Posted on 10/07/2004 5:34:43 AM PDT by ShadowAce
They don't fine tune their websites for IE rendering. They could all render the same page if they all stuck to the W3C HTML, XML and CSS standard.
A NYT username/password cookie will not allow you to log into Yahoo! Mail or Hotmail, conversely though, a Yahoo! Mail cookie will allow you to log into Yahoo! Finance or Yahoo! Groups because you only need one account for the whole site. MSN works the same way when you have an online photo album or Hotmail account. Cookies don't store personal information like name, city, state, country, phone number. It just stores that sites name and things like username and password. Looking at the raw text file of a cookie, you can't discern much from it, even if you were looking for usernames or passwords.
Your two sentences are mutually contradictory. And major sites, including FR, do try to determine what browser you have, and supply a page tailored for it.
I know that because occasionally someone posts a big block of HTML from a news site, and it doesn't render in IE.
There are huge differences among the different browsers in how they align graphics in tables. This creates problems if you are trying to make a dynamically sized text box with rounded corners.
Did I mention personal information or passwords? What on earth are you talking about?
I inferred that's what you meant, since you were donning a tinfoil hat.
Bump
That's false. IE is more forgiving than the other browsers out there, for "absolute positioning" in CSS, IE is more "absolute" than the other browsers out there.There are huge differences among the different browsers in how they align graphics in tables. This creates problems if you are trying to make a dynamically sized text box with rounded corners.
Shouldn't be a problem if you explicitly put in the table parameter the height and width of a table in "pixels" rather than "percentage". A table that would be "100%" wide would be wider on a 1024x768 screen resolution than the same table on a 800x600 resolution screen. They would be the exact height and width if they were sized in the number of pixels wide and the number of pixels in height on and screen resolution. Just like images.
I don't visit disreputable sites, but I still get these warnings. Obviously, mainstream sites have a vested interest in IE.
If you read what I wrote you would realize that I am talking about dynamically sized tables used for text. The columns expand or contract with window sizing.
I've never gotten doublick site cookies since 1998, when it was found they were tracking people's movements on the net. My firewall blocks connections to and from doubleclick, and I've set up IE to block cookies that are titled "username@doubleclick.net".
That's what I was talking about as well. I just gave you the reason why. It boils down to "percentage" width versus "pixel" width. Any table using width in percentage will dynamically resize when you resize the browser window, they won't if you use pixeled sizing and are therefore static.
That's a good idea, but beyond the abilities of most users. Spybot blocks it. I am surprised that tracking cookies are used by major commercial sites.
So there are differences in browser rendering, and they aren't limited to MS vs everyone else.
There are also differences between browsers in the interpretation of font size. If you specify absolute sizes then handicapped people can't use the browser to enlarge the fonts. If you use dynamic sizes, different browsers display them differently.
I never use absolute sizing of fonts in webpages I create for that speific reason.
So if you want your page rendered the same way on all browsers, you have to have several style sheets, and determine which one to send.
I love Firefox. I just started using it a couple of weeks ago. I am on a dial up and my IE was sooo slow. Fire fox is much faster. I have emailed everyone I know about it.
I am running Windows 98 (not SE) and it is working great for me.
Who's fault is that? Certainly not Microsoft's. I simply stated already once on this thread that MS has followed the W3C standards, a standard that up until a few years ago, other browsers like Netscape, Mozilla and Opera finally got around to complying with. Microsoft was compliant from the get-go when CSS become a widely accepted way of formatting the look of an individual or group of pages. You seem to have problems with clear English, strawmen and conspiracy theories. Try dealing with the facts of the matter.
Exactly ... Not that long ago, I remember tweaking DOS settings to try to make one program work, then going in and changing the settings to make another one work, and then tinkering with it further to use a third one. I want something that I can pretty much use straight out of the box, without having to adjust, readjust, and mis-adjust.
Or, as Oddball put it ...
"Oh, man, I just ride in 'em. I don't know what makes 'em work."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.