SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 26 to 50 of 67
  1. #26
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    280
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by deathshadow60 View Post
    I did, that's how I figured out it was mediocre lightbox-style nonsense... Which is something I wouldn't put on a website in the first place... and is blocked from working in my primary browser.
    Well, I'm not real sure about this, and I'm sure you'll correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think anyone is telling you that you're required to use it.

    I'll be sure to inform everyone else in the world that you've decreed that this is an unacceptable way to present images.

    When I'm asked to help people (see the jAlbum forums), I help if I can. I try to avoid making any comments about what I think of the esthetics of the site in question. It's not relevant.

  2. #27
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    280
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by freelance101 View Post
    Does the problem persist if the framed source emits a X-UA-Compatible, IE-9 header?
    Kinda tough to test. It's one of those things that rears its ugly head only when the framed source is something like a "quirks" site, and the parent isn't. The situation that pretty much everyone appears to be talking about is the one in which the parent is fully modern, IE9-compliant, strict, brave, clean, and reverent, and the framed source is some chunk of unavoidable legacy code.

    It's also tough to find a clear description of what's happening. Almost all of the discussions of the issue revolve around the content of the child (the framed source), and how to make it compatible. That's all well and good if you have control over that source. But when you're framing someone else's page, it is what it is, alas.

  3. #28
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    280
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    An interesting chart: http://ieblog.members.winisp.net/mis...ent%20Mode.svg

    I'm not convinced that this is what IE9 is actually doing, however. My admittedly crude experiments seem to indicate otherwise.

    (I can't shake the feeling that the corresponding chart for FF would consist of a single box labeled, "Render the damned page." )

  4. #29
    . shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlyOut View Post
    (I can't shake the feeling that the corresponding chart for FF would consist of a single box labeled, "Render the damned page." )
    Firefox has its own Quirks and Standard modes as well.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  5. #30
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    280
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by logic_earth View Post
    Firefox has its own Quirks and Standard modes as well.
    Sigh. I was being facetious. Notice the little "winking" smiley?

    Of course FF has to be capable of operating in different modes. But the IE developers have, repeatedly, taken the whole issue to spectacular heights of complication. For this, I am not grateful.

  6. #31
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Why? If it wasn't for that, they wouldn't be able to comply with standards like they do now. The situation would be a lot worse.

    The iframe thing is odd, and according to that flowchart, a bug, but that aside, the compatibility modes enabled IE to be much better than it otherwise would have been.

  7. #32
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well, they only have to take it to such heights because IE was so extraordinarily bad to begin with.

  8. #33
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It wasn't though. It was the best browser on the market when each version was released. By modern standards, it's horrible - but that's as a result of MS abandoning the project and concentrating on .NET after IE6, and a lot of user's inability to stay up to date with software.

    MS only had to do all this because of the compatibility of the browser. They were a victim of their own success in a way!

  9. #34
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    280
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    True, though at this point the IE developers are like people in rehab. They're doing their best to be upstanding citizens, but can't completely erase the bankruptcies and broken marriages they left behind.

  10. #35
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    13
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Don't know about iFrames but I have a JavaScript LightBox app (displays graphics) in my clients website that stalls IE9 when you want to view the graphics. It works in Compatibility mode though, IE8, Firefox etc. I guess we have a lot of websites to re-write!

  11. #36
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    That's true, I guess. I do remember the IE vs. Netscape wars years ago and IE did always win because you could do a lot more with it.

    I actually don't really know why they still insist on having IE (well, at least why they insist on Trident). I can't see, from a marketing/business perspective what real benefit they gain instead of just using others and focusing their money on something else. Does IE9 actually make a profit?

  12. #37
    SitePoint Wizard Stomme poes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Netherlands
    Posts
    10,278
    Mentioned
    50 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)
    It was the best browser on the market when each version was released.
    Bah! 6 maybe... I'll give 6 slack. But 7 and 8?? They were behind the times before they were even release candidates! No :focus in IE7??? A decade-long in the specs (along with all the other CSS2.1 crap)?? Srsly IEfail...

    Off Topic:

    Quote Originally Posted by crusty
    Oh, same type of person who probably LIKES lightbox style effects -- where if it weren't for middle-clicking I'd be screaming at the display "lands sake just let me open the blasted image" (just with more expletives)
    The only thing I actually like about lightboxy stuffs is, if there's a crapload of thumbnails, I do like being able to click a next or prev link... not that you need a lightbox for that, but most sites with them I click the images and hit the back button and click the next image and hit the back button... which inspired me to learn the keyboard shortcuts for those things in my browser, lawlz, cause that's also irritating.

    The waiting 10 minutes for some box to grow and then gently fade in the image is the reason I block lightboxes and Javascript in general. Christ, that's maybe the most frustrating way to show images on your web site. ARRRRG

  13. #38
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'm sure it must do... It's part of the whole tie-in to the windows experience for them as well.

  14. #39
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stomme poes View Post
    Bah! 6 maybe... I'll give 6 slack. But 7 and 8?? They were behind the times before they were even release candidates! No :focus in IE7??? A decade-long in the specs (along with all the other CSS2.1 crap)?? Srsly IEfail...
    No, 7 and 8 were MS playing catch-up, which means they had to introduce all this compatibility mode stuff. IE7 is dying now anyway, hopefully by the end of the year we can start ignoring that too as well!

  15. #40
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Oh the irony of it all (now where's that damned emoticon that shows me shedding a tear...)

    I just commented on Craig Buckler's blog entry (regarding the launch of IE9) and my comment was something to the effect of that IE9 really doesn't change the fact that we have to deal with all of the counter effects of IE7 (and IE8 to a small degree) because it's exclusive to Win Vista and up and that in a best case scenario, IE9 wouldn't introduce its own quirks. Oh well... I guess that was too much to expect.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  16. #41
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    No, 7 and 8 were MS playing catch-up, which means they had to introduce all this compatibility mode stuff. IE7 is dying now anyway, hopefully by the end of the year we can start ignoring that too as well!
    Well hopefully we can ignore 7 as a browser but it's been my experince that by default IE8 falls back to IE7 document mode which makes it just as buggy as 7 was in the first place... And being that IE8 is the top IE browser for Windows XP, there will be a lot of IE8/7 browsers to deal with for some time yet.

    You can switch document mode in IE's developer tools but I doubt that the regular user will ever get to that part of their browser's toolset.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  17. #42
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I've found the opposite... I don't find many sites that default to IE7 mode. By default, a site should be in IE8 mode, so it shouldn't affect developers of new websites at all (unless they choose to use the meta tag to switch to IE7 mode again).

  18. #43
    . shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I suppose the obvious solution is do not use none standard compliant pages in an iframe and expect them to look good in a standard compliant way.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  19. #44
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    I've found the opposite... I don't find many sites that default to IE7 mode. By default, a site should be in IE8 mode, so it shouldn't affect developers of new websites at all (unless they choose to use the meta tag to switch to IE7 mode again).
    Hmmm... Strange.

    I first discovered this on my rock-stock Vista laptop when I was checking a website in IE8. It looked fine on my Win XP IE8 machine but there was a weird padding issue on the Vista laptop. So, I looked at the developer tools settings on the laptop and it was set to Browser Mode: IE8 Compatibility View and Document Mode: IE7 Standards. The way around that is to insert the meta tag to force IE8 mode. All the same I'd prefer IE7 was IE7 and IE8 was IE8. I find compatibility mode and quirks mode throw a wrench in the works for otherwise standards compliant web development.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  20. #45
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes, but like I say, it was that mechanism that allowed MS to embrace standards a lot more without breaking backwards compatibility.

  21. #46
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Yes, but like I say, it was that mechanism that allowed MS to embrace standards a lot more without breaking backwards compatibility.
    Yeah, I know that was their argument but I don't buy it.... It's always sounded like a cop out to me or at least as flawed argument. IE6 is what, 12 years old now? IE7 was much better but had bugs, IE8 was miles better except for compatibility and quirks modes... which default to document mode IE7. I just hope IE9 isn't going to be problematic.

    Besides, what's the reason for being backwards compatible? Corporations that rely on IE6 for intranet support are still using IE6. They never went to IE7/8 and if they ever get to IE9 they'll probably have abandoned their old intranets in favor of something current. The bottom line is that the IE team made a poor business decision that resulted in developers having to check websites for 3 versions of IE although their standards compliant code is consistent in other mainstream browsers. My only hope is that we won't have to add IE9 to that list. I still check sites in IE6 and only this year produced a site that I didn't have to check for IE6 compatibility (small demographic and the client didn't care about IE6 compatibility).
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  22. #47
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    280
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by awasson View Post
    My only hope is that we won't have to add IE9 to that list.
    So far, the only thing I've run into that could really be called a bug is this issue with iframes and DOCTYPES (and to reiterate, for the sake of the HTML/CSS Taliban members out there, it extends to embedded OBJECTs as well). At least, it seems to be a bug to me. MS seems to think otherwise.

    Other than that, the only problems I've run into have involved either a very literal, very strict interpretation of the standards (tough to piss and moan about that, even if FF, Chrome, et.al., have been a bit more flexible), or old scripts that haven't been updated to adapt to IE9. I'm using swffit.js, for example, which almost falls into the "abandoned code" category. Alas, I lack the Javascript skills to fix the minor problem that's cropped up in it. I believe it involves the manner in which IE9 reports the size of the viewport, but I can't quite track it down.

    Fingers crossed.

  23. #48
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yup hopefully that's it. I haven't used iFrames for a while but I do have a site that depends on a 3rd party site for some members only features that may take some content in iFrame (because the other site's developer doesn't want to furnish a web service). I'll have to look at that issue in IE9. Also I suppose I had better have a look (in IE9) at anything with video or flash embedded just in case.

    Oh well.... It keeps life interesting right
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  24. #49
    . shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by awasson View Post
    Besides, what's the reason for being backwards compatible?
    The moment something no longer work on any of Microsoft's platforms there will be hell. You can see this with every single update no matter how minor. One little thing breaks and the world is in uproar. I've seen this time and again. And those that are running old crap software only update when they have no choice. Heaven forbid they have to update there intranet because they got new computers.

    Those who say Microsoft should abandon backwards support will be the first to ***** about how they broke so-and-so. Also, its not the IE team that made this decision. Men in tight fancy suites that cost more then my computer made the decision.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  25. #50
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,030
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Again, I don't buy it.... How long has anything been supported in Win95/98/ME/2K. They don't allow IE9 to work in anything less than Vista and I don't recall how far back IE8 goes but I would say that particular stance on backwards compatibility is somewhat flawed.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •