Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

drtyrell · Aug 12, 2004, 04:04 AM

They have bought into the 1% of web browsers that fail to recognize the 100% height attribute for table objects. Now it is true that w3.org has deemed this "all the sudden" a lazy non-requirement of web browser rendering standards, BUT nothing stops every other browser from recognizing this feature. Internet Explorer, the leading browser throughout the world recognizes this attribute. Every open source Netscape derivative recognizes it.

It's time to support what is a standard. Webster's dictionary doesn't dictate culture, and neither should w3.org.

neoTony · Aug 12, 2004, 05:01 AM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
They have bought into the 1% of web browsers that fail to recognize the 100% height attribute for table objects. Now it is true that w3.org has deemed this "all the sudden" a lazy non-requirement of web browser rendering standards, BUT nothing stops every other browser from recognizing this feature. Internet Explorer, the leading browser throughout the world recognizes this attribute. Every open source Netscape derivative recognizes it.

It's time to support what is a standard. Webster's dictionary doesn't dictate culture, and neither should w3.org.

Dude, are you serious? Learn XHTML/CSS! -- HTML is so late 90's... there aren't even going to be display attributes like height on HTML tags in a years time.

And "all the sudden"????? Do you realise how long it takes for a new (X)HTML standard to be revised and agreed upon? How do I put this clearly... There are people (myself included) that spend a lot of their professional lives promoting web standards - ignorance like this makes me pretty annoyed

Maybe I've had a long day and you don't deserve this response, but to be raising this as an issue, you'd have to have some understanding of web coding - to not be aware of changes this big (the height attribute was deprecated in HTML4 - http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-html40...adef-height-TH ) is really, really bad.

drtyrell · Aug 12, 2004, 05:28 AM

I've been aware of this ridiculous change the minute that Safari was the only browser in the world to turn a deaf eye on legacy sites. So the world needs to recode their sites for a browser that no one runs, when it looks perfect on 99.9% of all the browsers in the world.

Hmmmm...I think thats an easy decision...LET SAFARI LOOK LIKE CRAP, FOREVER. Sure XHTML and CSS tricks are going to be the standard MO in say 5 more years when "perhaps" Longhorne comes out and "maybe" feels like injuring 10s of thousands of sites across the world is a great way to promote their new OS. Kinda like the 2000 bug back in the 90s.

The excuses I've read online for not supporting this ancient feature only add up to one thing in my book, LAZY CODING. It takes effort to determine screen height doesn't it? It takes effort to do a little junior high basic math to divide the potential height of the remaining real-estate. I can understand why some coders cut corners any chance they get. Safari unfortunately is lacking MUCH that is basic about a browser. They obviously don't have enough time to code even the core features that ship with IE 97.

Defend this all you want, but you are fighting a losing battle. My company will not invest money in supporting this until it is even remotely in the majority of need. As long as IE has the market at 97%+ rating, there is no other method to consider. It's sorta like waking up in the morning and deciding that German is better than English, and by God, anyone who doesn't understand how 90s English is, well, their just not as cool as you.

BEAT YOUR SOLO DRUM MY FRIEND. It will be a faint sound in the distance of loniness.

Jan Van Boghout · Aug 12, 2004, 05:55 AM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
I've been aware of this ridiculous change the minute that Safari was the only browser in the world to turn a deaf eye on legacy sites. So the world needs to recode their sites for a browser that no one runs, when it looks perfect on 99.9% of all the browsers in the world.

<rant>

BEAT YOUR SOLO DRUM MY FRIEND. It will be a faint sound in the distance of loniness.

Don't be such a crybaby. Safari supports height="100%" just fine when it's in quirks mode. How do you even dare scold the Safari team for laziness when you're too lazy to investigate your problem or find other solutions.

Chris O'Brien · 06:38 AM

Jeez man, you're annoying. You're talking about something Dave Hyatt and the team likely spent a long time thinking about and are passing it off as them being lazy. Please. They've obviously chosen to follow the standards. There is nothing wrong with that - in fact, it's the opposite. I find that fantastic as a web developer.

Correct, it is easy to calculate the height of the clients viewing window - so just do it yourself. Hell, I'll write a quick script that you and your lazy-ass company can include (very easily) in your sites.

I imagine your company's so called web developers are also using the tables for layout rather than to represent tabular data. Where have they been for the last few years? Seriously - invest in people who know what they're doing and you will find no problems in supporting all modern browsers.

I know, I know. I shouldn't rise to the bait of a troll, but that really riled me.

neoTony's drum is far from solo. It's fucking eejits like you that will soon be on your own pining for the good old days of having to write browser sniffing code just to work around the quirks of MSIE. Moving towards a more standard approach is making the web a much nicer place

Argh. I really shouldn't be getting this worked up - it's a hard day at work

Edit: I was a year out on my comment about IE4, so I've removed it.

Mediaman_12 · Aug 12, 2004, 07:11 AM

The latest Firefox builds don't render the height=100% on tables ether, nor does IE 5 on the Mac. about the only browser that ever did (in a relyable mannor) was IE on the PC, and if you use the correct doctype to get it out of 'quirks' mode (where it renders like IE5) even that doesn't do it anymore.

I bet you don't even validate your HTML, and just test in IE.

Busemann · Aug 12, 2004, 07:12 AM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
a deaf eye

A what now?

Lew · Aug 12, 2004, 07:14 AM

It's the opposite of a blind ear

pliny · Aug 12, 2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by Jan Van Boghout:
How do you even dare scold the Safari team for laziness

Please answer him, drtyrell!

OptimusG4 · Aug 12, 2004, 08:57 AM

Well considering his only 2 posts were in this thread, my guess: troll. Nothing to see here. Besides, if he codes for IE on the PC, then well, best of luck to him in the future.

neoTony · Aug 12, 2004, 05:37 PM

*sigh* Thanks for showing me I'm not teh "BEAT YOUR SOLO DRUM" guys

I've never seen anything like the complete disregard to standards I just saw here... it was perverse in a "you're never going to get another web job" sort of way.

And XHTML/CSS a standard in 5 years?

... it's the current standard. This guy is either laying out some troll log on the forum, or honestly hasn't bothered to keep his web skills current for around 4 years (which is scary given that some company seems to have hired him).

gorickey · Aug 12, 2004, 05:59 PM

drtyrell is the one with fatal flaws...

velporama · Aug 12, 2004, 06:23 PM

IIRC the are CSS files which can post process IE sites for compatibility with non IE browsers? I just like my adContent.css file ..

Velporama

jasong · Aug 12, 2004, 11:25 PM

wow, I don't even do web design anymore and I am more up to date than this schmuck.

Even his grammar sucks . . .

-- Jason

drtyrell · Aug 17, 2004, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by pliny:
Please answer him, drtyrell!

Sorry, I've been out building functional websites on other browsers.

How the heck could you defend Safari? It has less features than ALL browsers on EARTH. Have you seen the preferences panel in IE? Say in 1997? Its still more versatile than Safari 2004.

I'm sorry, you're loyalty to Apple is exactly the kind of Emperor's Cloths theory that is causing every bit of failure on Apple's part.

drtyrell · Aug 17, 2004, 05:46 PM

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
The latest Firefox builds don't render the height=100% on tables ether, nor does IE 5 on the Mac. about the only browser that ever did (in a relyable mannor) was IE on the PC, and if you use the correct doctype to get it out of 'quirks' mode (where it renders like IE5) even that doesn't do it anymore.

I bet you don't even validate your HTML, and just test in IE.

This is so untrue. Simply declare your doc header to use 3.2 HTML (or leave it out) and everything works fine.

Leave it to people in the w3.org who don't make websites to fill their lives with shitty standards that create more work for absolutely no good reason.

drtyrell · Aug 17, 2004, 05:49 PM

Originally posted by OptimusG4:
Well considering his only 2 posts were in this thread, my guess: troll. Nothing to see here. Besides, if he codes for IE on the PC, then well, best of luck to him in the future.

Yeah, you're probably right. Since I haven't spent my entire life posting on these forums in particular, I'm probably a complete idiot right, which in turn makes you an instant genius I suppose. Elite ****ing asshole Apple poster. Typical low-life human who goes around spitting personal attacks when he or SHE has nothing better to do with their lives.

BEST OF LUCK TO YOU MY FRIEND. May your elitest attacks yield you many a bruised facial bone.

FIREFOX is my standard browser.

gorickey · Aug 17, 2004, 05:52 PM

OptimusG4 · Aug 17, 2004, 05:55 PM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
Yeah, you're probably right. Since I haven't spent my entire life posting on these forums in particular, I'm probably a complete idiot right, which in turn makes you an instant genius I suppose. Elite ****ing asshole Apple poster. Typical low-life human who goes around spitting personal attacks when he or SHE has nothing better to do with their lives.

BEST OF LUCK TO YOU MY FRIEND. May your elitest attacks yield you many a bruised facial bone.

FIREFOX is my standard browser.

Oh a personal attack! I can't believe my eyes! Please save me!

drtyrell · Aug 17, 2004, 05:57 PM

I love it. As long as the Apple criticizer is being attacked...no one cries faul. But when the table turns the thread is filled with those who are "appalled" by the behavior.

Great forums. Macnn should be proud.

gorickey · Aug 17, 2004, 06:07 PM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
Sorry, I've been out building functional websites on other browsers.

Any links?

Synotic · Aug 17, 2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
Sorry, I've been out building functional websites on other browsers.

How the heck could you defend Safari? It has less features than ALL browsers on EARTH. Have you seen the preferences panel in IE? Say in 1997? Its still more versatile than Safari 2004.

I'm sorry, you're loyalty to Apple is exactly the kind of Emperor's Cloths theory that is causing every bit of failure on Apple's part.

Is there a particular feature(s) that Safari doesn't have that you would like to see? Does the number of features equal a better or worse browser?

I use a variety of browsers and I'm not particularly biased to anyone for what it's worth. Do you actually have a question that was lost in the posts above? I'd be happy to try and answer any questions you had or perhaps reflect on some of your concerns but it was rather hard to try and read through all the yelling on both sides.

You made a comment:

I've been aware of this ridiculous change the minute that Safari was the only browser in the world to turn a deaf eye on legacy sites. So the world needs to recode their sites for a browser that no one runs, when it looks perfect on 99.9% of all the browsers in the world.

From what I understand, older sites will either use an appropriate doctype or none at all. And while quirks mode is enabled, they'll render perfectly fine no? It seems like this only affects newer sites using XHTML doctypes trying to use tables for layouts, of which I'm guessing there aren't many.

Like I said above, I (and hopefully others) are willing to help with any problems you may be having but let's keep the condescending posts and name calling (this goes to everyone) out of it.

Mediaman_12 · Aug 17, 2004, 06:50 PM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
This is so untrue. Simply declare your doc header to use 3.2 HTML (or leave it out) and everything works fine.

Leave it to people in the w3.org who don't make websites to fill their lives with shitty standards that create more work for absolutely no good reason.

You just stick to your bloated 1997 era HTML 3.2 (remember you have declared it as 3.2, remember to use loads of Font tags, as CSS and span's are not part of this standard, so may not render reliably in future browsers), while the rest of us stick with the program and code Modern, lean and efficient XHTML & CSS Pages. That (should*) render properly in all browsers today and in to the future.

p.s. *Once you get with the programme and start doing things properly, you soon realise that it's MS's outdated (and getting more so, no serious updates till Longhorn) IE that's the problem where you have to code all sorts of hacks and dumb work-a-rounds for all it's dam bugs. IE really is the bane of my coding life, things would be so much easer if everyone had stuck to a STANDARD.

OptimusG4 · Aug 18, 2004, 12:57 PM

Originally posted by drtyrell:
I love it. As long as the Apple criticizer is being attacked...no one cries faul. But when the table turns the thread is filled with those who are "appalled" by the behavior.

Great forums. Macnn should be proud.

We are proud. So where are those functional sites you brag so much about using HTML 3.2?

davecom · Aug 18, 2004, 01:09 PM

Wakeup call to web standards fanatics: not everyone wants to learn the 'latest and greatest' standard. HTML 4 serves its purpose. It's a perfectly fine and standardized alternative to XHTML/CSS. Who cares if the latter is better or has more features if plain 'old' HTML does what he wants. And calling something 'so late '90s' just makes you sound like a 12 year old.

Horsepoo!!! · Aug 18, 2004, 01:27 PM

Originally posted by davecom:
Wakeup call to web standards fanatics: not everyone wants to learn the 'latest and greatest' standard. HTML 4 serves its purpose. It's a perfectly fine and standardized alternative to XHTML/CSS. Who cares if the latter is better or has more features if plain 'old' HTML does what he wants. And calling something 'so late '90s' just makes you sound like a 12 year old.

Sometimes it's just time to move on. Just like it was time to move on from OS 9...and it was time to move on from Win95. And sometimes you have to buy new underwear because the old ones have a big enough whole that your pensu just isn't shielded from outside harm anymore.

"Safari, moving the web standards on since 2003."

"My girlfriend, moving the underwear standards on since 2002."

jasong · Aug 18, 2004, 02:19 PM

Yeah, my Dr. is one of those people who doesn't want to learn the latest and greatest standards. But really, I think those leaches are really starting to help.

-- Jason