XML and browsers

parawizard

Id like to see browsers start pushing each other more on keeping up with the standards. Im recently using alot of XML and theres alot not supported clients out there! IE is good but netscape has less and mozilla well mozilla firebird doesnt!

goldbug

Like hell it doesn't.

I use MozFirebird all the time to view XML/XSL/XHTML/RSS/etc... files.

In fact, IE is, among the "major" browsers out there, probably the most outdated. So if there's any browser that needs to "keep up with standards" it's IE. Every other browser, and the standards themselves, are leaving IE in the dust currently.

planetsim

IE is good thats complete rubbish. Like goldbug said its so far behind its a joke. Mozilla, Firebird even Netscrape is doing better in there standards.

Weedpacket

Originally posted by goldbug
In fact, IE is, among the "major" browsers out there, probably the most outdated.

And with Microsoft terminating development on IE as a standalone application, you won't see it updated until you buy Longhorn.

goldbug

Originally posted by Weedpacket
And with Microsoft terminating development on IE as a standalone application, you won't see it updated until you buy Longhorn.

Well, the IE team (yes, there is one) is working on an "update" currently that is going to "fix" some stuff (details are sketchy) (to be released pre-longhorn)... so we have that to look forward to (??), I guess.

piersk

I thought that they were only working on a patch to fix the 0x0 problem.

goldbug

AFAIK, they've got a bunch of "big" patches coming down the line. One that sticks out in my mind is the patch that disables username:password@domain URLs. I'd wager that that there's going to be a significant amount changed in the upcoming XP service pack.

See here for a nice little article.

Weedpacket

Originally posted by goldbug
AFAIK, they've got a bunch of "big" patches coming down the line. One that sticks out in my mind is the patch that disables username:password@domain URLs.

It's a long way from that to fixing the box model. And the dorky undersized fonts. I mean, what's in it for them to break all those "developed for IE" pages?

parawizard

im not sure whats wrong then since my friends with mozilla firebird cant view my news module? seems strange too me! maybe someone else would like to check the link. someone send im sending it wrong or something?

can someone else test it? i think goldbug said i was sending as plain text with a wrong MIME
http://members.shaw.ca/kow49/news/news.xml

maybe i am? this might be my end problem

hmmmmm

parawizard

Originally posted by parawizard
im not sure whats wrong then since my friends with mozilla firebird cant view my news module? seems strange too me! maybe someone else would like to check the link. someone send im sending it wrong or something?

can someone else test it? i think goldbug said i was sending as plain text with a wrong MIME
http://members.shaw.ca/kow49/news/news.xml

maybe i am? this might be my end problem

hmmmmm

im doing my XML to the standards i used www.w3schools.com to learn XML. i need some of your godly wisdom :p

jstarkey

Originally posted by parawizard

can someone else test it? i think goldbug said i was sending as plain text with a wrong MIME
http://members.shaw.ca/kow49/news/news.xml

maybe i am? this might be my end problem

hmmmmm

I took just a quick look, but it seems you're not sending the Content-Type correctly. IIRC, IE parses files based on extension, whereas Mozilla-based browsers parse it per the Content-Type.

jstarkey

Originally posted by jstarkey
IIRC, IE parses files based on extension, whereas Mozilla-based browsers parse it per the Content-Type.

Actually, now that I think about it, that can't be entirely true. I am parsing pages with PHP extensions as XML. I swear I've heard that somewhere before though.

At any rate, as long as Mozilla know's it's XML it will parse it as XML. Right now it just thinks it's a text file.

Weedpacket

Originally posted by parawizard
im doing my XML to the standards i used www.w3schools.com to learn XML. i need some of your godly wisdom :p

Here's a bit: www.w3.org - get the standards straight from the source.

dave420

IE may be lacking on the support front, but it has simply the best HTML renderer I've ever seen, on any browser.

I've been a professional HTML coder for 8 years, and it's always been the best browser to get pages to work with. Netscape used to be the worst. You could code to the exact HTML standard, and netscape would go off on a tangent doing all sorts of crazy stuff. IE has consitently been the best renderer out there. But, as you say, it supports less standards fully.

piersk

Shame it still has problems with CSS...

Have you tried Mozilla or Firebird (browser only)

goldbug

Originally posted by dave420
IE may be lacking on the support front, but it has simply the best HTML renderer I've ever seen, on any browser.

I've been a professional HTML coder for 8 years, and it's always been the best browser to get pages to work with. Netscape used to be the worst. You could code to the exact HTML standard, and netscape would go off on a tangent doing all sorts of crazy stuff. IE has consitently been the best renderer out there. But, as you say, it supports less standards fully.

Three words: faulty box model.

dave420

Three letters: wtf?

seriously - wha? that went right over my head.

I'm only saying that about IE because it's how I feel. I've worked with loads of really, really talented HTML coders (some of the best in the field, both in London and Los Angeles), and they all say the same. They're not biassed between companies - they're artists, and they know the IE renderer is superior to anything else out there. They don't see "microsoft" and think bad, and they don't see "open source" and think good - they see well-rendered html and think "mmmmm..... html"

🙂

goldbug

Originally posted by dave420
Three letters: wtf?

seriously - wha? that went right over my head.

I'm only saying that about IE because it's how I feel. I've worked with loads of really, really talented HTML coders (some of the best in the field, both in London and Los Angeles), and they all say the same. They're not biassed between companies - they're artists, and they know the IE renderer is superior to anything else out there. They don't see "microsoft" and think bad, and they don't see "open source" and think good - they see well-rendered html and think "mmmmm..... html"

🙂

Wow, I'm not sure if you're serious, or just being a troll.... so here's to feeding trolls....

8 years of experience, but have the last 2-3 been in a dark cave somewhere? In case you've missed out, IE has not changed fundamentally in about 6 years, while browsers with arguably better rendering engines have continued to grow and become more polished and feature-full.
Honestly, if you don't even comprehend what "box model" means, you need to go hit the books and read more into (X)HTML, CSS, W3C standards, etc... before you start touting any particular browser as having a superior rendering engine.

Now, you didn't specifically say what platform version of IE you are speaking of, but your comments align well to the mentality of many WinIE developers. In reality, the Windows IE engine is getting ver very very stale, and is now a considerable thorn in the side of many cross-platform/browser developers. The Tasman rendering engine (powering IE Mac) is superior to the Windows engine, but even it has its shortcomings, mostly due to age.

It's probably time you picked up a modern browser like Mozilla/Firebird, Opera 7, Safari, etc... and start discovering the value of web standards, and future-compatibility.

Alright, enough from me. 😃

piersk

Goldbug, where was that pretty ASCII pic you drew when trying to explain to me the box model hack?

goldbug

Oh man, probably long gone... but here's a link to the hack description, straight from Tantek:

http://www.tantek.com/CSS/Examples/boxmodelhack.html

(edit) found it here