hy fellas,

The IE browser is really really a big &@$#(&). Why setcookie() function dont work on in some versions of the IE 6 and others works perfectly?

The setcookie() works all of Mozilla versions.

    True statement, but the fact still remains that IE is still the most widely used browser in the world, and unless you are writng scripts for a specific browser need only, and don't mind excluding IE, then you are stuck catering to the masses, like the rest of us. I personally write to an IE exclusive client base, so I work around the IE nightmares.

      if you develop for the IE only, u are a incomplete programmer. All of web programmers must have to follow W3C protocol (www.w3c.org). I follow, and all of my friends programmers follow too.

      U are right when u say IE is predominant on the web, but as u know, the growth of the open source community it is in geometric conditions.

        Actually, I know how to write it cross platform, and I rely heavily on the W3C standards for coding for the web. I choose not to write the cross-platform for my clients, because my main clients are Intranets in which the only PCs accessing anything are IE PCs, and will never be anything else. They are exclusive Microsoft clients, so it's not by choice with them.

        Your point really reinforces mine that we should all write to be able to support in a cross platform environment... And if I am writing something to go out to the web for all... then yep, I conform to the standards.

          ok, but if your clients choosen, in a unexpected way, migrate from IE to Mozilla or Konqueror? what you expect to do in this case? this is a question to think about it my friend.

          this is a interesting thing to read:
          101 things

            I give the clients what they want and ask for. If they migrate, then I rewrite their code, and charge them out the you-know-what for it. When I say "it's not by choice", I mean, that was specifically what the clients wanted, so that's what they got. I guess I should have said "it's not by my choice." It would pretty much take a miracle for them to switch, because MS is so embedded in their every day technology.

            Believe me, I would just as soon write everything in compliance, but I do charge my clients more for it. I keep my pricing flexible for that very reason.

              This may be the miracle you speak of:

              http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6746-2004Jun25.html

              and

              http://www.kb.cert.org/vuls/id/323070

              and

              http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?date=2004-06-25

              TheDefender, you charge your clients more for browser compliance? You have to do your thing to survive, but I'd rather make it browser compliant, charge a little bit more, but include it with the cost. Then anyone could use the site whenever and however they wish. The moment a client makes the browser switch, they see how screwed they got. Now, if you're using strict IE features like ActiveX then sure, you can ditch other browser support since the site will be broken anyways due to lack of ActiveX.

                Ack, my comments are being taken out of context.

                I charge them more (for my time) to initially write it in compliance. That's the only reason it is more, is because it takes more time to do it, more code, and more time to validate everything. That's part of the service in writing the code.

                And heck yeah, if I have to rewrite the code, I am going to charge out the wazoo, because they had the option to being with... AND, I let them know everything up front.

                And in all cases, I encourage initial compliance.

                  Write a Reply...