An example Firefox deficiency

  • Thread starter Thread starter RipVanWinkle
  • Start date Start date
RipVanWinkle said:
I originally posted "Firefox not ready for primetime" and there were a lot
of responses. One post asked for specific examples of sites that did not
work properly. Here is one, for the Hotel Colon in Barcelona.
http://www.hotelcolon.es/index1.trx?Ar=OpcsCol&Opc=1&idioma=2

Notice the menu bar on the left frame. It should be in English, not
Spanish. In IE it is correctly displayed in English but in Firefox it's
stuck in Spanish. When I originally viewed this website I gave up figuring
the people who wrote the HTM code for the page made the error. But then I
came across too many other sites that evening that were also not right. By
accident, I opened IE and lo and behold, all the sites that had not worked
in Firefox worked in IE. I spent a lot of time searching for hotels and
dismissing important web sites that day because their pages were unreadable.
And it was not the hotels fault, it was Firefox.

So, I will use Firefox for websites that I know will work with it but when
surfing, Firefox is clearly not ready for prime time.

Rip NYC
Click to expand...
Well I loaded this up in firefox and got the spanish menu, then I loaded
IE with my standard security setting i.e. no scripts or activex and no
menu, I then refreshed and allowed scripts and disallowed activeX and
guess what no menu.

What does this tell you, it tells you the menu uses activex controls
when loaded with IE and so no wonder it doesn't work on a standards
compliant browser.

I suppose by this reasoning sites which use Java and don't work with the
MS JVM are also broken! I use FF for virtually all my browsing including
banking and shopping without any problems and only have to load IE for
Windows Update. So is FF broken or is it that sites which don't comply
with standards or use PROPRIETARY MS technologies don't work in browsers
other than IE, the answer is self-evident. If you really want to
compromise the security of FF I believe there is an ActiveX extension
which works on FF 0.9x you can
install from http://gratisdei.com/activex-1.0.0.3.xpi. I haven't tried
it but it apparently works on some sites that require ActiveX e.g.
launch.com.

Richard

--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
N.B. Please Remove 'SPAMLESS' from e-mail address to send a message
E-Mail: (e-mail address removed)
Home Page: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.amuzu
Shotokan Guide: http://freespace.virgin.net/richard.amuzu/Karate
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"I am a man of simple tastes, I am always satisfied with the best."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 
Well I loaded this up in firefox and got the spanish menu, then I
loaded IE with my standard security setting i.e. no scripts or
activex and no menu, I then refreshed and allowed scripts and
disallowed activeX and guess what no menu.

What does this tell you, it tells you the menu uses activex
controls when loaded with IE and so no wonder it doesn't work on a
standards compliant browser.
Click to expand...

The menu is swf, which requires ActiveX to work with IE.

The reason Fx (and I guess any brower using Netscape code) shows the
Spanish menu is that there is a typo on the page.

<OBJECT classid="clsid:D27CDB6E-AE6D-11cf-96B8-444553540000"
codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=5,0,0,0"
WIDTH=133 HEIGHT=376>
<PARAM NAME=movie VALUE="flash/MenuIngles.swf">
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
[. . .]

<EMBED src="flash/Menu.swf" quality=high wmode=transparent bgcolor=#000066 WIDTH=133 HEIGHT=376 [. . .]
^^^^^^^^

If the typo were the other way around (MenuIngles.swf <--> Menu.swf),
the OP would be complaining that IE would not display the English
menu. <EMBED> is deprecated, but Fx is displaying exactly what
the web designer told it to.
 
MLC said:
mercoledì 04/ago/2004 _Susan Bugher_ in


Hi Susan,
speaking of that, there's a leftover </A> tag in the home page, after the
link for Pricelessware 2004.
Click to expand...

Thanks Maria (fixed).
I know you seek the perfection ;-))
Click to expand...

Yup => Burnr's doing the graphics for the PL2005 pages. ;)

Susan
 
RipVanWinkle said:
I originally posted "Firefox not ready for primetime" and there were
a lot of responses. One post asked for specific examples of sites
that did not work properly. Here is one, for the Hotel Colon in
Barcelona.
http://www.hotelcolon.es/index1.trx?Ar=OpcsCol&Opc=1&idioma=2
Click to expand...

Okay, now take a look here -> http://tinyurl.com/4b9rl <- and you'll
see the reasons why the above page for Hotel Colon is incorrectly
coded for use on all browsers. It's the site's fault, not the browser.
 
Them fighten words, buddy.

Are you trolling?

This isn't a Firefox deficiency just a poorly coded website (that
wouldn't render with IE for me).

I would, given the same circumstances, pick a hotel that did render
correctly.

It IS the "hotels fault" or, more correctly, the web designer's fault.

not everyone is ready for prime time.

My girlfriend is weaned off IE, but she did use Netscape at work and
had (that's HAD) AOL at home. Computers haven't really evolved
enough for everyone - in my opinion. (I think M$ knows and uses this
for their profit)
 
default said:
Them fighten words, buddy.

Are you trolling?

snip<
Click to expand...

I am not trolling! I have serious concerns about Firefox and I wish I could
rely on it but it is seriously flawed. Firefox is certainly faster and I
am no longer plagued by pop-ups. But I am very annoyed that I wasted a lot
of time bypassing important websites because that contained Microsoft-only
coding and which Firefox could not handle.

I would like to see Firefox become more tolerant of poorly written websites.
At the very least, Firefox could warn users that a website contains bogus
code and will not display properly. Defending something that obviously needs
improvement is not going to solve the problem or make it better and in the
end Microsoft wins the game.

Microsoft knew full well what they were doing by breaking accepted HTML
standards. They created a proprietary situation that only their browser
would handle. It's pure genius on their part. It's a very smart business
move, screwing things up like that, and then having the only product that
can fix it. Now it's up to Firefox to meet this challenge, not ignore it.
Users want a browser that works reliably, period. IE sucks. MYIE2 is great
but it's still IE under the skin. Firefox is awesome, but it still needs
work or at least a "bad website encountered" error message. So please stop
defending it and instead lets see if we can get the problem fixed.

Rip NYC
 
I am not trolling! I have serious concerns about Firefox and I
wish I could rely on it but it is seriously flawed. Firefox is
certainly faster and I am no longer plagued by pop-ups. But I am
very annoyed that I wasted a lot of time bypassing important
websites because that contained Microsoft-only coding and which
Firefox could not handle.
Click to expand...

I remain skeptical that you waste a lot of time bypassing important
websites which Firefox cannot handle. The example you posted was
trivial; Firefox renders it fine, displaying the Spanish Menu.swf
which the web author mistakenly embedded.
I would like to see Firefox become more tolerant of poorly written
websites. At the very least, Firefox could warn users that a
website contains bogus code and will not display properly.
Click to expand...

Most websites contain bad html. I don't see a way to do this that
wouldn't involve a lot of annoying warnings for pages which display
fine in Firefox. If you want to see whether a page has "bogus code"
without running it through the validator, use ctrl+j to see if Fx is
rendering it in quirks mode.
Defending something that obviously needs improvement is not going
to solve the problem or make it better and in the end Microsoft
wins the game.
Click to expand...

IMO the folks developing gecko have done a great job with improving
quirks mode, and they continue to work on it. Whether you think a
fire needs lighting under them or not, whining here about it won't
change things.
 
<snip>

I have serious concerns about Firefox and I
wish I could rely on it but it is seriously flawed. Firefox is
certainly faster and I am no longer plagued by pop-ups. But I am
very annoyed that I wasted a lot of time bypassing important
websites because that contained Microsoft-only coding and which
Firefox could not handle.

I would like to see Firefox become more tolerant of poorly written
websites. At the very least, Firefox could warn users that a
website contains bogus code and will not display properly.
Defending something that obviously needs improvement is not going
to solve the problem or make it better and in the end Microsoft
wins the game.

Microsoft knew full well what they were doing by breaking accepted
HTML standards. They created a proprietary situation that only
their browser would handle. It's pure genius on their part. It's
a very smart business move, screwing things up like that, and then
having the only product that can fix it. Now it's up to Firefox
to meet this challenge, not ignore it. Users want a browser that
works reliably, period. IE sucks. MYIE2 is great but it's still
IE under the skin. Firefox is awesome, but it still needs work or
at least a "bad website encountered" error message. So please
stop defending it and instead lets see if we can get the problem
fixed.

Rip NYC
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say that FF is flawed. I would say it's probably missing
a feature or an extension that you and probably many others need.

Since probably most of the web designers don't validate code and like
to use a program like M$ Front Page, because it is way too easy to
use. You will see many websites that are more IE compatible, since
they are using M$ code and not the standards code that every web
designer should use, it would appear to you and others that FF is
flawed, but it isn't.

With poorly written websites and M$ breaking the accepted HTML
standards is why there are so many vulnerabilities in IE and M$
Windows.

In the end, use what you like and feel comfortable with, but always
take the necessary precautions.

--
--
Take care.

Roadster3043
jmfix at hotmail dot com

Something important to read if you use IE
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-3513_7-5142439-1.html
 
I am not trolling! I have serious concerns about Firefox and I wish I could
rely on it but it is seriously flawed. Firefox is certainly faster and I
am no longer plagued by pop-ups. But I am very annoyed that I wasted a lot
of time bypassing important websites because that contained Microsoft-only
coding and which Firefox could not handle.

I would like to see Firefox become more tolerant of poorly written websites.
At the very least, Firefox could warn users that a website contains bogus
code and will not display properly. Defending something that obviously needs
improvement is not going to solve the problem or make it better and in the
end Microsoft wins the game.

Microsoft knew full well what they were doing by breaking accepted HTML
standards. They created a proprietary situation that only their browser
would handle. It's pure genius on their part. It's a very smart business
move, screwing things up like that, and then having the only product that
can fix it. Now it's up to Firefox to meet this challenge, not ignore it.
Users want a browser that works reliably, period. IE sucks. MYIE2 is great
but it's still IE under the skin. Firefox is awesome, but it still needs
work or at least a "bad website encountered" error message. So please stop
defending it and instead lets see if we can get the problem fixed.

Rip NYC
Click to expand...
I dont believe your trolling either.If IE can handle good and "bad" written
web pages ,why cant the others too? , or at least issue info in the form of
popup or some other means informing you that its not compatible.At least
with IE/IE based browsers you are given the choice to use active x,other
browsers...no choice at all.Personally i would like to see other browsers
just "modifying" IE to make it safer by easier control of security settings
etc and information on the action.
me
 
On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 13:50:06 +0100, bassbag

snip
I dont believe your trolling either.If IE can handle good and "bad" written
web pages ,why cant the others too? , or at least issue info in the form of
popup or some other means informing you that its not compatible.At least
with IE/IE based browsers you are given the choice to use active x,other
browsers...no choice at all.Personally i would like to see other browsers
just "modifying" IE to make it safer by easier control of security settings
etc and information on the action.
me
Click to expand...

I think I'd rather see standards adopted by everyone instead of MS
trying to make the Internet exclusively their property.

The weakness in trying to make all browsers work with poorly coded
sites - is there is no incentive to come up with a widely accepted
standard - and there is no incentive to adopt any standard - from
there it is only a matter of time before every designer goes his own
way and anarchy rules.

The troll comes in by insisting that Firefox is somehow deficient (in
two separate postings) just because a poorly designed site fails to
load.

I haven't used IE in several years, (since 1992) and haven't had any
problem that wasn't easily resolved.
 
I am not trolling! I have serious concerns about Firefox and I wish I could
rely on it but it is seriously flawed. Firefox is certainly faster and I
am no longer plagued by pop-ups. But I am very annoyed that I wasted a lot
of time bypassing important websites because that contained Microsoft-only
coding and which Firefox could not handle.
Click to expand...

Not a problem. Just install the ieview extension, which allows you to
open such crappy pages in Internet Explorer.
 
RipVanWinkle said:
tFirefox is awesome, but it still needs work or at least a
"bad website encountered" error message. So please stop defending
it and instead lets see if we can get the problem fixed.
Click to expand...

Don't tell us -- join the Mozilla Firefox forums and post your
suggestions to the "Firefox Features" section:

http://forums.mozillazine.org/index.php?c=4

There's no reason why they might not consider your ideas. :)
 
["RipVanWinkle"; Fri, 06 Aug 2004 04:13:44 GMT]
Microsoft knew full well what they were doing by breaking accepted
HTML standards.
Click to expand...

Which only makes it worse.
They created a proprietary situation that only their browser would
handle. It's pure genius on their part. It's a very smart business
move, screwing things up like that, and then having the only product
that can fix it. Now it's up to Firefox to meet this challenge, not
ignore it.
Click to expand...

Challenge? Should standards be ignored at will? Is Microsoft free to
remake the Web at their own discretion? Should every browser available
bog themselves down with the ability to decode every proprietary
nonstandard that anybody creates? (Or is Microsoft an exception?)
Users want a browser that works reliably, period. IE sucks. MYIE2 is
great but it's still IE under the skin.
Click to expand...

Exactly. I love MyIE2/Maxthon, but in the end, it's built on top of IE.
Darn it.
Firefox is awesome, but it still needs work or at least a "bad website
encountered" error message.
Click to expand...

I agree that a bad-Web-page message might be a nice option to add, or
even a small "broken"-type of icon in the status bar. But I still can't
understand why you feel Firefox "needs work" because it works by agreed-
upon standards and doesn't kowtow to the whims of corporations that
think they can make the Internet into whatever they want.

Should a modest shopkeeper acquiesce to illegal or unethical demands of
a powerful organized-crime boss? Or should she stand her ground, knowing
that obeying the law, as it were, is the wisest course? Should a
government play by the rules that a vigilante sets?
 
Jeez, this page has so many errors I don't know where to
start.

Run it through the validator yourself:
http://validator.w3.org/
Click to expand...

I'm assuming this page is updated as the needs arises?

Is there an ng for fixing the types of things the service brings p as
errors? I ran a page done up my Angelfire and the validation service
found errors. Not much I can do about this page, but was curious to
know what to do when it finds errors on something I've done up.

Thanks.
 
Run it through the validator yourself: http://validator.w3.org/

I'm assuming this page is updated as the needs arises?
Yeah.

Is there an ng for fixing the types of things the service brings p as
errors?
Click to expand...

alt.html is a good place.
I ran a page done up my Angelfire and the validation service
found errors. Not much I can do about this page, but was curious to
know what to do when it finds errors on something I've done up.
Click to expand...

The W3C validator tries to give some clues about how to fix the
problems it finds; it's best to start by trying to fix the first one,
as many of the later ones may be caused by that one. There are two
other good, free validation services:

<http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/>
htmlhelp.com is a great site for all kinds of html stuff.

<http://valet.webthing.com/>
This website has some shareware, but also free online tools. Unlike
the others, it will also check your pages to see how accessible they
are to people who can't or don't use full-blown graphical browsers.
 
......"Here is one, for the Hotel Colon in Barcelona."

In that case, maybe it needs irrigating rather than validating?
 
alt.html is a good place.


The W3C validator tries to give some clues about how to fix the
problems it finds; it's best to start by trying to fix the first one,
as many of the later ones may be caused by that one. There are two
other good, free validation services:

<http://www.htmlhelp.com/tools/validator/>
htmlhelp.com is a great site for all kinds of html stuff.

<http://valet.webthing.com/>
This website has some shareware, but also free online tools. Unlike
the others, it will also check your pages to see how accessible they
are to people who can't or don't use full-blown graphical browsers.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the 2 extra sites. Much appreciated. And thanks re the
tip on fixing the first error first.
 
Back
Top