IE to be changed, 85-90% chance.
Straight_Man
Geeky, in my own wayNaples, FL Icrontian
Everyone in webdev needs to read this and keep very close tabs on the IE and Eolas plugin patent suit and developments, as this case is both a potential landmark and very damaging to all browsers' use of plugins if it is proven (post-decison claims are what is being processed now) and not turned over legally by year end.
At this point the judge is expecting the post-decision claims to be over with in November at the latest, and if Microsoft loses they will have 30 days to alter IE to not use Eolas technology style plugins at all as they are declining to license same. The ordered payment of $521 million is for PAST misues of plugin technology and outright theft of same is being decided now in post-decision claims. The first post decision claim of Microsoft that Eolas made false claims has been thrown out.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5074799.html
Looks like radical website and browser changes will be on us by New Years at present. It is the web borwser interfacing to plugins that is at issue, not the standards the pluginsd use as issued by the copyright holders for things like Flash, Shockwave, Java, Real Player and Real One, etc.
John.
At this point the judge is expecting the post-decision claims to be over with in November at the latest, and if Microsoft loses they will have 30 days to alter IE to not use Eolas technology style plugins at all as they are declining to license same. The ordered payment of $521 million is for PAST misues of plugin technology and outright theft of same is being decided now in post-decision claims. The first post decision claim of Microsoft that Eolas made false claims has been thrown out.
http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5074799.html
Looks like radical website and browser changes will be on us by New Years at present. It is the web borwser interfacing to plugins that is at issue, not the standards the pluginsd use as issued by the copyright holders for things like Flash, Shockwave, Java, Real Player and Real One, etc.
John.
0
Comments
NS
Quaint, but IE adheres the most accurately of all browsers to the WC3, which are your HTML standards.
Actually it doesn't. It may interpret (most not all) code correctly, but it also tries to cater correctly for user errors and makes problems in the process.
It screws up lots of valid CSS code.
It cant/doesn't render transparent PNG images.....
etc etc.
NS
A lot of people do not understand that CSS from a domain can be domain wide, and many more do not know what exceptions and overrides will work right for individual pages depending on what you set as Global CSS fro a domain. Right now, Netscape, Mozilla, and Opera all take relative font sizing(-4 to +4) better than fixed font sizing(+1 to +7, expressed as signless integer), and use page format defaults to override in many cases.
EVERY browser is about 1-2 YEARS behind webdev code in the sense of fully implementing it.
Since monitors have different pixel res densities per inch, I base my base on about 90x90 ppi density and set at about 12-13 pixels base so most folks can read my sites. My own site that is up right now is based on that but is pure text as it was easiest to convert Trellix code to plain text one night when I moved the thing to a better hosting provider (GoDaddy now hosts it).
The problem I have with plugins are simply that they are both glitzy and focus attention on graphics rather than content. Tech, bottom line, is about content and factuality. So, I use a no CSS site for now and it is text with a tiny TIB of java for menuing. Simple to fix and add to.
Not even tables are needed for pure content. (The Twiki I have in baby form uses ONE formal table, for NAV hyperjumps within its tree of content.).
Oh, it is 90% client side code except for the Twiki, which uses a Perl core and uses a plain textual DBMS autoindexing scheme and paints pages on demand with search-- Couple tiny motionless logos in it, not even anigif's are used (frame-to-frame change motion gifs). I run out 1\4 the bandwidth load per feed minute and about 1\8 the overall feed of actual data that a motion graphics site with very minimal coarse motion graphics does. Thus a baby part of a server is plenty adequate and I pay $8.00 per month. I will be putting up jpg's and tech pics there, but that will be when I can treble the current 2GIG throughput limit and feed graphics so thumbnails are fed by default and larger on demand at higher res's (for a buck a month).
The trick is old as the hills-- KISMIF. Keep It Simple, Make it Fun (to use). For my work, that means anything that takes more than about 1500 pixels(115 lines of text at my base of 13 ppi) height to scroll gets top and bottom horizontal navs, and all subnavs are on a section title page with a home for main page, and all subcontent pages have links to one level up and main home. Content use is server tracked, no cookies, no personal info needed. site email has good smart junk filtering, and the box I use for webdev has no capability to run Windows viruses and knows how to ID all known viruses for Linux or Windows.
The web was never fully single browser centric, and never will be, so I go for what works on both Netscape and Opera. Actually, Opera is more written specifically to be more W3C compatible than anything other than the W3C's own browser called Amaya. Amaya likes CSS2, text content, tables, some framesets,and very few graphics other than the W3C code posiitoning. Nice for validating tabled websites. Opera actually is more intelligent than Netscape with framesets ala IE and frontpage, and decent with graphics.
It does not let me easily sort email by incoming account into separate input folder\subdirectory sets, so Netscape fetches my email mostly-- and Netscape 7.1's smart email filter learns pretty well, about 90% of junk goes right to qty one junk folder for all accounts. My website email filter works even better, and learns better and faster and seems to have been preprogrammed for a lot of known junk things.
Websites and browsers go hand-in-hand, and those intended for only IE fart in Netscape many times while Opera handles them decently for the most part. biggest one iste problem set I have with one site is Fedex.com, it likes to underpaint dialogs in Netscape, and help child windows also. Opera and IE work fine with it.
John (who uses any of four browsers depending on site preferences and coding style there).