[bipto]

At the web development firm I work for, we've made the decision not to support NN 6 and tell our clients that up front. We will support all versions of NN and IE 4.0 and higher for both Mac and Windows, but decided that NN 6 was just too buggy for us to dedicate resources to.

I'm wondering what the opinion is of others out there. I'm hoping this doesn't degrade into a 'Netscape/IE sucks!' conversation, but maybe that's inevitable...

[Millennium]

I just write to the standards, thus targeting everything that supports them. This would, I suppose, include NS6, as well as Opera, IE5/Mac, any version of IE/Windows that actually features standards support, and so on.

It's a heck of a lot easier (you only have to maintain one codebase), and it degrades gracefully enough that the pages still work on almost everything I throw at them (they're not as pretty, but they're usable). With the gorwing number of standards-compliant browsers out there, you can find one that just about everyone can use; I'm compiling a list myself, and it's getting quite large.

[ajprice]

I'm helping with graphics for a friends site, he's not targeting Netscape at all, just IE5 onwards. At first I thought he'd lost it, but I can see why now. IE has been around a while now and PC's are up to 5.5. It is set up as part of Windows and is preinstalled on Macs. It's free, so it's not as if there are people who can't afford the upgrade. So it will probably compatible with the great majority of online computers, PC or Mac. So he hasn't lost it at all.

[edit - My 100th Post! ]

[ 06-17-2001: Message edited by: ajprice ]

[macvillage.net]

You really should be compatible. If you aren't. Then your coding is obviously FAR from W3C standards. Netscape is exact, that is what many don't like about. It is exact. If you follow the HTML4 specs exactly, the page will show up exactly like you want. CSS can be a little shaky, but unless you use unofficial code, you should be OK.

For me just removing the DOCTYPE tag made my site work fine.


In my opinion (and I stress opinion) it's just being lazy. Just like sites that only work with IE5/Windows, they are just lazy.

[walrusjb]

NN6, as a browser, is buggy - it was culled from Mozilla 0.6x or something like that... Mozilla itself is far superior to the NN branded versions... I think the latest version over at Mozilla.org is 0.9.1

BUT - regardless of the bugs, I agree 100% with Millennium - write to the standards. NN6/Mozilla is VERY tight on standards, at least...

We support what we're paid to support NN6 is covered in the general spread with IE/Opera (eventually OmniWeb if they ever get their CSS together) - but we charge extra for compliance with NN4 due to the bugs (Now THAT is your buggy NN browser) + anything below 4.0. Takes extra development time - hence the extra cash.

NN4 was and still is a nightmare plain + simple... NN6 behaves more as expected at the very least... your biggest changes are with regards to the DOM, which is closer to the W3C's specs.

Peace + all -- jb

[macvillage.net]

If you write to the HTML4 standards it does work! That is what I have learned. I personally have spent more time adapting to IE5/Mac and especially IE6(beta) windows. Those browsers comply with only MSHTML (MicroSucksHTML).

I don't know about anyone else. But I am using iCab to diagnose my HTML lately. I don't remove all errors (since many are missing alt tags for images used as spacers etc.) but it really helps. And if your page appears correct in iCab and Mozilla, then you are good all arround.

[mr_sonicblue]

To me, Internet Explorer, although intuitive, always seemed furthest from the HTML standards. Targeting Netscape, or any other browser, first should give you better results overall.

Some large corporations, like Sony, unfortunately, seem to have completely dropped support for ALL browsers except IE.

[splitkitten44]

No wonder when IE ships with Windows and Windows has 90% of the market.
I would too. I think HTML standards are = what IE shows. The sites im doing are aimed at IE users primarily but NN's work fine too. Not as good obviously but good enough.

[splitkitten44]

It's like if you start up a new company and decide to do a streaming thing on your website and you only support Quicktime. Uhm, out of a business perspective, how would do such a thing? Okay, except for Apple I would make sure it works flawlessly with Real Media and then Windows Media player.

Same goes with websites. IE it is, but if you don't fool around too much the pages should look good enough in the other ones too.

[clebin]

My company has just brought out a Java (WebLogic/Oracle)-based portal. In the past, we pretty much ignored Netscape - basically because it couldn't handle our requirements - extensive CSS and IFRAMEs.

But in this version, I'm pleased to see that Netscape 6 is supported and the only limitation is the use of ActiveX controls. The way I see it - if your web-page doesn't work in Netscape 6, you're not writing it correctly.

People tend to assume this is alot of extra unnecessary work - mainly because with Netscape 4.x it was. But the situation has changed, and being able to write decent HTML is a minimum requirement for anyone who calls themself a web developer I would've thought.

Chris

[Gee4orce]

Write to the standards - that is what the web is all about after all.

As far as supporting specific browser features: take up of new browsers is about 30% per year - which means after 3 years nearly 100% of people would have it, although I think take up is probably slowing down, as there is less and less reason to have the latest browser version on your desktop.

To look at it another way, most people are at least 1 or 2 browser versions behind the most recent version. ie. only now can you assume that everybody has Netscape 4, and most people have Netscape 5. Don't even bother writing especially for Netscape 6 features until Netscape 7 or 8 is available. You might think you are kewl because you write cutting edge stuff, but your time would be better spent inproving the useability for lesser browser versions.

[macvillage.net]

I have found if a web page appears correct in Netscape 6, it will work in IE. With a few little JS tricks, you can make it appear perfectly in both.


If it is designed for IE, it's an IE only site in most cases.


Personally I wouldn't hire a design firm that writes such horrible code that a whole audience can't see a site.

That's why I don't like 100% flash sites, they are a huge rip off. You pay a lot for a site not everyone can view. It doesn't matter that 90% have the flash plugin. Only about 50% have a powerful enough computer and a fast enough connection to view it. That is what matters.

Besides, who knows what will be the most popular browser in a year or two. Most 2 years ago thought IE would die out by now. Mozilla is starting to get it's act together. Many Mac users love iCab, which if it becomes a huge sucess could go to windows, HotJava is popular with the linux crowd. OmniWeb is popular for OS X. All of these browsers follow HTML standards pretty exact. Some like OmniWeb have purposely immitated IE, but they perfer good code.


Bottom line: Design to the standards and you can't go wrong. Don't call something "buggy" because you are lazy. It's just following the HTML standard. It's really IE that is buggy.

[vsurfer]

/* * Guys I'm not not not a pro, so please don't look to close for standards adherence from my one-man band fun site -- creating the content alone is time-consuming enough, and competes with surfing, windsurfing mountain-biking, raising kids, marketing books fulltime. I'll have to learn my w3c compliance incrementally -- but it's always good to hear from you guys -- the experts */

Anyway -- Netscape 6.2.2 for Mac and Java Applets....

I downloaded Netscape 6.2.2 and found contrary to a recent review that the download/setup was quick and painless (I already had a netscape account anyway from before). I was also pleased the app imported my favorites from Classic IE, convenient.

I use rudimentary css -- I was pleased with the way Netscape rendered the stylesheet for the default page (http://www.h2omen.com) better than previous versions.
--[Edited here after I fixed a sinfulness]

Netscape 6.2.2 and Java?
http://www.h2omen.com/h2oapplets/Vol...Volumizer.html

I d/ld N6 specifically to see how my applet "Volumizer" (http://www.h2omen.com/h2oapplets/Volumizer/Volumizer.html) would work -- I thought Netscape was supposed to be a good Java browser, but so far the only browser that I've found handled the applet is MSIE 5.1 for OSX

(Confession yes I need to get a handle on that DecimalFormat & twoDigits.format(); business)


I tested this in appletviewer, and MSIE 5.1 for OSX and it worked. No however in Netscape 4.75; Netscape 6.2.2; Konqueror (linux) and the Netscape that came as default on my SuSE linux. Of course i shoudl be trying all this on a PC, but so far i have just been to stingy to buy Virtual PC or a physical PC.

I was really disappointed that the java plugin wasn't even installed by default, and clicking on the download plugin didn't take me directly to the plugin i needed. Well, i don't know any average joes who are going to put up with that kind of BS. I visited another site for which there was a broken applet symbol -- in this case the user wouldn't even know what applet they needed to dl since it is not specified and Netscape takes the to a generic "search for the applet you need" page -- well if they don't know what they are suppposed to be looking for....how can they even find it?

However, since I knew what I was looking for I searched and was eventually redirected to Sun's site to d/l the java plugin.

What? No java plugin for Macintosh PPC!!

Adios Netscape, until the next time maybe.


-----------
(Look for an applet thread to follow this because i am very interested in youze guyzes' thoughts on value of Java Applets for the web I enjoy the feel of the Java language (compared to, say, my limited experience of C C++ and Perl) and the philosophy behind it, but curious as to where it's ultimately headed.)

[ 03-23-2002: Message edited by: vsurfer ]

[Millennium]

vsurfer, I believe what you're looking for is the MRJ plugin for Netscape. Sun doesn't make a Java plug-in, but the Mozilla project is making one.

I'm not sure where the homepage for this is, but I have used the plugin, and it seems to work quite well.

[macvillage.net]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>I just write to the standards, thus targeting everything that supports them. This would, I suppose, include NS6, as well as Opera, IE5/Mac, any version of IE/Windows that actually features standards support, and so on.

It's a heck of a lot easier (you only have to maintain one codebase), and it degrades gracefully enough that the pages still work on almost everything I throw at them (they're not as pretty, but they're usable). With the gorwing number of standards-compliant browsers out there, you can find one that just about everyone can use; I'm compiling a list myself, and it's getting quite large.</STRONG>

Exactly. I have found that with some good coding, the only browsers who give problems are iCab and Opera. Netscape 4.x isn't great with cookies, but there are work arrounds. I personally think Netscape 6.x/Mozilla is the easiest to develop for. Just write code that looks like HTML... you have to be really aweful to have a page turn out bad in Mozilla.

My targets right now are: IE 4+, Netscape 4+, Mozilla, OmniWeb

A page must work in all of those browsers.

(I think that is pretty standard in the industry now, except for maybe OmniWeb, but more and more are starting to realize that OmniWeb may be arround for a bit.)

[vsurfer]

Originally posted by Millennium:
<STRONG>I just write to the standards... With the gorwing number of standards-compliant browsers out there, you can find one that just about everyone can use; I'm compiling a list myself, and it's getting quite large.</STRONG>

Here's another list to cross reference...
http://www.webbedenvironments.com/dh...ith/index.html

Cheers,

Vsurfer

[mgl]

Originally posted by bipto:
<STRONG>At the web development firm I work for, we've made the decision not to support NN 6 and tell our clients that up front. We will support all versions of NN and IE 4.0 and higher for both Mac and Windows, but decided that NN 6 was just too buggy for us to dedicate resources to.

I'm wondering what the opinion is of others out there. I'm hoping this doesn't degrade into a 'Netscape/IE sucks!' conversation, but maybe that's inevitable...</STRONG>

Supporting Navigator 6.x is easy. Supporting Navigator 4 is hard.

Yes, you need to do some platform-specific calls but you can isolate those with generic functions that handle this for you so that you can concentrate on your code and not the browser. The problem is that Navigator 4 is so ancient.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
<STRONG>If you follow the HTML4 specs exactly, the page will show up exactly like you want. CSS can be a little shaky, but unless you use unofficial code, you should be OK.

For me just removing the DOCTYPE tag made my site work fine.
</STRONG>

Um, pages without a DOCTYPE are not adhering to spec. Rather than remove the DOCTYPE, you should choose the proper values for it!

Someone else mentioned iCab. It's great for development because it has a built-in HTML checker. If you have the wrong DOCTYPE, you'll get lots of errors. If iCab smiles on your page, it should look good in ANY browser.

[Simon Mundy]

Originally posted by Rainy Day:
<STRONG>

Um, pages without a DOCTYPE are not adhering to spec. Rather than remove the DOCTYPE, you should choose the proper values for it!

Someone else mentioned iCab. It's great for development because it has a built-in HTML checker. If you have the wrong DOCTYPE, you'll get lots of errors. If iCab smiles on your page, it should look good in ANY browser.</STRONG>

If iCab smiles on your page it must be a cold day in hell. It's worse than an uptight primary school headmistress.

Seriously, iCab is so underdeveloped, it's only a good rule-of-thumb for writing strict HTML. Real-world HTML that takes as many browsers into consideration as possible will always look bad in iCab because you inevitably have to bend the rules here and there to make things consistent.

The best way to make things work across as many browsers as possible is... time and effort. Test, refine, test, refine, compromise slightly, test on mac/pc/unix/linux, scream, test, refine, etc... many hours/days/weeks later - voila!

[bipto]

Don't call something "buggy" because you are lazy.

Nice. By the way, I call it buggy because it is (especially when I originally started this thread). Lot's of other people call it buggy too, and they're not all lazy like me.

The best way to make things work across as many browsers as possible is... time and effort. Test, refine, test, refine, compromise slightly, test on mac/pc/unix/linux, scream, test, refine, etc... many hours/days/weeks later - voila!

Finally, a realist. It's not about just writing to standards in the real world.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by Simon Mundy:
<STRONG>If iCab smiles on your page it must be a cold day in hell. It's worse than an uptight primary school headmistress.
</STRONG>

Ha ha!

<STRONG>Seriously, iCab is so underdeveloped, it's only a good rule-of-thumb for writing strict HTML. Real-world HTML that takes as many browsers into consideration as possible will always look bad in iCab because you inevitably have to bend the rules here and there to make things consistent.</STRONG>

That was once true, but i don't believe it is today. Furthermore, iCab's HTML validator is more lax about adhering to the standards than the W3C HTML Validator. I'd say if you can't get iCab to smile, then your page ain't even close to following the standards.

<STRONG>The best way to make things work across as many browsers as possible is... time and effort. Test, refine, test, refine, compromise slightly, test on mac/pc/unix/linux, scream, test, refine, etc... many hours/days/weeks later - voila!</STRONG>

I believe this is true. I also believe that following the standards is part of that. Those who don't follow the standards are, in my opinion, either ignorant of what is spec and what is not (easy enough, if you don't keep on top of the quickly evolving standards), or are just plain lazy. There is no excuse for a professional web page designer not being capable of writing HTML to spec; <font color = red>that is, after all, your job!</font> We expect plumbers to install pipes without leaks, and electricians to install wiring without exposed wires or shorts; we expect all other professionals to follow the spec's for their professions, why not web page designers?

True, it takes work to follow the HTML spec, but if you do, as many others have said here, then your HTML will work on the widest variety of browsers - which after all is sort of the whole point of a web standard, now isn't it? Following the standards aren't that hard, once you understand what they are (assuming, of course, that you know what you're doing).

Following the standards does not mean you have to rewrite all of your old HTML everytime a new spec comes out, but it does mean you have to use the DOCTYPE and correctly declare what standard that page is written to.

[Millennium]

The best way I've found is to start with the standards. If you must support older, buggy browsers, you'll generally have to do a lot less work if you start with a standards-compliant page than if you'd gone the other way around.

[Rainy Day]

Originally posted by macvillage.net:
<STRONG>You really should be compatible. If you aren't. Then your coding is obviously FAR from W3C standards. Netscape is exact, that is what many don't like about. It is exact. If you follow the HTML4 specs exactly, the page will show up exactly like you want. CSS can be a little shaky, but unless you use unofficial code, you should be OK.

For me just removing the DOCTYPE tag made my site work fine.

In my opinion (and I stress opinion) it's just being lazy. Just like sites that only work with IE5/Windows, they are just lazy.</STRONG>

Here are three articles which may help HTML jockeys to better understand how DOCTYPE works and why different values can cause your page to render differently than you might expect. If used correctly, DOCTYPE can help bridge the compatibly gap:

Doctype switching and standards compliance: An overview

Use the Right Doctype

DOCTYPE Explained