Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Software - Troubleshooting and Discussion > Applications > Microsoft at it again.... Blocking Apple Browser

Microsoft at it again.... Blocking Apple Browser (Page 2)
Thread Tools
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 11:42 AM
 
You're missing the fact that this particular page also doesn't work in Camino, and it uses Gecko.

I admit I don't know what is causing this page not to work on Safari, but my money is on it not being entirely Safari's fault.

At any rate, I've got a solution for ya - Google Maps

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
You're missing the fact that this particular page also doesn't work in Camino, and it uses Gecko.

I admit I don't know what is causing this page not to work on Safari, but my money is on it not being entirely Safari's fault.

At any rate, I've got a solution for ya - Google Maps

Camino does not support XUL, which is probably the reason there. Granted, while XUL is open along with the rest of Mozilla, it is not really a browser standard. I don't know of any other non-Mozilla based browsers on either platform that use XUL.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 11:54 AM
 
That's my guess, too - browser-specific trickery. They're probably using ActiveX if the browser is IE and XUL if it's Firefox. This is not exactly something you can fault Safari for.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Who knows what the numbers really are. Like polling data, there is a margin of error of at least 3-5% either way. Still, we can use this data to illustrate general trends, specifically that there are *significantly* more Firefox users than Safari users.
Yes, There are more Firefox users over all than Safari users. That includes Firefox for OS X, and Firefox for Windows. But we weren't really talking about that. Most Mac Users use Safari more than any other browser. Looks to be 4% of the 6% do. And the other 2% use something else. Probably firefox, camino, etc.
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
You're missing the fact that this particular page also doesn't work in Camino, and it uses Gecko.

I admit I don't know what is causing this page not to work on Safari, but my money is on it not being entirely Safari's fault.
I am betting it's not Safari's fault either. There are a lot of things I used to rant about Safari about back when it first came out. Not working with certain REGULAR web pages was one of them.

Then in 2.0 this fixed a lot of that. But even still certain MS made, or someone using MS code in a page, Safari would always not display it correctly. Esp with Frontpage nonsense.

MS doesn't really want the web to be cross platform. It's the reason they polluted Java.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 12:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
That's my guess, too - browser-specific trickery. They're probably using ActiveX if the browser is IE and XUL if it's Firefox. This is not exactly something you can fault Safari for.
Well, what's stopping Apple from adopting a XUL compatibility layer for Safari? Seriously, the code is open, they have always been able to have at it... I don't know how difficult this would be and what the downsides would be, but technically it is not entirely unfair to fault Apple. It's not like XUL has been kept from them like the stupid MS IE bullshit has been kept under tight proprietary control...

Still, that being said, all the stuff I was saying about Safari's javascript model, while absolutely true, I sort of glazed over the fact that the site also doesn't work in Camino, so now my theory is that the page serves up XUL. A product I'm working on adopting for my work here, AtMail, does the same thing.
     
Hugmup
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Nov 2006
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 02:13 PM
 
Have any of you guys looked at the source code for a Microsoft page? Most of them are nightmares; bloated code, mixtures of HTML and XHTML, invalid syntax, style information in the tags instead of a stylesheet, and on and on. You might even find a FONT tag here or there. They even violate their own guidelines for coding in their knowledge base. It's a miracle their pages render in any browser at all. They have begun to clean up their code, but they've got a long way to go. Mostly, they're coding like it's 1998.

This isn't malice, it is incompetence.

Now, if the code you can see is such a mess, what's the code like that you can't see? Imagine the horrors that lurk in Windows and Office.
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 02:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by Hugmup View Post
Have any of you guys looked at the source code for a Microsoft page? Most of them are nightmares; bloated code, mixtures of HTML and XHTML, invalid syntax, style information in the tags instead of a stylesheet, and on and on. You might even find a FONT tag here or there. They even violate their own guidelines for coding in their knowledge base. It's a miracle their pages render in any browser at all. They have begun to clean up their code, but they've got a long way to go. Mostly, they're coding like it's 1998.

This isn't malice, it is incompetence.

Now, if the code you can see is such a mess, what's the code like that you can't see? Imagine the horrors that lurk in Windows and Office.
Of course MS's page is poorly coded. But, if Firefox can read the page just as well as IE, then Safari should be able to as well.

It would be nice if all the code on the web were clean and digestible by Safari, but I'll take a clean browser that can handle most everything thrown at it over a pretty browser that can't (especially when the clean browser can be skinned up to be just as pretty as the pretty browser)
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 02:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Most Mac Users use Safari more than any other browser.
At the very best, you can say "according to some browser trend reports, a majority of Mac users are using Safari"
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 03:26 PM
 
its not Safaris fault, Safari is an excellent browser. Its entirely the fault of the web developer there is nothing going on here they shouldn't work in everything
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 03:34 PM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
its not Safaris fault, Safari is an excellent browser. Its entirely the fault of the web developer there is nothing going on here they shouldn't work in everything

You can say that about any browser - that it is possible to get any site to work with it, no?

Until Safari 3 is out, I disagree very strongly that Safari is an excellent browser. Google "Safari tinymce", or "tinymce cms" to see how many web applications rely on tinymce that is incompatible with Safari due to Safari's own Javascript related issues.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Well, what's stopping Apple from adopting a XUL compatibility layer for Safari?
Great point! Also, what's stopping Apple from reverse-engineering ActiveX and supporting that too?

Since Camino hasn't managed to implement an "XUL compatibility layer", and it's a Gecko browser even, this leads me to believe that it wouldn't be as easy as you think.

Seriously, if web developers are using browser-specific stuff instead of web standards, then that is entirely the fault of the developers, not the browser.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 04:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
Great point! Also, what's stopping Apple from reverse-engineering ActiveX and supporting that too?

Since Camino hasn't managed to implement an "XUL compatibility layer", and it's a Gecko browser even, this leads me to believe that it wouldn't be as easy as you think.

Seriously, if web developers are using browser-specific stuff instead of web standards, then that is entirely the fault of the developers, not the browser.

I agree, but without XUL it is likely that we wouldn't even be having this conversation. XUL was Mozilla's ticket to making their browser cross platform in order to compete with Microsoft in the browser space with greater ease. I don't fault Mozilla for developing XUL and I understand its historical significance and reason for existing today. You can hold your breath as long as you want demanding that developers don't use browser specific functionality such as XUL, but that doesn't make all of these web applications work. In the meantime, Apple customers are noticing that Safari is not working with some apps, and this is reflecting poorly upon Apple.

Unlike ActiveX, XUL would not have to be reverse engineered to work. I don't know what it would entail to offer that compatibility layer, but the truth of the matter is that Apple is simply not in best place to be sticking to their ideals come hell or high water so long as there are customers that want to use Safari with these applications.

Found this:

Perhaps the oldest and best-known XML-based GUI language is the Mozilla Foundation’s XUL (pronounced ‘zool’). This is the technology used to define the interface for many Mozilla-based projects, including the eponymous Mozilla browser suite, the lightweight Firebird browser, the Thunderbird mail client and the Netscape browser suite. Safari 1.1 has also implemented a tiny bit of XUL.
Gooey Standards - The Web Standards Project

Very old article, but interesting that Safari 1.1 implemented some XUL.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 05:35 PM
 
Safari is an excellent browser - earlier JS issues aside. It's just less lenient than Firefox with shitty code.

And yes, that is ALL the web developers fault. And that's coming from a web designer (since 1995).

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [♬] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 05:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Safari is an excellent browser - earlier JS issues aside. It's just less lenient than Firefox with shitty code.

And yes, that is ALL the web developers fault. And that's coming from a web designer (since 1995).

No, there are outstanding JS issues that exist in the 2.x codebase today. Like I said, Google "safari TinyMCE" for proof of this.

I'm not saying that these problems with this Microsoft app are Javascript centric, but Apple themselves have acknowledged the problems that have hindered TinyMCE development. These have been fixed for Safari 3.
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 06:03 PM
 
2.x codebase is long dead. Even Apple themselves recommend using Safari 3 ("beta" as in Google mail "beta") for their own sites. Heck, you can't even use .Mac galleries fully without Safari 3.

And Christ on a stick, those JS issues weren't exactly critical. Full HTML editors on the web is a tiny niche market in the best of times. I remember getting excited about FCKeditor back in 2000, but then I realised: "Why?".

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [♬] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 08:11 PM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Of course MS's page is poorly coded. But, if Firefox can read the page just as well as IE, then Safari should be able to as well.
Why should ANYONE have to bow down the MSs sloppiness? Maybe we should instead, put pressure on MS to stop being so sloppy?
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
At the very best, you can say "according to some browser trend reports, a majority of Mac users are using Safari"
How many do you want me to post Wisk? Most all I have seen are giving 3 to 5% usage on Safari. You gave me one that gives 1.whatever%

2 out of 5-6 Mac users seem to be using Firefox. Thats still a large percentage of Mac users not using Safari. Just not as many as you are claiming. That could also mean that people are using both. I have BOTH installed. I use Safari 99.9998% of the time.

Rarely do I run into a site that doesn't run on it. looking at the last time I launched Firefox.. it was over 3 months ago. I probably need to update it. It's just not as polished or slick as Safari IMHO.

Show me more than 1 or 2 that RECENTLY shows Safari being under 3. I'd love to see em.
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
Safari is an excellent browser - earlier JS issues aside. It's just less lenient than Firefox with shitty code.
And I don't think being more lenient = being better.
And yes, that is ALL the web developers fault. And that's coming from a web designer (since 1995).
Agreed
( Last edited by Kevin; Oct 3, 2007 at 08:18 PM. )
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 08:21 PM
 
I personally would have a hard time believing Safari not to be the most commonly used browser on OS X, seeing as how it's the one that's installed on the system by default.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Wiskedjak
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Calgary
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 09:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
Why should ANYONE have to bow down the MSs sloppiness?
Because MS isn't the only source of sloppy code.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 10:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
2.x codebase is long dead. Even Apple themselves recommend using Safari 3 ("beta" as in Google mail "beta") for their own sites. Heck, you can't even use .Mac galleries fully without Safari 3.

And Christ on a stick, those JS issues weren't exactly critical. Full HTML editors on the web is a tiny niche market in the best of times. I remember getting excited about FCKeditor back in 2000, but then I realised: "Why?".
I disagree. Most open source and commercial CMS and blogging tools use TinyMCE, including WordPress. There are a countless number of extremely high profile, highly visible sites run off of WordPress alone.

As far as the Safari 3 beta, I know that I'm not going to support it until it leaves beta. Betas are moving targets.
     
Reggie Fowler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 10:39 PM
 
To get back to my original point, i think apple should realize that microsoft made an amazing virtual earth web app and therefore, they should make an extra effort to support that specific site.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 11:26 PM
 
What is so amazing about it? What does it offer that Google Maps / Google Earth doesn't?

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Art Vandelay
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 3, 2007, 11:46 PM
 
Safari 3 does support it but Microsoft has not updated their site to allow Safari 3 users to use it. Some 3rd party websites that use Microsoft Virtual Earth content are now letting Safari 3 users access their content.
Vandelay Industries
     
zro
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: The back of the room
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 12:27 AM
 
This is a terrible can of worms a few of you want to open. It's the same one standards are intended to keep closed.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 05:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by Wiskedjak View Post
Because MS isn't the only source of sloppy code.
Nope, but it's the main source of breaking non-IE browsers.
Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler View Post
To get back to my original point, i think apple should realize that microsoft made an amazing virtual earth web app and therefore, they should make an extra effort to support that specific site.
So lets say Apple does this. Then a week later it doesn't work anymore. (Which is what usually happens according to MS history) What then? do they keep releasing updated for Safari every week?
Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
Safari 3 does support it but Microsoft has not updated their site to allow Safari 3 users to use it. Some 3rd party websites that use Microsoft Virtual Earth content are now letting Safari 3 users access their content.
So how is MS blocking Safari 3?
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 06:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
So how is MS blocking Safari 3?
The same way they block Camino. Browser sniffing.
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 06:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
The same way they block Camino. Browser sniffing.
I think you need to go back and re-read the thread. Even when you spoof that, Safari doesn't work. They are doing something other than browser sniffing.
     
Reggie Fowler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 07:45 AM
 
type in your home address, then click on satellite image. 60% clearer than google earth. And you can get even closer from a variety of angles. It's just a better program!

oh wait, you cannot check it out because you have Safari.

and to go back to my prior convo, i was talking about Mac Safari v. Mac Firefox %
(Not Windows Users)
     
ghporter
Administrator
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: San Antonio TX USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 08:09 AM
 
What I see for my home address is no better-and probably worse-than Google Maps or Google Earth. It's certainly no more current.

Glenn -----OTR/L, MOT, Tx
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 09:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
The same way they block Camino. Browser sniffing.

I thought somebody said that they tried browser spoofing with Safari?

I wonder if the page doesn't browser sniff based on user agent, but on some sort of XUL API test?
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 10:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler View Post
oh wait, you cannot check it out because you have Safari.
And we have came to the conclusion that it's not because we have Safari. But because the company who makes said site is MS. And they made the decision not to be compatible with all browsers long ago on purpose. Now I am not saying MS purposely made this particular site not work on Safari. I am saying the way MS does things leads to such things happening.
Originally Posted by ghporter View Post
What I see for my home address is no better-and probably worse-than Google Maps or Google Earth. It's certainly no more current.
Same here when I tried it on Bekah's computer. I don't see why it's better.

Maybe some people have better pictures in their particular area in MSs site than Google has. But it's not true in my case.
     
CharlesS
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Dec 2000
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 10:42 AM
 
So MS has updated their satellite imagery, eh? That's good. Last time I tried it (granted, it was a few years ago), the images were all in black and white and about 20 years out of date.

Ticking sound coming from a .pkg package? Don't let the .bom go off! Inspect it first with Pacifist. Macworld - five mice!
     
Person Man
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Northwest Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by CharlesS View Post
So MS has updated their satellite imagery, eh? That's good. Last time I tried it (granted, it was a few years ago), the images were all in black and white and about 20 years out of date.
At least they HAVE high resolution data on where I live (Defiance, Ohio), and it's in color, and RECENT, in that it shows the house across the street that was built last year. Google Maps/Earth only has crappy satellite images of that area.

There is NO EXCUSE for Google to NOT have high resolution data for the entire United States.
     
Reggie Fowler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 06:25 PM
 
GHPorter, what addess did you type in. I want to see for myself this 'worse' image?
     
wkarraker
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 06:50 PM
 
Microsoft has placed the block, so to speak. If you take a look at the page source it shows that Safari is not in the 'supported browsers' category. This is the particular line that redirects to the 'http://intl.local.live.com/' link...

var supportedBrowsers="[new Msn.VE.BrowserInfo('Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1)', 'en-US'), new Msn.VE.BrowserInfo('Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5.0.4) Gecko/20060528 Firefox/1.5.0.4')]";var unsupportedBrowserRedirectUrl="http://intl.local.live.com/"

Since Microsoft generates the page it appears they have decided what browsers are supported. All they would have to do is add Safari and a small disclaimer "Best viewed in Microsoft Internet Explorer" and let us deal with any inconsistencies.

Boo, hiss.
     
sushiism
Grizzled Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 07:57 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
You can say that about any browser - that it is possible to get any site to work with it, no?

Until Safari 3 is out, I disagree very strongly that Safari is an excellent browser. Google "Safari tinymce", or "tinymce cms" to see how many web applications rely on tinymce that is incompatible with Safari due to Safari's own Javascript related issues.
Tinymce is garbage, doesn't output even remotely sensible HTML so anything using it is garbage.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 08:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by sushiism View Post
Tinymce is garbage, doesn't output even remotely sensible HTML so anything using it is garbage.

Wow, and I thought I was opinionated!

So, what you are saying is that all of the following web apps are garbage?


* Alfresco Open Source Enterprise Content Management System
* ATutor Learning Content Management System
* bitweaver TinyMCE available as a package for html format plugin
* Citadel An open source groupware platform (email, calendars, contacts, forums, etc.) that uses TinyMCE as its WYSIWYG editor.
* Content Management System TinyMCE standard included
* CMS made simple plugin available from CMSms Forge
* Contenido
* Contentpapst TinyMCE integration as of V3.6, plugin available from sandoba.de Entwickler-Blog
* CWSnetwork wcm.desk - Java based CMS (TinyMCE is the Content Editor)
* croMEA - Java based Content Management System that use TinyMCE as it's default WYSIWYG editor.
* dit.cms - Open Source CMS, for PHP programmers that wish to focus on module development.
* dotCMS - Open Source Enterprise Web CMS, CRM and eCommerce platform.
* Drupal → instructions
* e107 → e107's Default WYSIWYG Editor - TinyMCE w/e107 Docs
* Edit-X - Control Your Content
* Etomite CMS - Content Management Simplified . Fast, Free, and Infinitely Flexible
* Expression Engine
* EZ Webitor CMS - PHP based CMS from Winters Webs
* Desk02 SEO CMS - Search Engine Optimised CMS
* Falt4 CMS - Fast, smart, multilingual and modular LGPL CMS for the User and the Pros
* iPoint portal - Java based, JSR-168 compliant, open source collaboration portal
* JCE - Joomla Content Editor
* JCMS - Jalios content management and portal solution
* Joomla
* Knowledgeroot - Open Source Knowledgebase System with AJAX navigation-tree
* Apache Lenya (TinyMCE integration as of Lenya 1.4)
* Lateral Arts CMS System - Designer-Oriented CMS system with extendible modules
* Mambo, also have a look at the plugin
* MemHT Portal
* Midgard CMS - Open Source CMS and Web Application Framework
* MMBase
* MOA Express
* MODx as of release version 0.9.5 MODx uses TinyMCE as its default WYSIWYG editor
* Movable Type plugin available from Movalog Plugins
* N2 ASP.NET CMS
* MySphere CMS - Blog and CMS created with PHP, Zend Framework and Ajax
* OLAT - Java based e-learning system (LMS, LCMS) that use TinyMCE as editor in the folder component.
* openEngine
* OsirisCMS
* Papoo
* PHP-Fusion
* PHP-Nuke
* Plone
* PostNuke - Open Source Content Management, module Scribite! integrates various WYSIWYG editors (also TinyMCE) in postnuke modules.
* PrestoSports - Sports information CMS uses TinyMCE for rich, simple, and form editing.
* Puzzle Apps CMS
* REDAXO
* Renao
* Skeletonâ„¢ CMS - Skeletonâ„¢ CMS by Hollow Industries uses Tiny MCE for editing i "easy mode".
* SOS Webpages - Simple Open Source Webpage Management System with Tiny MCE for editing text.
* TYPO3 - Plugin from outraxX
* TYPOlight - PHP based open source CMS system
* vinca - vinca cms and newsletter-system
* WebGUI - WebGUI CMS
* WebPRO Creative
* Wordpress - plugin, WordPress 2.0 now uses TinyMCE as the default WYSIWYG editor.
* Xaraya - Version history and Demo - login
* XOOPS - Module by ralf57
* b2evolution

That's quite the list, huh? Do you care to retract your statement?
     
- - e r i k - -
Posting Junkie
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 08:50 PM
 
My point was that WYSIWYG editors make no sense for the web anymore. All formatting should be taken care of by a stylesheet.

[ fb ] [ flickr ] [♬] [scl] [ last ] [ plaxo ]
     
Reggie Fowler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 09:27 PM
 
so they do have a block on Safari. interesting.
I knew it wasn't safari's fault. safari can support it.

microsoft at it again!
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 4, 2007, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - View Post
My point was that WYSIWYG editors make no sense for the web anymore. All formatting should be taken care of by a stylesheet.
It isn't really a WYSIWYG editor as much as it is an enhanced text formatter that generates semantic HTML to format text. There are plugins available to use it more like a WYSIWYG editor, but isn't Dreamweaver, nor is that its core purpose.

Why would the functionality of a stylesheet compete with the functionality provided by TinyMCE? They do entirely different things. If you want, you can create some text and wrap it in a custom class or ID using the editor. The two don't have to work against each other.

The thing is, there is a great need for a tool like this, as evidenced by its popularity. Any tool such as this can be misused, but you can also choose what plugs you want active and customize it to operate within your workflow as desired.
( Last edited by besson3c; Oct 4, 2007 at 09:48 PM. )
     
Kevin
Baninated
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: In yer threads
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 06:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler View Post
so they do have a block on Safari. interesting.
I knew it wasn't safari's fault. safari can support it.

microsoft at it again!
And I doubt you'll see anyone that was blaming Safari apologize either.

This whole thing reminds me of a interview with steve, before he came back to Apple.

YouTube - Steve Jobs on Microsoft (Extended Version)
     
Art Vandelay
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Reggie Fowler View Post
so they do have a block on Safari. interesting.
I knew it wasn't safari's fault. safari can support it.

microsoft at it again!
Safari 2 doesn't support it. Safari 3 which isn't released yet, only a beta has been, does support it. It's presumptuous to assume anything sinister on behalf of Microsoft until after Safari 3 has been released.
Vandelay Industries
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 01:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by wkarraker View Post
Microsoft has placed the block, so to speak. If you take a look at the page source it shows that Safari is not in the 'supported browsers' category. This is the particular line that redirects to the 'http://intl.local.live.com/' link...

var supportedBrowsers="[new Msn.VE.BrowserInfo('Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 5.5; Windows NT 5.1)', 'en-US'), new Msn.VE.BrowserInfo('Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.5.0.4) Gecko/20060528 Firefox/1.5.0.4')]";var unsupportedBrowserRedirectUrl="http://intl.local.live.com/"

Since Microsoft generates the page it appears they have decided what browsers are supported. All they would have to do is add Safari and a small disclaimer "Best viewed in Microsoft Internet Explorer" and let us deal with any inconsistencies.

Boo, hiss.
This doesn't mean much. The word "new" indicates that a Javascript object is being created, this is not useragent sniffing. The standard Javascript user agent sniffing calls are as follows:

BrowserDetect.browser
BrowserDetect.version
BrowserDetect.OS

These are not referenced in the main source code. They could very well be referenced in an external .js file the page is linking too, but I'm too lazy to search for it, the code is nasty.

What could be happening here is that there are different categories of browsers that get different treatments, but it is unknown how browsers get classified accordingly.

If you disagree with this assessment, how do you explain why there is no Firefox Mac in what is quoted?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 01:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by Art Vandelay View Post
Safari 2 doesn't support it. Safari 3 which isn't released yet, only a beta has been, does support it. It's presumptuous to assume anything sinister on behalf of Microsoft until after Safari 3 has been released.
Exactly.

If you guys want to put your fingers in your ears and go "la la la Safari is a great browser, anything that doesn't work with it sucks", have at it. The reality is that a number of web apps don't work with 2 due to Safari shortcomings, and this is not only TinyMCE apps like those listed. Start Googling this issue and you'll see this for yourself. I don't mean to belabor this issue, because Safari 3 seems to have made great strides in addressing these issues, but as has been said it is not out of beta yet. You cannot fault any developers for not wanting to support a beta.
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 03:22 PM
 
You can fault them for blocking Camino, even though it uses the exact same rendering engine as Firefox.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 03:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
You can fault them for blocking Camino, even though it uses the exact same rendering engine as Firefox.

Yes, you can. I'd be willing to bet that this page utilizes XUL, which Camino does not support.
     
Reggie Fowler  (op)
Forum Regular
Join Date: Mar 2005
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 06:55 PM
 
the latest safari 3 beta is the version that will be in the GM.
so they don't support safari 3!
     
Art Vandelay
Professional Poster
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: New York, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 07:04 PM
 
If you're talking about the Safari 3 in the Leopard developer seeds, it's not available to the public yet. Why should anyone be expected to support a product that isn't publicly available yet? The only publicly available version of Safari 3 is a beta. As had already been said, wait until the final Safari 3 is available to the public. If it still doesn't work, then you can rant.
Vandelay Industries
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 08:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Yes, you can. I'd be willing to bet that this page utilizes XUL, which Camino does not support.
I'm willing to bet it doesn't. Internet Explorer doesn't support that either. And generally I don't think you can even embed XUL within a webpage at all.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 09:07 PM
 
Originally Posted by TETENAL View Post
I'm willing to bet it doesn't. Internet Explorer doesn't support that either. And generally I don't think you can even embed XUL within a webpage at all.
I know IE doesn't support it. What I'm saying is that it looks like they are serving up different versions of the same page for different browsers, and possibly using the two Javascript objects quoted above to group various browsers and determine what version of the page is delivered.

As far as your second comment:

http://www.moztips.com/fortune_cookies_draft1.html
     
TETENAL
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: FFM
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 5, 2007, 09:31 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
All right. I didn't know that. That example works in Camino by the way.
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:44 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,