Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The Type/Creator code system is not such a bad idea. remember you have 4
places in creator code and Type code. You can concevieably use any of
the 26 letters in the alphabet in each
DeMoN LaG wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Dec 2001:
My great-grandchildren will be driving to work in nuclear-powered
hovercraft and eating their meals in pill form by then.
And I bet their hovercraft and the machine that
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Well I can vouch there is at least one end user testing Mozilla. grin (myself)
*waves hand* You can add me to that list, too. Although most my
friends are geeks and computer professionals of some sort, I'm just a
general happy Linux user. I've enjoyed
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Dec 2001:
Unless things have changed since DOS/W3.11.W 95 days when you
double click on an application you have to browse to the
application you desire open said
JTK wrote:
-snip-
I thought Netscape was AOL. They've never helped end users with
anything other than teach them the hard way how much of the internet
they were missing.
Actually Netscape is owned by a Partnership (equally) of SUN and AOL
AOL is interested in the
Travis Crump wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
The Type/Creator code system is not such a bad idea. remember you have 4
places in creator code and Type code. You can concevieably use any of
the 26 letters in the alphabet in each place. I hope my math is right
but the are 26 to the
Sören Kuklau wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
The Type/Creator code system is not such a bad idea. remember you have 4
places in creator code and Type code. You can concevieably use any of
the 26
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb im Newsbeitrag
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
You do have to remember though that the 26^4 possibility is just for the
Type Code or the Creator code by itself. If you consider both together
that means that there are 26^4
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 27 Dec 2001:
what do PC users do in the case of a file with a .doc extension.
when they have both Word, WordPerfect, and AmiPro?
Either drag and drop it onto the .exe or a shortcut to the .exe,
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 27 Dec 2001:
You do have to remember though that the 26^4 possibility is just
for the Type Code or the Creator code by itself. If you consider
both together that means that there are 26^4
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 27 Dec 2001:
what do PC users do in the case of a file with a .doc extension.
when they have both Word, WordPerfect, and AmiPro?
Either drag and drop it onto the .exe
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 27 Dec 2001:
I am not trying to say one method is better or worse. Just rying to
explain the differences.
The difference, as I see it, is Netscape 6 is a replacement to Netscape
4. On
Here is the page location.
http://www.oo-xx.com/bbs/
The page creates a scroller div and sets its height to 30px. Then it
forgets to actually set overflow to scroll for that div. As a result
overflow is visible. Now the div has a height of 30px, so the
following content starts 30px below
DeMoN LaG wrote:
-snip-
Considering there is no one to complain to at Mozilla, as there is no
end user support, I fail to see how this is an issue
Well I can vouch there is at least one end user testing Mozilla. grin (myself)
I know others as well that are too. Although
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Considering there is no one to complain to at Mozilla, as there is no
end user support, I fail to see how this is an issue
Well I can vouch there is at least one end user testing Mozilla. grin (myself)
I know others as well that are too. Although they do
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
---snip---
Mozilla is targeted at developers. If you are an end user, wouldn't you be
better off with Beonex or Netscape instead?
--
/Jonas
actually no. on the Mac Platform Netscape 6 and Communicator 4.7.9 share
the exact same Type and creator
Hmmm, this quadruple-spacing is still here.
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
Subject:
Re: Mozilla/Netscape Showes this Website Incorrectly
From:
Jonas Jørgensen [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date:
Wed, 26 Dec 2001 17:58:00
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 26 Dec 2001:
snip usual worthless drivel
NETSCAPE HAS A DIFFERENT SPLASH SCREEN AND THAT SOMEHOW MAKES IT
END-USER USABLE!
Netscape is a company with money to provide people to help end users
with problems. If
DeMoN LaG wrote:
actually no. on the Mac Platform Netscape 6 and Communicator 4.7.9
share the exact same Type and creator Codes APPL / MOSS.
Shoulda kept your mouth shut, Jonas. Now we gotta here the whole speel
about type and creator codes again.
Sorry.
I don't know much about
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Mozilla is targeted at developers. If you are an end user, wouldn't you be
better off with Beonex or Netscape instead?
actually no. on the Mac Platform Netscape 6 and Communicator 4.7.9 share
the exact same Type and creator Codes APPL / MOSS.
...and what
JTK wrote:
Mozilla is targeted at developers. If you are an end user, wouldn't you be
better off with Beonex or Netscape instead?
Indeed. Those are known to be defect-free.
I never said that Netscape 6 was defect free. But it doesn't have Debug
and QA menus, and it doesn't contain
Because the point of the creator codes is to have them equal for _one_
application. Netscape 6 is, by the name (!), a new version of Netscape. So
Commun. 4.x and Netsc. 6 have the same creator code. Netscape _should_ leave
the same code.
Jonas can change it on his own if it bugs him that much.
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
JTK wrote:
Mozilla is targeted at developers. If you are an end user, wouldn't
you be
better off with Beonex or Netscape instead?
Indeed. Those are known to be defect-free.
I never said that Netscape 6 was defect free. But it doesn't have Debug
and QA
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 26 Dec 2001:
Huh?!? The whole THING is only half done! And half is rather
generous.
So half done that CNet, ZDNet and TechTV, among many other places, have ranked it
equal to or better than IE6. Imagine when
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
Mozilla is targeted at developers.
No, alas it's not...
Features like the default for Save Page being Complete Page, using the
title as the default filename for Save Page, a _very_ poorly
implemented full screen mode and others show that Mozilla is in fact
targeted
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
David W. Fenton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the
overall theory of operation of Mozilla is to completely crap
out if an I isn't crossed or a T isn't dotted in the HTML*,
but what do you expect from AOL?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Jonas Jørgensen) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Mozilla is targeted at developers. If you are an end user,
wouldn't you be better off with Beonex or Netscape instead?
No. Netscape sucks and has all sorts of crap I don't want.
Mozilla is *great* for end users, even in the
DeMoN LaG wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Dec 2001:
actually no. on the Mac Platform Netscape 6 and Communicator 4.7.9
share the exact same Type and creator Codes APPL / MOSS.
Shoulda kept your mouth shut,
Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
Mozilla is targeted at developers. If you are an end user, wouldn't you be
better off with Beonex or Netscape instead?
actually no. on the Mac Platform Netscape 6 and Communicator 4.7.9 share
the exact same Type and creator
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Dec 2001:
Unless things have changed since DOS/W3.11.W 95 days when you
double click on an application you have to browse to the
application you desire open said document. Or you have topen
NETSCAPE HAS A DIFFERENT SPLASH SCREEN AND THAT SOMEHOW MAKES IT
END-USER USABLE!
Netscape is a company with money to provide people to help end users
with problems. If Mozilla were to allocate resources and people to help
out end users, there would be no work going on towards the project.
DeMoN LaG wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 26 Dec 2001:
snip usual worthless drivel
NETSCAPE HAS A DIFFERENT SPLASH SCREEN AND THAT SOMEHOW MAKES IT
END-USER USABLE!
Netscape is a company with money to provide people to help end
DeMoN LaG wrote:
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED],
on 26 Dec 2001:
Huh?!? The whole THING is only half done! And half is rather
generous.
So half done that CNet, ZDNet and TechTV, among many other places, have ranked it
equal to or better
JTK wrote:
I don't recall ever claiming to be so damned smart; just old enough to
know better.
So why don't you?
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T. wrote:
The Type/Creator code system is not such a bad idea. remember you have 4
places in creator code and Type code. You can concevieably use any of
the 26 letters in the alphabet in each place. I hope my math is right
but the are 26 to the fourth power different
David W. Fenton wrote:
[snip]
If IE had not been designed to render invalid HTML (i.e.,
guessing what the web page is *supposed* to look like), then
there would not be all these load-of-crap HTML editors that
produce invalid HTML, since users would discard them when they
saw that
Nicolás Lichtmaier wrote:
NETSCAPE HAS A DIFFERENT SPLASH SCREEN AND THAT SOMEHOW MAKES IT
END-USER USABLE!
Netscape is a company with money to provide people to help end users
with problems. If Mozilla were to allocate resources and people to help
out end users, there would be no work
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Dec 2001:
My great-grandchildren will be driving to work in nuclear-powered
hovercraft and eating their meals in pill form by then.
And I bet their hovercraft and the machine that dispenses their pills
runs an
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 27 Dec 2001:
And yet it's missing. Maybe their was only decaf in the
webmaster's lunchroom that day, who knows. And what the heck,
let's raise the stakes a little - the web page with the missing
/TABLE is patient
Pascal Chevrel wrote:
[snip]
Could you please tell me which mozilla pages are not wtandard compliant ?
Apart from a missing DTD on the frontpage,
Bingo. The patch has been sitting in Bugzilla for months if not years.
It's one fricken line. Yet there it sits.
basic [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
if you can, put the page up somewhere where we can test it. The last
time I checked that URL I got a DATA ERROR message or some sort.
Here is the page location.
http://www.oo-xx.com/bbs/
Please test it.
Thanks. :-)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the
overall theory of operation of Mozilla is to completely crap out
if an I isn't crossed or a T isn't dotted in the HTML*, but
what do you expect from AOL? I mean hell, it's not like they own
Time Warner or something!
If IE had not been
David W. Fenton wrote:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (JTK) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]:
the
overall theory of operation of Mozilla is to completely crap out
if an I isn't crossed or a T isn't dotted in the HTML*, but
what do you expect from AOL? I mean hell, it's not like they own
Time Warner or
JTK [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 26 Dec 2001:
Yep, I as a web user somehow care about that. Right, you get the
job of explaining that to the dozens of Mozilla users.
Considering there is no one to complain to at Mozilla, as there is no
end user
Well, after validating the page (or attempting to) using HTML 4.01
strict, transitional, XHTML 1.0 strict, etc, even HTML 3.2. I get:
Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML version.
Maybe that's a start to the problem
...in other words, use the automatic validation service here to
if you can, put the page up somewhere where we can test it. The last
time I checked that URL I got a DATA ERROR message or some sort.
Yeh You-Ying wrote:
Hello,
I put the screenshots of IR and Mozilla 0.9.7 while visiting the same website.
(1) IE
flacco wrote:
Well, after validating the page (or attempting to) using HTML 4.01
strict, transitional, XHTML 1.0 strict, etc, even HTML 3.2. I get:
Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML version.
Maybe that's a start to the problem
...in other words, use the automatic
JTK wrote:
flacco wrote:
Well, after validating the page (or attempting to) using HTML 4.01
strict, transitional, XHTML 1.0 strict, etc, even HTML 3.2. I get:
Sorry, this document does not validate as HTML version.
Maybe that's a start to the problem
...in other words, use
Hello,
I put the screenshots of IR and Mozilla 0.9.7 while visiting the same website.
(1) IE
http://www.photome.com.tw/album1/youying/2491133/big/nc.jpg
(2) Mozilla/Netscape
http://www.photome.com.tw/album1/youying/2491133/big/nd.jpg
Please note the red words in the middle of pics.
Any one
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Yeh You-Ying) wrote in
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED], on 23 Dec 2001:
Hello,
I put the screenshots of IR and Mozilla 0.9.7 while visiting the
same website.
(1) IE
http://www.photome.com.tw/album1/youying/2491133/big/nc.jpg
(2) Mozilla/Netscape
50 matches
Mail list logo
