Netscape concerns

[chrisjk]

I heard somewhere that netscape has a limit on the number of nested tables...anybody know if that is true and if so how many?

What happens if you exceed that...does it just leave a mess?

[filburt1]

You can have nested tables, but it gets messy even with two levels; for example columns are added willy-nilly, backgrounds don't work right. ^{Nutscrape sucks}

[chrisjk]

hmm, that blows. I've got like 4 nested tables. Displays wonderfully on IE and Opera, is fully HTML 4.01 compliant (validator.w3.org), yet Netscape is ganna **** it up

Nice!

[scoutt]

netscape is fine with nested table. just don't use backgrounds and you will be just fine. I use them on my site and Netscape looks works jsut fine.

it will just take a little bit longer as netscape renders the whole table layout before it ouputs it to the screen.

[chrisjk]

as in page background pictures?

what about cell colouring and stuff, will that be ok?

[scoutt]

I think cell color is fine. and the background to tables won't work in nested. you can run backgrounds for the page just not inside tables.

eg <table background="pic.jpg">

[Vincent Puglia]

Hi chrisjk,

Since you already have the pages up, why don't you just download a copy of NN4.7 (I presume that is what you are talking about) and see for yourself?

Vinny

[The Hobo]

No, Chris! Dooon't download Nutscrump.

Personally (and I know you may not have this option) I say ta hell with Netscape users. It's their fault for using a crappy browser.

[scoutt]

Originally posted by The Hobo
No, Chris! Dooon't download Nutscrump.

Personally (and I know you may not have this option) I say ta hell with Netscape users. It's their fault for using a crappy browser.

I see your point Hobo but you can't say no to 15 million users that use Netscape.

also I think it is funny that every one says Netscape is crappy and a piece of ****, but in all actuality Netscape is a better browser cause it makes you right better code. IE doesn't matter waht code youwrite adn will dispaly the table or page if you forget Tags. NS doesn't do that. so what if it isn't CSS compliant all the way. in time I believe it will

[The Hobo]

Originally posted by scoutt

I see your point Hobo but you can't say no to 15 million users that use Netscape.

also I think it is funny that every one says Netscape is crappy and a piece of ****, but in all actuality Netscape is a better browser cause it makes you right better code. IE doesn't matter waht code youwrite adn will dispaly the table or page if you forget Tags. NS doesn't do that. so what if it isn't CSS compliant all the way. in time I believe it will

Netscape is also very ugly

[chrisjk]

ok cheers everyone

but in all actuality Netscape is a better browser cause it makes you right better code. IE doesn't matter waht code youwrite adn will dispaly the table or page if you forget Tags

surely that would make IE the better, since it will do it's best to get it right, whereas NS would just cack itself

A netscape-powered human would have died the way you spelt that sentence, yet an IE-powered human could understand it

[scoutt]

he he got me there.

anyway, you would rather have a browser that will except anything and everything to dispaly the page even though you forgot some tags? so that means when you program in VB and you forget some lines it will still work because VB will know what you meant to do?

and then you go back later and say to yourself, "man who in the hell wrote this crap, they forgot a lot of code" see Netscape makes you a better programmer by not leting you forget tags.

but nobody is forcing you to download Netscape, I was just letting you know the TRUTH (tobacco kills)

[The Hobo]

Originally posted by scoutt
he he got me there.

anyway, you would rather have a browser that will except anything and everything to dispaly the page even though you forgot some tags? so that means when you program in VB and you forget some lines it will still work because VB will know what you meant to do?

and then you go back later and say to yourself, "man who in the hell wrote this crap, they forgot a lot of code" see Netscape makes you a better programmer by not leting you forget tags.

but nobody is forcing you to download Netscape, I was just letting you know the TRUTH (tobacco kills)

Unless they added this, Netscape also doesn't support as many things as IE does. Such as the table backgrounds you spoke of and iframes.

[scoutt]

well no it doesn't support iframes but NS6 does. it does support backgrounds in tables, just not nested tables. but so what about iframes, I don't use them anyway

[Vincent Puglia]

Hi Hobo,

1) Netscape 4.7 supports the <ilayer> tag -- which M$ copied and turned into <iframe>

2) NN4 came out before the 'standards' committee made their 'recommendations'. IE4 came out after the recommendations were published, so it makes sense that IE follows the standards more closely.

3) NN5 was essentially 'killed' by Microsoft when Gates 'suggested' that IE be the default browser for Windows

4) Saying something is "crappy" doesn't make it so, especially when the context is a programming language. 999 times out of a 1,000 it is the "programmer's" fault, not the application's.


Vinny

[chrisjk]

I think Opera is the most standards compliant isn't it? I use it anyway to check everything looks sweet, I also check everything with w3.org's html validator, so I know it's good code. Surely therefore if NS screws it up, the problem is with NS.

[CiberTHuG]

I use Opera.

I don't know if it is the "most" compliant, but it has no proprietary extensions, and sticks to some of the standards much more closely than IE or Netscape. That is why VBForums look so bad in Opera. The page is not terribly compliant itself.

Everyone should just ignore Navigator and Communicator and stick to Netscape 6+.

And no one should ever say that Netscape Communications sucks. They have innovated several things that have helped to shape the industry. This is evidenced by MS's repeated attempts and copying and destroying Netscape.

Can anyone name anything that MS has contributed to the growth of the web?

[chrisjk]

Originally posted by CiberTHuG
Can anyone name anything that MS has contributed to the growth of the web?

ASP?

[CiberTHuG]

Eh... well, ASP isn't bad, especially when you use PerlScript. I haven't used JSP and am just toying around with PHP, so I can't say (and doubt that) ASP is the best. I would have to say that CGI was more of a pioneer than ASP, though.

[The Hobo]

I personally wish browsers would read code the same way as each other so that we wouldn't have to make our code Netscape and IE compliant. Of course, if it were that way, why would we need more than one.

Vinny, don't talk to me.

[sail3005]

i have used deeply nested tables in NS with no problems.

[Vincent Puglia]

Hi,

Can anyone name anything that MS has contributed to the growth of the web?

For better or worse, its presence, in and of itself, has helped create the web. Without IE and Windows, most people would never have attempted to go online -- let alone code for the web.

While I don't necessarily enjoy coding for a variety of browsers/dbmses/etc., it does make like somewhat less predictable. Also, while I believe 'standards' are good thing, I worry about the trend to make every page 'compliant'. At what point will compliance become mandatory? That is, will there be a time when only 'compliant coders' can publish pages on the web? And, if so, what does that mean to all of the individuals who require WYSIWYG editors in order to put up a relatively simple page.

Hobo:

...don't talk to me.

If you don't agree with what I say, then don't read it.

Vinny

[The Hobo]

If I don't read it, how am I ever going to know if I agree with it or not?

Why post here if you don't want people to read your posts because they might not agree with it?

[chrisjk]

hey come on gents, no need to argue.

Smile

[scoutt]

Originally posted by sail3005
i have used deeply nested tables in NS with no problems.

you are right Sail, but you can't use background images in nested tables.

and Hobo it is only you that doesn't like what Vinney says. personally I like what he has to say as he is a wise man (no suck up here )

[The Hobo]

I didn't say I didn't like what he said...I just wanted to avoid an argument so I told him not to talk to me.

I'm immature. I can admit to that.

And is it just me, or does this smilie not look like an "embarassed" smilie?

[CiberTHuG]

Originally posted by Vincent Puglia
For better or worse, its presence, in and of itself, has helped create the web. Without IE and Windows, most people would never have attempted to go online -- let alone code for the web.

Sorry, have to disagree with you, and I'm sure most historians would, too. Mosaic and Navigator had people on the web in droves long before MS got IE off the ground.

Your statement is like saying Americans wouldn't be driving cars if it wasn't for Henry Ford. That's not true. They may not have had as many cars on the road as fast, but then again, they wouldn't've all been black.

While I don't necessarily enjoy coding for a variety of browsers/dbmses/etc., it does make like somewhat less predictable. Also, while I believe 'standards' are good thing, I worry about the trend to make every page 'compliant'. At what point will compliance become mandatory? That is, will there be a time when only 'compliant coders' can publish pages on the web? And, if so, what does that mean to all of the individuals who require WYSIWYG editors in order to put up a relatively simple page.

I feel we are way past the time when compliant coders should be allowed to publish pages. Especially since all the standards are published in very conspicious places (WWW.W3C.ORG).

And any WYSIWYG editor can be written to provide complaint code. I don't think a WYSIWYG editor can ever be made to make efficent code, but compliant, yes. And now with absolute positioning, I think WYSIWYG editors can do a much better job than they have in the past.

The problem with browsers underminding the standards is the intentions behind such actions.

Microsoft intentionally extends not only the HTML and DOM standards, but any standard they come in contact with. They don't do this with the intent of making your experience better. They do this with the intent of fooling you into thinking you are making something to a industry standard, so that when it fails on a competitors machine, you will think the competitor is slack.

Netscape isn't slack. They invented JavaScript. They (as in the guys who started the company) wrote the worlds first GUI browser, Mosaic.

But it is better to work to extend the standard through a standards body, so everyone is on the same page, and we introduce everything in the most efficent manner. For example...

You may want to add a collection of page objects at a certian level. Perhaps you want to be able to refer to every named object on the page as part of the document object. Say you have a p tag named "write". You have now underminded the document.write method that someone else was trying to introduce. Everyone needs to set down and decide on a better way of doing things. document.getElementById("write") doesn't break document.write.

MS is evil not because they are successful, but because they maliciously, and overtly, try to sabotage the compitetion. Their success is solely based on the public's laziness and ignorance. And there is nothing in the W3C's intentions that will bar the common man from producing and contributing.