Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Michael Horowitz wrote: I would assume any professional developer will test any application they currently support with IE 8 when it comes out. I'm sure I will get a lot of business from new clients who need their sites updated to support whatever changes MSFT makes. But, since IE8 will by default behave and render just like IE7, the clients won't actually see any changes, so most of them won't really see the point in getting their outdated sites changed to the IE8/edge way (unless they're also interested in supporting non-MS browsers...but those aren't the problem MS is trying to solve or sidestep with this meta issue). P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They don't want to default to IE8 rendering because of what happend with IE7. It broke website. Not only that but IE is used so much outside the browser as well. It's a platform. Intranet apps. HTA apps. Even help files uses the IE engine. If IE8 defaulted to IE8 rendering, then you risk breaking ALL of that. And who's going to get the heat for that? The developers! Us! And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8 will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with that? When I first heard of this new tag I didn't know what to think of it. But I'm starting to like it more and more. What I've yet to hear from from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. Well, there are three groups here: 1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make their stuff work. 2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make their stuff work. 3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all. Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the problem it allegedly solves. Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode. Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since, to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode, they'd have to stop relying on old bugs). So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business. -- Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Christian Snodgrass wrote: It's more likely (assuming they get the info about the meta-tag out there) that new sites will be developed using this meta-tag and standards-compliance. Eventually, the old sites will be replaced with new ones built in this fashion. Then, when they finally just drop the non-standards-compliance all together, fewer sites will break. They may be hoping for that outcome. But if it hasn't happened last time around (despite IE7betas being easily available a good 6+ months in advance), I remain skeptical... All they've done in my opinion is sidestepped the issue and bought themselves some time. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Thomas Thomassen wrote: You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. What I've yet to hear from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. heres an alternative, instead of letting the sites break, add a meta tag to them to fix them to an older browser version. You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. It seems that what is so quick and simple for one group of people to do is somehow a huge task for the other group? -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Thomas Thomassen wrote: You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. Don't forget the nasty gotcha: save that page on your own computer, load it back up and suddenly it looks different (as the browser doesn't have the meta tag in the code for the webpage). Letting the sites break is not an alternative. Yes it is. You just don't like it :) Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Well, apart from that I don't like IE/win version targeting one bit, if MSIE uphold this version targeting strategy in future versions, we may as well use it to our advantage. Sidelining IE/win while designing for standards and better browsers, doesn't have to become a problem for designers or users, as we can keep on designing for the present edge at any given time, and fix IE/win when we get around to it. That's how I go about it now anyway, and version targeting will only make it easier to cover all IE/win versions that are still in use at any one time. We won't need several IE/win versions in order to test and tweak, as we can just roll back the latest IE/win through previous versions during the design-phase - providing previous versions are flawless copies that we can target. Once finished, we can decide which IE/win version is most suitable as our own IE-final for that particular job, and leave it there. Other browsers won't be affected - as long as they stay well away from any form of version targeting. Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
One question that I have yet to see anyone ask is: How good will IE8 actually be? If it is perfect, then there is no need to worry about future versions... I also haven't seen anyone mention the fact that we have yet to get rid of IE5 completely - I know of at least one large organisation (not my own employer) that is sticking with IE6 on XP because they know that it is compatible with everything they use. I don't see them getting excited over IE8 any time soon if it works exactly the same as IE6. Mike *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
On Jan 29, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Casey Farrell wrote: IE8 _will_ be the most popular web browser it ain't necessarily so... first of all prevalent is not equivalent to popular, but IE was not always the most prevalent browser, and is once again losing some of the market share that it unfairly (as judged in court) gained from NS. Users of all stripes are discovering Firefox. From my, admittedly superficial, reading on this, we're looking at another MS ploy to entrench their market dominance. FWIW, YMMV etc... Andrew http://www.andrewmaben.net [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a well designed user interface, the user should not need instructions. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy everything that has been created in the past. Adding one line of code to each of your pages is a lot more cost effective and time saving then all of the hacks we currently have to do to get it to display properly in IE6 and IE7. --- But by this argument, you seem to think that we would no longer have to support IE6 or 7 and not have to spend the time putting hacks in. These browsers will still be around for a long time... Perhaps not so much IE7 but certainly IE6 due to older OS not being able to update. My development plan will stay the same aside from having another browser to check: Code site in Firefox Check in Opera, Safari, PLUS IE8 (standards mode) Hack IE7 fixes Hack IE6 fixes Or alternatively I let IE8 act like IE7 and don't bother using an updated engine as an updated engine. The only difference between now and then in the above plan is that I would check IE8 standards mode and hope that it renders the same as firefox, safari and other standards based browsers. I may be missing something, but I really don't see where the less work comes in for anyone who is coding to standards. For those who have been churning out badly coded sites that don't work properly in firefox/opera/etc and have always been coding for IE it is a blessing. It is not so much about 'not breaking the web', as not breaking the sites already breaking the web. James *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:10 PM, Jermayn Parker wrote: and then we will see the infamous pre-2000 days with websites reading: This is best viewed using Internet Explorer 6 Would it be so bad if this was This site is best NOT viewed with IE?? Come on - Let's not break the web - it's already broken, and face it was broken by MS, held together with chewing gum, string and hacks. Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I think we will be able to 'ignore' IE7 way before IE6 due to Microsoft being able to (presumably) force upgrades of IE7 to IE8, but still being stuck with IE6 in the way we are now on older OS's. Though IE8 rendering like IE7 by default means we will have to fix for that And no doubt Microsoft can come up with something to throw a spanner in those works like finding that IE8 will only be available for Vista (this is a prediction not a fact!). For me the real shame with this whole thing is the designers/coders who have no interest in standards will probably never know about any of this, they will just code for IE8 as they code for IE7, so where is the real improvement? They still produce sub-standard sites using flawed code, that is rendered in a good browser masquerading as a flawed browser. It is only the small percentage of 'standardistas' who will tap into IE8's improved engine and we will largely be the only people to notice too, as most clients will merely visually see a website in a browser rather than the code underneath. --- When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just like IE5 did. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PLease remove me
Hello; In every email you get there is an unsubscribe link at the bottom ;) http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm On 30 Jan 2008 at 11:25, Datatank wrote: Please remove me from this list. thanks [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
- Original Message - From: Katrina [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:17 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Thomas Thomassen wrote: You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. Don't forget the nasty gotcha: save that page on your own computer, load it back up and suddenly it looks different (as the browser doesn't have the meta tag in the code for the webpage). Yes, that is an issue. But saving webpages to disc has always been unreliable. Espesially now with the extensive use of AJAX and other embedded and streamed content. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. Yes it is. You just don't like it :) You're correct. I don't like it. Because it punishes the users and the owners of the sites. Kat *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Not every site has a webdesigner constantly maintaining it. Retroactively editing the millions of existing pages out there will cost an enourmouse amount of money. Fitting a meta tag into existing documents isn't as easy as implementing it into new ones. - Original Message - From: Chris Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:27 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Thomas Thomassen wrote: You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. What I've yet to hear from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. heres an alternative, instead of letting the sites break, add a meta tag to them to fix them to an older browser version. You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. It seems that what is so quick and simple for one group of people to do is somehow a huge task for the other group? -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Thomas Thomassen wrote: Not every site has a webdesigner constantly maintaining it. Retroactively editing the millions of existing pages out there will cost an enourmouse amount of money. Fitting a meta tag into existing documents isn't as easy as implementing it into new ones. Then change one simple line in the server configuration to send the relevant http header to signal that the site is old and flaky... P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
By the sound of it, IE9 will default to IE7 for documents with proper strict doctype and IE6 for documents with invalid or missing doctype. Just like IE8. Regarding what you said about X-IE9-Compatible, X-IE10-Compatible: No, it would be meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=9 / if the site was made for IE9, and meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=10 / the http-equip header name itself would not need to be replaced. And your proposed solution is a punishment to the users and the owners of the sites. And the owners will loose money if their sites suddently break due to missing visitors and having to pay someone to sort it out. It doesn't sound fair to do this to the owners and users because they're the ones that'll suffer the most. And we are after all offering a service. - Original Message - From: James Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They don't want to default to IE8 rendering because of what happend with IE7. It broke website. Not only that but IE is used so much outside the browser as well. It's a platform. Intranet apps. HTA apps. Even help files uses the IE engine. If IE8 defaulted to IE8 rendering, then you risk breaking ALL of that. And who's going to get the heat for that? The developers! Us! And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8 will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with that? When I first heard of this new tag I didn't know what to think of it. But I'm starting to like it more and more. What I've yet to hear from from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. Well, there are three groups here: 1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make their stuff work. 2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make their stuff work. 3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all. Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the problem it allegedly solves. Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode. Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since, to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode, they'd have to stop relying on old bugs). So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business. -- Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Damn, this is the second time in the last two days I have replied to something via the WSG instead of to the person I really meant to send it to. Argghhh GMAIL! Or perhaps its just silly user error... :) Sorry everyone!!! On Jan 30, 2008 3:47 PM, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Karl Lurman wrote: Train: there is a 6:30 pm overnight train,clean and comfortable, that leaves from Bangkok's Hualomphong Station. You can buy a train + ferry ticket package a day in advance(approx.800 baht) from travel agencies on Kao San Rd. You will arrive at 6 am in Surat Thani and catch a connecting bus to the ferry which leaves 8-9 am. You arrive in Tong Sala on Koh Phangan at 12-1 pm. This is the problem... We should have bought the tickets the day before our journey, which is today! Man, we are looking at a long journey tomorrow night huh. x Karl Well, that makes as much sense as anything out of Microsoft about this, so I guess it's on topic ;-) mark (who, for the record, agrees with Patrick) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Yes, I agree. Part of our job is putting up with the stupidity that MS gives us and making it work. We don't just get to say No, we won't support IE anymore, at least, not if you plan on keeping clients. Is this solution perfect? No. Is this solution acceptable? Yes. Could it be worse? Hell yes! Be thankful we are finally getting some standards compliance. Don't waste your time complaining about what they aren't doing. It's one line... one. Not two, not ten. Just one. It is even a fairly standards-compliant way. It is not perfect, but it is a decent solution at least. When HTML5 is released, in another decade or so, we won't need the meta-tag anymore because Microsoft won't have to be making up for all of the old sites that were hacked to work with their browser. They have a chance to conform to standards from the start, and, after recent events, probably will. However, they can't do anything else for HTML4/XHTML1. They've dug their own grave with this one. It's our job now to not let our clients and their customers suffer for Microsoft's short-comings. Thomas Thomassen wrote: By the sound of it, IE9 will default to IE7 for documents with proper strict doctype and IE6 for documents with invalid or missing doctype. Just like IE8. Regarding what you said about X-IE9-Compatible, X-IE10-Compatible: No, it would be meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=9 / if the site was made for IE9, and meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=10 / the http-equip header name itself would not need to be replaced. And your proposed solution is a punishment to the users and the owners of the sites. And the owners will loose money if their sites suddently break due to missing visitors and having to pay someone to sort it out. It doesn't sound fair to do this to the owners and users because they're the ones that'll suffer the most. And we are after all offering a service. - Original Message - From: James Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:03 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: They don't want to default to IE8 rendering because of what happend with IE7. It broke website. Not only that but IE is used so much outside the browser as well. It's a platform. Intranet apps. HTA apps. Even help files uses the IE engine. If IE8 defaulted to IE8 rendering, then you risk breaking ALL of that. And who's going to get the heat for that? The developers! Us! And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8 will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with that? When I first heard of this new tag I didn't know what to think of it. But I'm starting to like it more and more. What I've yet to hear from from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. Well, there are three groups here: 1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make their stuff work. 2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make their stuff work. 3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all. Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the problem it allegedly solves. Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode. Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since, to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode, they'd have to stop relying on old bugs). So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business. -- Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian
Re: [WSG] PLease remove me [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me document: wasDean Turner/Staff/ABS received by: at:31/01/2008 08:16:09 Free publications and statistics available on www.abs.gov.au *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PLease remove me [No Protective Marking]
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me [No Protective Marking] document: was[EMAIL PROTECTED] received by: at:31/01/2008 07:22:55 AM __ Important: This transmission is intended only for the use of the addressee and may contain confidential or legally privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that any use or dissemination of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you receive this transmission in error please notify the author immediately and delete all copies of this transmission. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac
On an Intel-based processor, you should be able to actually install Windows onto a Mac machine. I've never personally tested this, but it makes sense to me. If that is the case, then it will function just like Windows on any other PC build, so you can run anything that you would normally run. Another option is virtual machines, where you can run Windows from within a Mac OS. In this case, it would be just like another program you are running, although from within that virtual Windows you can do anything that you could with a normal installation of Windows. Sorry to here about your laptop. Tim MacKay wrote: Hi List, If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list if you feel it’s more appropriate. I’ve recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track as soon as possible, it was a Mac iBook from2005, and as I’ve gone a bit deeper into web development since I purchased it I was under the impression that when I upgrade I should change over to Windows. My current situation has forced me to consider upgrading sooner than expected, so I have a few questions about the Windows environment on the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications? Thanks in advance for any advice offered, I am going to dig up the previous threads on this topic from the last few weeks. Cheers, Tim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac
Check out this: http://www.apple.com/macosx/features/bootcamp.html Tim MacKay wrote: Hi List, If this discussion is outside the scope of this group I apologize, I know it was touched on a couple of weeks ago. Please email me off list if you feel it’s more appropriate. I’ve recently had my laptop stolen and am trying to get back on track as soon as possible, it was a Mac iBook from2005, and as I’ve gone a bit deeper into web development since I purchased it I was under the impression that when I upgrade I should change over to Windows. My current situation has forced me to consider upgrading sooner than expected, so I have a few questions about the Windows environment on the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications? Thanks in advance for any advice offered, I am going to dig up the previous threads on this topic from the last few weeks. Cheers, Tim *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Windows on a Mac
Tim MacKay wrote: Hi List, snip I have a few questions about the Windows environment on the new Macs. Specifically, can I run things like Microsoft Visual Studio? Flash Develop? Can I download and run .exe files? Is the Windows environment on Macintosh a true Windows environment and is it just a matter of switching OS’s like I would switch applications? You'll either need to run Windows under a virtualised environment using programs such as Parallels Desktop or VMWare Fusion, or you can use Bootcamp to run Windows natively. Both of them provide seamless (as much as it can be) integration between OSX and Windows, however if you run Bootcamp, you'll be booted into Windows and need a restart to get back into OSX. You can develop Flash on OSX so I don't see why you require Windows for this. Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RE: [WSG] Windows on a Mac
Chris Broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Both of them provide seamless (as much as it can be) integration between OSX and Windows, however if you run Bootcamp, you'll be booted into Windows and need a restart to get back into OSX. Hi, probably getting a little offtopic, and certainly too pedantic on my part, but... if you have the processor and RAM capacity then you can run your Bootcamp partition under VMWare Fusion without rebooting. I do it myself. It does mean that Vista runs noticeably slower, but it is still usable on a 2.4GHz 2GB RAM MacBook Pro (so long as you've done a clean or archive/install installation of Leopard). Best regards, Andrew NOTICE - This communication is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking any action in reliance on, this communication by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication please delete and destroy all copies and telephone SMS Management Technology on 9696 0911 immediately. Any views expressed in this Communication are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of SMS Management Technology. Except as required by law, SMS Management Technology does not represent, warrant and/or guarantee that the integrity of this communication has been maintained nor that the communication is free from errors, virus, interception or interference. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:37:26 +1100, Andrew Freedman wrote: Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type http://www.bigbaer.com/css_tutorials/css.image.text.wrap.htm Yah. DOCTYPE is XHTML 1.1, which should only be served as XML. I suggest HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 instead, unless you want to sniff for browsers that accept XML on your server processing. Be aware that the XML prolog puts IE6 into quirks mode. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
Why sniff out browsers that accept XML? If the document is marked as XHTML 1.1 it should allways be sent as XML. Though, I have seen people sniffing out browsers and using server side scripting to change the doctype. XHTML 1.1 to browsers than supports it, and XHTML 1.0 with the html mime to older browsers. Which is meaningless since the document effectivly is XHTML 1.0. - Original Message - From: David Hucklesby [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 7:07 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 21:37:26 +1100, Andrew Freedman wrote: Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type http://www.bigbaer.com/css_tutorials/css.image.text.wrap.htm Yah. DOCTYPE is XHTML 1.1, which should only be served as XML. I suggest HTML 4.01 or XHTML 1.0 instead, unless you want to sniff for browsers that accept XML on your server processing. Be aware that the XML prolog puts IE6 into quirks mode. Cordially, David -- *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] PLease remove me
Return Receipt Your Re: [WSG] PLease remove me document : was Stijn Audooren/TVH received by: at: 31/01/2008 07:59:06 DISCLAIMER A HREF=http://www.tvh.be/newen/pages/emaildisclaimer.html; http://www.tvh.be/newen/pages/emaildisclaimer.html /A This message is delivered to all addressees subject to the conditions set forth in the attached disclaimer, which is an integral part of this message. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
