you asking Steve Case / AOL to
be compatible with Microsoft Internet
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
At the risk of opening a can of worms.
Which one is more standards compliant? Netscape or IE? Since I
concentrate on database stuff or functionality, I rarely use 'advanced'
layout features such as layers
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
At the risk of opening a can of worms.
Which one is more standards compliant? Netscape or IE? Since I
concentrate on database stuff or functionality, I rarely use 'advanced'
layout features
PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
At the risk of opening a can of worms.
Which one is more standards compliant? Netscape or IE? Since I
concentrate on database stuff or functionality, I rarely use 'advanced'
layout features
different
view however. There's always a rub ain't there?
andy
-Original Message-
From: Brad Roberts [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:23 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I don't think IE (or Netscape) should
At 02:27 PM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
You're right, this is a can of worms, but...Really, I am asking that
Steve Case drop the Netscape browser altogether.
And remove the main competition?
I'm not exactly sure
which standards that IE supports or doesn't support, or how NS compares
to it.
Sure won't.
-Original Message-
From: Jeffry Houser [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 3:25 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
At 02:27 PM 4/16/2002 -0400, you wrote:
You're right, this is a can of worms
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 11:59 AM
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes)
And I just decided to check out my page in the latest - netscape 6 NONE
OF MY JAVASCRIPT
1) Where is Netscape 5
I think I saw it on the shelf right next to Windows 4 which was right next
to Windows 5, which was right next to Windows 6, etc., which was right next
to Windows 95.
2) Why was Netscape 6 now based on all new code(Gecko)?
Why was Win2000 based on 32 bit code? I would
Not scoping a javascript variable by default looks to the window object.
Beyond that, the browser can start guessing for you like IE, which can be
inflexible or demand you tell it what to do correctly. That's an old
argument though... :)
Scoping variables in CF works the same way. Not scoping CF
and dynamically changing classes)
In those environments we can expolit IE coolness, but what does NS offer
in
comparision?
__
Get the mailserver that powers this list at http://www.coolfusion.com
FAQ: http
Matthew R. Small wrote:
You're right, this is a can of worms, but...Really, I am asking that
Steve Case drop the Netscape browser altogether.
And how is that going to help? Will that mean that all the installs of
NN 4.x will magically disappear?
Quite the contrary, the release of Mozilla 1
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes)
You're right, this is a can of worms, but...Really, I am asking that
Steve Case
PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:27 PM
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape
cf_snip
Sure it's a headache, and so are all those old Canadian drivers who come
down here every winter. Doesn't mean they are going away, nor do I want them
to. They have money...
/cf_snip
OK...you wanna talk about Americans coming to Canadaoh I could have a field day
with that one
;-)
1)
I use ie only here on the intranet because I don't have to spend time
searching through the piles of code that I have looking for that
forgotten table tag and its nice features that I can get to work the
first time.
If you love netscape, good for you. I don't, I know a LOT of people who
-
From: Jon Hall [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 4:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: Re: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
- Original Message -
From: Matthew R. Small [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: CF-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 2:27
I use ie only here on the intranet because I don't have to spend time
searching through the piles of code that I have looking for that
forgotten table tag and its nice features that I can get to work the
first time.
Boy, that reminds me of the mechanic that says 'Hey, I can't find that last
-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I certainly hope he is defending Netscape for requiring decent code.
What you are talking about is bad coding. Pure and simple. And laziness.
Just because IE currently allows you to code so poorly, and the page
-Talk [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2002 5:01 PM
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing classes)
Think about what you just said...
Umm... no... I spent the afternoon debugging my pages because netscape
isn't as forgiving as ie. I don't feel like thinking
We're not talking about bad code. We're talking about forgotten table
tags. We're talking about not fully scoping a variable. We're talking
What's the difference? A missing closing tag in HTML is bad code, just as a
missing closing tag in CF throws an error.
about the fact that when bad
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
I certainly hope he is defending Netscape for requiring decent code.
What you are talking about is bad coding. Pure and simple. And laziness.
Just because IE currently allows you to code so poorly, and the page
sometimes
We're not talking about bad code. We're talking about
forgotten table tags. We're talking about not fully
scoping a variable.
I'd argue that's bad code. It might not be as bad, comparatively speaking,
as not using CFLOCK around a memory variable, but forgetting a table tag is
an invalid
, April 16, 2002 6:24 PM
To: CF-Talk
Subject: RE: CSS and Netscape - was(CSS and dynamically changing
classes)
We're not talking about bad code. We're talking about
forgotten table tags. We're talking about not fully
scoping a variable.
I'd argue that's bad code. It might not be as bad
Matthew R. Small wrote:
We're not talking about bad code. We're talking about forgotten table
tags. We're talking about not fully scoping a variable. We're talking
about the fact that when bad code does get written, you're a whole lot
better off if you have internet explorer than when you
47 matches
Mail list logo
