Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

That's right, folks: the first release of Firefox 1.0 designated for general use rather than being a "Technology Preview" is out now. If you've ever held off from giving it a go because you don't trust beta software, now would be a good time to make the leap.

There are few new visible features in this release; the main focus has been on fixing bugs and improving stability. That leaves my post a little empty, so I'll go over some thoughts about Firefox in general, since this is probably the last milestone post I'll make.

First, it's worth dispelling some illusions that you might have heard from so-called Firefox "fanboys". Is Firefox perfect? No. Does it have every feature you would ever possibly need in a browser? No. (That's what extensions are for, after all.) Now that the version number is 1.0, is it guaranteed to work flawlessly and never crash or behave strangely? No. That's an important one: I've seen too many posts across the Web screaming in Firefox's defence "This is beta software! Everything will be perfect in 1.0!" That's certainly not true. It's as stable as I'd expect from any Web browser, though, and a good deal more so than most of the Internet Explorer releases I've used in the past.

It's also not the amazing all-in-one PC security kit some make it out to be. Mozilla and Firefox have had their share of vulnerabilities reported against them, though few have been as critical as those seen and exploited in Internet Explorer in recent times. It's almost certainly true that the average user is less likely to be duped into installing spyware using Firefox compared to IE, but it's also true that, provided you keep it updated with the latest patches, IE is a suitably secure alternative if you browse the Web with your eyes open, and don't just say "Yes" to everything a dialog box asks you. The Windows XP SP2 version of IE in particular is much safer than previous incarnations, though good luck getting it on an earlier version of Windows.

If you're wondering why I'm not just singing Firefox's praises as usual, it's because there's already been a lot of hype, and I think in some respects it's detrimental. Some new users who've taken in all the good press come to Firefox expecting nothing short of a life-changing experience, and are then naturally disappointed. At the end of the day, Firefox is just a browser. We think it's the best one available at the moment, and urge you to give it a go if you haven't already. It won't cure cancer, but it might make your Web browsing more efficient if you give it a chance.

With that said, what aspects of Firefox might you find particularly helpful? I've compiled a few I personally enjoy and have heard postiive comments about.

Tabbed Browsing

Not really an advantage over many browsers other than plain Internet Explorer, since it's pretty widely implemented, but it's a useful feature. Personally, I didn't see the point for a long time — what was wrong with organising pages in taskbar buttons? The real benefit is actually in background tabs. Try visiting, say, a thumbnail gallery where you want to view several pictures from it. Try clicking them all with the middle button — they'll open in unfocused tabs, so you can click every link that interests you and then go back to see all the results.

Popup Blocking

Even XPSP2 IE6 has this, now, so again it's not a major advantage any more; still, unrequested popups will rarely bother you in Firefox. Little further explanation is necessary, except that if you're new to popup blocking, don't worry about popups you do want to see because you've clicked them on purpose — any good popup blocker will still let these through, and Firefox is no exception. (It is possible to tweak the browser to block them all, though, if you so wish.)

Quick access to clearing sensitive information

Head over to the Privacy tab of the Options window, and you'll find all sensitive information the browser might store (cookies, saved form information, passwords etc.) in one place, where you can clear them quickly and, if you need to, prevent them from being saved in the future.

Extensions

If Firefox's native features aren't enough for you, you can often find an extension to add what you're looking for. For example, if popup blocking alone isn't enough, try AdBlock to get rid of most inline ads too. Tabbrowser Extensions and Tabbrowser Preferences both add more preferences and features to tabbed browsing (though I recommend the latter if you can live without the extra functions of the former, as it's generally more stable and less disruptive of native code).

It only takes a quick Google search to find more appreciated features. As you may be aware by now, our particular platform for encouraging users to move away from IE is based on Web standards. Internet Explorer's standards support is looking very dated nowadays, and it's causing the Web to stagnate in the way Netscape 4 did a few years ago, as authors are forced to keep legacy code for IE compatibility, often at the expense of making pages that look and work better. Just about any browser other than IE works pretty well from this point of view, but Mozilla's Gecko engine is our favourite core, and Firefox the easiest interface to it for migrating from Internet Explorer. If you care about CoN's alternative styles, it's likely that future ones simply won't be available to IE users (some of the current ones already look pretty bad anyway).

Anyway — I hope everyone has a good experience with Firefox 1.0.

• Get Firefox
• Firefox 1.0 Release Notes

Mozilla.org is really getting hammered right now. Here's a list of official mirrors:

http://64.12.168.21/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.0
http://207.200.85.49/pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.0
http://trillian.cc.gatech.edu/pub/mozilla....refox/releases/
http://mozilla.osuosl.org/pub/mozilla.org/...x/releases/1.0/
http://mozilla.ussg.indiana.edu/pub/mozill...refox/releases/

Official Torrent:

http://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/fir...1.0.exe.torrent


The new default homepage is pretty nice too. http://www.google.ca/firefox

Edit

Fixed up unclickable torrent link

This post has been edited by Elessar on 9th November 2004 16:27

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

Thanks so much for the information, and thanks much for the Torrent, Elessar. I'm so pleased with the release and can't wait to get it set up.

--------------------

Hey, put the cellphone down for a while
In the night there is something wild
Can you hear it breathing?
And hey, put the laptop down for a while
In the night there is something wild
I feel it, it's leaving me

I think in our mad rush to get Firefox ASAP, we broke Mozilla. It took me twenty minutes to connect, but I's finally updated.

Except all my extensions aren't compatible now... d'oh! ><

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

Only adblock and imagezoom remained enabled for me.

I should point out that if you wish, you can go into about:config and search for extensions.disabledObsolete

Set that to false, and everything should work out for you. Most extensions that you used in PR 1.0 should still survive.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

I guess that's the kicker. I don't think I used 1.0 PR, and even if I did, it threw errors at me.

I'm just gonna rough it out, I've lived through worse than having my fancy skin disabled.

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

it should've been a national holiday. Firefox 1.0 AND Halo 2. anyways, i still love firefox.

/me hugs mozilla

This post has been edited by Malevolence on 10th November 2004 18:46

--------------------

moé in the streets, senpai in the sheets

...A new browser version came out. So what? Why make it a front-page news post? What's the link to squaresoft here?

Seriously, this is pretty ridiculous. No trying to draw flames from anyone, but Firefox users are worse than religious fanatics. I'll stick with my browser of choice and refrain from imposing my views on others, thank you! ...Go Lynx! ;P

Possible spoilers: highlight to view

Yes, that last part IS meant to be a joke. Though I DO use Lynx daily at work...

Edit

So out of fairness' sake, will we see a news post for the next version of Konqueror? :)

This post has been edited by Silverlance on 11th November 2004 23:39

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

It's a push for people who think IE = The Web. I'm trying to explain some of the benefits of at least trying alternatives. Previous news posts have linked to Opera and the Mozilla suite as well, but 9 November was Firefox's 1.0 day so it got more exclusive promotion.

It's news because it's site news: this is the browser we recommend. We think it's the best vehicle to get users away from IE, and the more that happens, the more chance the Web has of moving forward with standards that have been floating around for years but remain largely unadopted thanks to IE's huge market share and prehistoric CSS support.

Aside from having a preference against IE, we don't really care what browser you use, and please note that we continue to support as many browsers as we can: even Netscape 4, which has its own special site skin so that you can at least view the thing without suffering a brain hemmorhage. I don't really see posting news about our favourite browser as "imposing our views on others", and I object to the mass branding of all Firefox users as fanatics. You did read the part where I tried to debunk some of their "best-thing-ever" claims, didn't you?

Konqueror won't get a news article because I don't use Linux, so I can't even begin to test it. I'd offer to link to it as an alternative in future posts, but I already explained that this is the last browser news item there'll be anyway. I think I've mentioned Safari in the past, which is built on the same (but improved) technology.

This post has been edited by Tiddles on 11th November 2004 23:55

You did read the bit on how the last part was a joke, right? ;)

But seriously, I never really saw any compliance issues when a doctype was specified in either IE or FF. To each their own, though as a personal opinion I feel Firefox users take their browser a little too seriously, and often provide very stupid reasons to make the switch ("Yeah but it's not M$!!!" ...jeeeeezus christ, grow up will ya? ;) )

Mind you, informed arguments on standard compliance and additional features over the black sheep of browsers, IE, are not something to be ignored, but it seems as though most of the FF population prefer it because they don't know how to use IE (ie, "Yeah, but Firefox protects you from spyware"; rather, IE simply doesn't disable activeX by default and nobody ever tried to look for the option that allows) or because, frankly, they have this rather funny view that MS is evil (only to other corporations, Mr. end-user ;) ). That's just my view on this; I've used both at work and never really saw any reason to make a fuss about either (if only that introducing a new browser and trying to make a standard out of it causes a bunch of compatibility issues with older sites; standard-compliance or no.)

Just my two cents. To each their own, but for god's sake if you're gonna have to pick a side, have a reason to do it. ;) Despite the tone my post has, I'm neutral since, like I said, I have to use both at work when developping web applications.

So, no news posts to mark the next version of IE when it'll come out? ;)

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote

Tiddles
Posted on 11th November 2004 18:54

It's a push for people who think IE = The Web. I'm trying to explain some of the benefits of at least trying alternatives. Previous news posts have linked to Opera and the Mozilla suite as well, but 9 November was Firefox's 1.0 day so it got more exclusive promotion.

It's news because it's site news: this is the browser we recommend. We think it's the best vehicle to get users away from IE, and the more that happens, the more chance the Web has of moving forward with standards that have been floating around for years but remain largely unadopted thanks to IE's huge market share and prehistoric CSS support.

Aside from having a preference against IE, we don't really care what browser you use, and please note that we continue to support as many browsers as we can: even Netscape 4, which has its own special site skin so that you can at least view the thing without suffering a brain hemmorhage. I don't really see posting news about our favourite browser as "imposing our views on others", and I object to the mass branding of all Firefox users as fanatics. You did read the part where I tried to debunk some of their "best-thing-ever" claims, didn't you?

Konqueror won't get a news article because I don't use Linux, so I can't even begin to test it. I'd offer to link to it as an alternative in future posts, but I already explained that this is the last browser news item there'll be anyway. I think I've mentioned Safari in the past, which is built on the same (but improved) technology.

Well Tiddles, I personally don't use IE that much. I have it on different settings then my main browser though for convenience. My main browser being Safari. I personally have some questions:

1. Is Firefox compatible with newer Macintoshes? I can't use it if it isn't.

2. If you want to convert people, could you please tell us more why you don't like IE?

More web sites recommend IE then any other browser. That is because every new computer comes with it (Even Macs). I do agree it is important to browse around though. If you don't, you can't know if what you are using is best. That is especialy true of computers.
For anybody who currently uses a Macintosh, I might like to add with OS X it has become harder to remove software. To the point where you could need an uninstaller to remove everything properly. I haven't heard of such a thing for Explorer. I am out of date on my knowledge of computers, but before OS X, I used to be a real Mac person. Now I only know a drop of the bucket.

Edit

Added quote because Silverlances post wasn't there when I started typing.

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 12th November 2004 02:27

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

@Tonepoet:
You remind me back when my mother got her Mac of how someone once said you couldn't simply delete programs because they would put bits of themselves everywhere and you'd still be finding them here and there years later. I remember looking through files with a hex editor and freaking out when I say stuff that looked like it was from other programs. ;) "Mom!! Your fonts took over my game!! :_:"

Most old websites were designed for IE, and compatibility is not always assured between browsers. That's the main reason why old sites recommand IE mainly. It's not just a browser compliance issue, but sometimes an implementation issue. Take javascript for instance: the different implementations of it make me feel kinda ill (innerText is only supported by IE, sadly, for instance). There's also the various browser-specific extensions (blink tags, which were Netscape-specific for a very long time, or IE's contentseditable property, which many Firefox users are asking for. Apparently it's supposed to be implanted sooner or later, though. There is much controversy on wether this is good, or "omg FF is just playing catchup with IE BAD FF DON'T GIVE IN TO EVIL M$!".)

It's a matter of compliance, in the end. It's like trying to run a very dated System 7 app on OS X. It might run, but then again it might not. Or emulating MacOS on a PC; the implementation may work fine, but then again some programs may choke on it.

Edit: Forgot a two-letter word. :P

This post has been edited by Silverlance on 12th November 2004 02:53

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Silverlance @ 11th November 2004 22:11)

So, no news posts to mark the next version of IE when it'll come out?

Hey, it's only been a couple years since they added to the feature set of IE instead of issuing hotfixes for shell exploits due to integration with the OS.

But that's ok, I'm sure for the sake of being fair and balanced, IE coverage would be more than welcomed. Whenever they bring out a new browser, such as when Longhorn is released, I'm sure we'll be on top of things.

Until then, you can rest assured than your neutral yet anti-FF-zealot stance will rest in peace. Would you like updates on IE flaws and patches instead? That might flood the news forum though, maybe that's not such a good idea.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

Microsoft isn't making IE a standalone browser anymore, so unless you're gonna get the new OS's, you're stuck with IE6. Forever.

The reason Firefox is preferred by most experienced developers is because it's got better CSS support. That's just the bottom line right there, it handles CSS much better than IE, and I have evidence and experience to back that up: I tried to convert my website's design to an all-div setup, and it looked just fine in Firefox, but when I loaded IE, it was shot to hell. Boxes were all over the place and my eyes went trying to figure out what happened.

It was lollable though. It showed me just how piss-poor IE is at handling CSS. That's really the main reason CoN supports Firefox: it's so much easier to make a good site design using Firefox than using Internet Explorer, 'cause there has to be dozens of sloppy fixes and patches just to make things flow together nicely; and even then, there's no guarantee it'll even look perfect.

That's just how it is, period, stop. Firefox does CSS better.

This post has been edited by Zephir on 12th November 2004 05:49

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

Quote (Silverlance)

You did read the bit on how the last part was a joke, right?

It looked like you were referring to the Lynx comment, which I indeed didn't reference.

Quote (Silverlance)

But seriously, I never really saw any compliance issues when a doctype was specified in either IE or FF.

I was going to provide some CSS support charts for you, but I couldn't find any that are really accurate. For instance, pretty much all of them gave IE a big tick for background-attachment support, when background-attachment: fixed doesn't work on elements other than body.

A few other random things that have bitten me in designing things for CoN:

• You can't anchor absolutely positioned elements by providing top, right, bottom and left values and having the width and height calculated in IE.
  
• overflow: auto doesn't work in some cases in IE (I can't be too precise; it was a long time ago, but that's why the site CoN3 style doesn't have the frames-effect in IE)
  
• min-width and max-width don't work in IE. width acts like min-width should, but other browsers treat it correctly, so it's not an acceptable substitute. Same for height, min-height, max-height.
  
• text-align: center center-aligns boxes contained within it as well as text.
  
• No child selector (element1 > element2) or attribute selector (input[type="checkbox"])
  
• :hover only works on <a> elements.

And that's really pretty much just off the top of my head. It's also worth looking at Channel9 Wiki: Internet Explorer Support For CSS, which lists some bugs and links to some demonstrations of others.

Quote (Silverlance)

To each their own, though as a personal opinion I feel Firefox users take their browser a little too seriously, and often provide very stupid reasons to make the switch ("Yeah but it's not M$!!!" ...jeeeeezus christ, grow up will ya? )

Some do. Has that happened here? I don't think so. Criticising this news post on that basis seems strange. Microsoft isn't evil, but it doesn't appear to have any intention of improving its browser before Longhorn, and even then, the IE team are pretty quiet if you ask them whether it'll have better standards support.

Quote (Silverlance)

Mind you, informed arguments on standard compliance and additional features over the black sheep of browsers, IE, are not something to be ignored,

See above.

Quote (Silverlance)

but it seems as though most of the FF population prefer it because they don't know how to use IE (ie, "Yeah, but Firefox protects you from spyware"; rather, IE simply doesn't disable activeX by default and nobody ever tried to look for the option that allows)

See the news post. The point is that in its default state, Firefox is less likely to get you spywared than pre-XPSP2 IE.

Frankly, as long as they're not trying to force you to use Firefox, I don't see there's much reason to jump on their own personal explanations for using it. It's unfortunate that some users do try to push the browser with really pretty uninformed arguments, which is again something I criticised in the news post.

And background tabs are a serious, visible feature improvement over IE. It's not all about standards and security.

Quote (Silverlance)

(if only that introducing a new browser and trying to make a standard out of it causes a bunch of compatibility issues with older sites; standard-compliance or no.)

This is really a non-issue. Every major browser release has caused this, most notably IE6 on doctyped pages that actually relied on quirks that got fixed in standards mode. We're not all still using HTML 2.0 because browser support has improved and people have moved away from the old programs; that's what we're trying to encourage here, in the absence of significant IE updates.

Quote (Silverlance)

Just my two cents. To each their own, but for god's sake if you're gonna have to pick a side, have a reason to do it.

I think our reasons have been made pretty clear, at least enough that we shouldn't be lumped with mindless zealots.

Quote (Silverlance)

So, no news posts to mark the next version of IE when it'll come out?

I doubt I'll be able to afford Longhorn to evaluate it. If it offers significant improvements in Web standards which put it ahead of Firefox, I might advertise it as our new browser of choice. Excuse me if I don't hold my breath, though.

CNet's been covering things since the launch of 1.0. I can't say it's making a dent solely because people hate Microsoft, but I can't say more or I'll be labeled a fanboy. Draw your own conclusions, it's a fairly balanced article. And Asa Dotzler is a pretty good guy from the couple times I've talked to him over email.

This post has been edited by Rangers51 on 23rd November 2004 12:07

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

I just thought I'd bring up a few corrections/comments.

- ANY browser requires a doctype to be specified in order to be viewed properly. If you specify a doctype in IE, DIV placement, for instance, will not vary when viewed in Firefox. In fact, not including a doctype is bad design entirely. (My personal recommandation is XHTML 1.0 Strict, personally. )

- The :hover pseudoclass: "CSS doesn't define which elements may be in the above states [...]" (From the W3C itself, on the use of pseudoclasses on elements.) The examples provided in the CSS 2.1 specs is on an a element, but there is no set definition on which elements it can be applied to.

- IE's support for the box model is, indeed, bad.

- I honestly have never run into problems with overflow:auto with neither IE nor FF, but I'll take your word for it. Got any specific examples though? I'm curious about this behavior...

- A well-designed website will generally support more than one browser. Building a site with only one browser in mind because its ease of design is greater is unprofessional. Ideally, design should gracefully degrade features with implementation, such as that unsupported material will not be used on a browser that can't handle it. We do not live in an ideal world, though, and backwards support for older browsers is an often sketchy business. (Particularly back when IE and Netscape started both introducing their own tags just "to be different.")

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Silverlance @ 23rd November 2004 11:31)

- A well-designed website will generally support more than one browser. Building a site with only one browser in mind because its ease of design is greater is unprofessional. Ideally, design should gracefully degrade features with implementation, such as that unsupported material will not be used on a browser that can't handle it. We do not live in an ideal world, though, and backwards support for older browsers is an often sketchy business. (Particularly back when IE and Netscape started both introducing their own tags just "to be different.")

With all due respect Silverlance, but are you sure you haven't moved on from the past?

The only time that it was truly difficult horrific to design a website for multiple browsers was at the end of the browser wars when IE 4 and Netscape 4 were both introduced. Layer tags and DHTML extensions, at the same time, were an absolute nightmare.

Now we have a standards compilance issue, not this "look at all the tags being introduced" idea that you seem to keep harping on. There should be no reason to design for any specific browser. It's like coding C++ so it'll compile in a certain company's compiler. It's utterly ridiculous. There are language specs for a reason, and it's not to stifle innovation. Honestly, there is a large difference between IE's "standards" and the rest of the world's. When you say "design for multiple browsers", it's time to realize that just means "get it working for IE and the standard spec".

As for your silly notion that IE is secure without ActiveX, it's funny how that's the main reason why major businesses still use IE; because of intranet apps developed with ActiveX. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Cheers.

--------------------

Visions of Peace - Four Generals, One Empire, and the Returners caught in the middle.

On the subject of tags being introduced, we've long since gone past that. Issues now are with properties, some of which, despite being non-standard, have been introduced by even the standards-compliant browsers for use (such as, for instance, Firefox and "contenteditable"; google for it and you'll see the mixed feelings and pressure that was being made to support it.) To a lesser degree would be, say, overflow-x and overflow-y, both of which are extremely versatile yet, unfortunately, the standard only supports overflow.

On the subject of support, you're vastly overlooking many of the other browsers, such as Lynx (yes, I know a number of places where it is used heavily, though we can all agree that it doesn't share a slice of the browser pie as big as IE/FF ) I work as a software engineer and often find myself working on web-based applications. In professional situations, sometimes support for certain design standards ALSO come into play (such as allowing the layout to reasonably scale when increasing text size in browsers with extensions for people with visual disabilities) While standards compliance is the most important thing to consider when designing a site, there are many aspects that also share a degree of importance in design. You'd be surprised just how large that particular degree is sometimes (frustratingly enough...)

Most of our framework at work relies on server-side scripting, web-applications using ASP, and quite frankly, no client-side ActiveX. Works just as well in IE6 and FireFox; in fact, developpement has been so smooth that I can confidently work on something, test it in one browser, and test it in the other browser a few weeks later without seeing any difference (except, sometimes, in javascript for some minor automation tasks.) There is, of course, the possibility that my XSLT stylesheets may open IE up to major spyware vulnerability, so I've been keeping an eye on those.

Peace.

Edit: Important typo.

This post has been edited by Silverlance on 23rd November 2004 17:58

--------------------

"Judge not a man by his thoughts and words, but by
the quality and quantity of liquor in his possession
and the likelyhood of him sharing."

Quote (Silverlance)

- ANY browser requires a doctype to be specified in order to be viewed properly. If you specify a doctype in IE, DIV placement, for instance, will not vary when viewed in Firefox. In fact, not including a doctype is bad design entirely. (My personal recommandation is XHTML 1.0 Strict, personally. )

Except IE doesn't actually support XHTML.

If you use the optional XML prologue before the XHTML DOCTYPE, IE treats it as quirks mode, which is obviously useless. Sending XHTML as application/xhtml+xml doesn't work in IE, leaving no alternative but to send it as text/html, which leads to many problems, not least the fact that you're sending tag soup that happens to be similar enough to regular HTML to work, and relies on the fact that no browser actually uses the SGML definition of / before > (it actually means "draw a > character here"; this should be honoured in documents sent as text/html, but isn't, and couldn't be because it's not what anyone expects thanks to the W3C's rather flawed HTML-compatible XHTML profile).

Quote (Silverlance)

- The :hover pseudoclass: "CSS doesn't define which elements may be in the above states [...]" (From the W3C itself, on the use of pseudoclasses on elements.) The examples provided in the CSS 2.1 specs is on an a element, but there is no set definition on which elements it can be applied to.

Is it the smart thing, then, to restrict it to the <a> element when no restriction is given? What about putting a hover effect on links defined in an XML document which don't use an HTML <a> element? The simple fact is that every other graphical browser that's been updated in the last few years supports using hover on arbitrary elements. Or, I should say, every graphical browser that's been updated in the last few years; IE hasn't.

Quote (Silverlance)

- IE's support for the box model is, indeed, bad.

It's not terrible, but it's noticably flawed compared to the other implementations floating around.

Quote (Silverlance)

- I honestly have never run into problems with overflow:auto with neither IE nor FF, but I'll take your word for it. Got any specific examples though? I'm curious about this behavior...

I don't remember too well, as I said. If you want to try and save a site page (not forum page) in the CoN3 style, from Internet Explorer, and then try and add overflow:auto such that the page looks like it does in Firefox, you'll probably run into it. Or you may not, since I think I rewrote the way we build CoN3 pages for IE since then, and didn't try messing with overflow again since it was live by then.

The issue was certainly somehow related to using positioned divs to create a fullscreen layout. I know it works fine for fixed size elements, and in some tables.

Quote (Silverlance)

- A well-designed website will generally support more than one browser. Building a site with only one browser in mind because its ease of design is greater is unprofessional. Ideally, design should gracefully degrade features with implementation, such as that unsupported material will not be used on a browser that can't handle it. We do not live in an ideal world, though, and backwards support for older browsers is an often sketchy business. (Particularly back when IE and Netscape started both introducing their own tags just "to be different.")

No argument there. The unfortunate thing is that IE becomes one of those "older browsers" if you try to use much of the CSS2 I mentioned previously, which as I say, works fine in modern implementations.

Quote (Silverlance @ 23rd November 2004 10:31)

- If you specify a doctype in IE, DIV placement, for instance, will not vary when viewed in Firefox.

Not exactly true. That website recode I told you about? Same doctype in both pages and the div boxes broke in IE... BADLY. Nothing but cold hard evidence there. The point is that some things have to be reworked and hacked beyond recognition in order to work in IE.

And I agree with Tiddles and you on the last part of that post... which is exactly what CoN's been doing for years (I think...). You're preachin' to the choir, kid. =)

This post has been edited by Zephir on 27th November 2004 06:34

--------------------

~Status Report~

* Completed... Dragon's Head
* Completed... Soldiers of the Empire: Disciples (release pending)
* In Progress/Undecided... Of Love and Betrayal
* Planning/Assembly... Where it all Began

Trouble with Firefox recently found:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/pcworld/120756

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978

Just disable "Allow Web sites to install software" until this is fixed to make sure you're safe. I imagine a fixed 1.0.4 will be out pretty soon.

Quote (Tiddles @ 9th May 2005 14:39)

Just disable "Allow Web sites to install software" until this is fixed to make sure you're safe.  I imagine a fixed 1.0.4 will be out pretty soon.

I just got it yesterday and already installed it. I hope it works. ::crosses fingers::

Anti-phishing toolbar:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/p..._pcworld/121008

--------------------

Join the Army, see the world, meet interesting people - and kill them.

~Pacifist Badge, 1978