Page 2 of 2
Posted: Sat 28 Jan, 2006 02.05
by cdd
Neil Jones wrote: people's inability to click "No" on the security prompt when inadvertedly installing said dangerous ActiveX controls.
It's amazing that, isn't it! People just don't read and ended up wtih their system laden with spyware. I remember telling people as a point blank, "Always click NO if one of those boxes come up", and ones appears and they go and click yes right in front of my eyes!
Posted: Sat 28 Jan, 2006 14.33
by Inspector Sands
cdd wrote:Why do I prefer firefox... well, where do I begin!
> Extensions
> Skins
> Find-As-You-Type Feature
> Adblock (yes, comes under Extensions, but still worthy of note!)
> Tabs of course
> Fancier icon
> Smaller and sleeker
> Built In Download manager
> Superior support for printing out
> Proper PNG support, proper "alt" tag support... all comes under "image rendering" that
> Type Text Into Address Bar And Uses Google's I'm Feeling Lucky feature
> Countless other things I probably take for granted every day!
>ability to add diffrent themes - which means that I can have tiny space saving buttons and thus a bigger web-window
>Live Bookmarks
>the search bit - direct entry to the search engines of about 15 sites direct from the toolbar
Plus unlike IE (which I am forced to use at work) when it finds a dodgy site and crashes FF doesn't take down windows explorer too
Posted: Sat 28 Jan, 2006 19.04
by James Martin
I'm yet to see that take place.
I'm not quite sure what does need to be done to the rendering engine. It's not really broke is it? If it's 6 years old but works surely that's good?
Posted: Sat 28 Jan, 2006 21.35
by DJGM
James Martin wrote:
It's not really broke is it?
I'm afraid it is. The "Trident" engine in IE does not obey the "Content-Type" feature of the HTTP standard.
HTTP is the protocol for the World Wide Web. It provides requirements that all Web browsers must
meet; if browsers developed their own protocol instead, communication between computers
would break down and the Internet would collapse into anarchy.
Internet Explorer does NOT obey this important internet protocol!
When a server sends a file to you through HTTP, it identifies the file as a Web page, text file,
picture file, movie, or other type of file. HTTP uses the Content-Type header to do this.
The protocol for HTTP/1.1 states:
"If and only if the media type is not given by a Content-Type field, the recipient MAY
attempt to guess the media type via inspection of its content and/or the name
extension(s) of the URI used to identify the resource."
Internet Explorer does not follow these rules; it guesses the media type of every file it receives.
Even if it is sent a file with "Content-Type: image/jpeg", if Internet Explorer thinks it's a text file,
it will open it like a text file! If in the future Internet Explorer starts identifying its Content-Types
incorrectly, this will cause a huge dilemma with webmasters. Because it does not follow this
clear protocol, Internet Explorer cannot be technically identified as a "web browser".
When a browser engine effectively ignores a fundamental part of the HTTP standard, it's very broken.
And Internet Explorer's Cascading Style Sheet support is shit when compared with real web browsers:
Internet Explorer was one of the first HTML renderers to add support for CSS, but since 2001,
they've not added any new support for CSS. While their support was comparable in 2001, the
other browsers (such as Mozilla and Opera) have been adding better support with fewer bugs.
Microsoft should do to "Trident", what Mozilla did with all the old Netscape code. Scrap the lot and start again.