Internet Explorer 7

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:11:01 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Well, sure, clueless web designers often only test with the browser they
themselves use. But you mentioned encryption, are you saying it's not
encryption but something else now?

I answered the latter part already.

You may think you answered it, OK.

Actually, you wrote, "But you mentioned encryption, are you saying it's
not encryption but something else now?"

Which was answered as a deduction on my part based upon my results
inside what you later referred to the transactional area. If you have
the lingual differentaitions between transactional area as opposed to
encrypted area - then - by all means - flex it. But, give me some
details. What is it that causes FF to freeze in a transactional area or
in the transactional side where IE does not.



I seriously doubt the designers of
the financial web site I am referencing are clueless.

I've worked in the financial IT industry for a long time. Trust me.
Those developers aren't any less likely to be clueless and myopic than
any others.

Keeping in mind that I do not have your IT financial experience, I have
to ask why, if you are in the industry, that you don't fix or at least
point to the cluelessness and myopic mentality.


The tech support
folks are for sure.

SeewhutImean?

Are you saying tech support contacts are actually designers? I've been
eventually patched through to "the IT department" in some instances
after dealing with a phone guy for 20 minutes or so and even the IT guy
didn't seem like he was a designer moreso than facilitator/admin user -
as he spoke about "old tickets" on the problem at hand.


Having spent a good deal of time setting and resetting Firefox
settings, I am not allowed certain tasks that work through easily using
Avant/IE6. The site parts available before encryption, while basic,
encounter no problems until entering the "secure" parts of the site -
and I therefore conclude it is an encryption problem.

If the only difference were encryption, maybe, but more likely you're
going from an unsecure side of their app, to a transactional part of it.
Without knowing the site, how it works, what they're using, it's
impossible to say the only difference is encryption.

Aye, I note your maybe.

I suspect you misread what I mean by it. I'm saying "If that was the
only difference once you get into the transactional side of the site,
then perhaps that could be the problem, but you haven't shown that to be
the only difference". You claimed that firefox has a problem with
encryption, when really, all you know is that when you go to an
encrypted web app, you have problems. You haven't explored the other
differences. Me, I have direct personal knowledge that the encryption
mechanisms in Firefox do work, because I've tested each one of them by
turning them on individually on the webserver end and verifying them.
In a financial, web-based environment.

Why not say so then up front? What you describe IS all I have done as I
equate encryption with what you refer to as the transactional area
(side)and is probably more than an average user is going to even
consider. My equating the two is reinforced, from time to time, by
error messages that indicate a problem with 128 bit encryption - an
error message that is meaningless to me for the most part. So, when I
notice that the problems appear to occur exclusively under specific URLs
indicated by the little "lock" icon in the location bar - I think
encryption - for good or ill.

Without too much further discussion, let me
just say that when FF suffers a glitch that IE does not - when I can
close FF, immediately open Avant/IE and solve a site functionality
problem - however rare or occasional - and when I have to use an IE tab
to view certain video presentations - then FF has a way to go to beat IE
and baton the "clueless designers" upside the head.

All you've confirmed at this point that there are some sites that don't
work with FF, not that FF is the problem. A quick analysis by the w3c
validator should give at least an indication if the page is compliant or
not.

Absolutely, and also that these sites function without a hitch in IE.
This is the biggest issue.


(shrug) if you say so. Only time I had a problem, I contacted the bank
and they were unhelpful to a huge degree. Easy fix there, I switched
banks.

I do say so. There was, in fact, a two day period where GoDaddy changes
caused login problems for FF that were eventually fixed - not that
GoDaddy is something special - just something I encountered while
helping someone out with an A record setup. A shrug after admitting such
problems exist is somewhat conbtradictory to your premis of the
argument.

My premise of argument is that you've established correlation and not
causation. If you have read it otherwise, then you have read wrongly.

Your premise focuses upon what I am calling encryption. My premise is
moreso what I wrote and you snipped...

"...IN terms of on-demand use, I need it now, without having to peck
around
to find that there is some functionality problem associated with the
browser itself - holds FF back among basic and advanced users alike.
And I'm root'n for FF."

People won't just change banks to suit an emotional attachment to the
open source movement and corporations won't rely on a product that
requires more time and saavy that an average user can give. With FF
seeking to be a leading alternative in the "Microsoft Free" corridors of
preference - then their stuff has to work all the time.

I have referred many folks to FF since it became available as an
alternative to IE and/or Avant. The vast majority eventually turn away
unless they are familiar with what might be a browser glitch, a
designer myopy (is that a word?) and/or familiar with the ever
increasing add-ons being published by mozilla that they have to
potentially associate with a problem or preference.

Having multiple platforms myself, I spend some time trying to determine
why FF doesn't work where IE does, when I have the time, and sometimes
find a fix. YET, when I am working on something and need something NOW,
and I get it every time by closing FF and opening IE - then FF has a way
to go.


--

JMark

X11 [R6?]

"Frank" wrote in message
ink.net...
"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


First of all, good try, but you are not Frank Provasek.

Hey, you spelled my name right.


Second, if IE7 is actually available, why haven't we learned of it in the
legitimate press?

It's been discussed over a year in the legitimate press that I read...
But the
March 20 release has the final rendering engine and is suitable for the
home user....and
MUCH improved over IE6.

Third, you're trying to spoof the wrong group of people. Please try
alt.insane.idiots

Mr. Jaggers
I don't know why you think it's a spoof...but if you prefer the Microsoft
browser,
check out the Microsoft website.

Assuming that you are the real Frank Provasek, my apology for doubting you.
It's just that you haven't posted for such a long time, but now all of a
sudden on a somewhat off topic, it seemed out of character for you. I hope
that my response was seen to be out of character for me as well. So, if
it's OK with you, please accept my contrition and let us move on.

How are things down there in the sunny land of Texas?

Mr. Jaggers
'sometimes engaging in dactylography without having brain in gear'

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:12:21 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:11:01 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Well, sure, clueless web designers often only test with the browser they
themselves use. But you mentioned encryption, are you saying it's not
encryption but something else now?

I answered the latter part already.

You may think you answered it, OK.

Actually, you wrote, "But you mentioned encryption, are you saying it's
not encryption but something else now?"

Yes, I did.

Which was answered as a deduction on my part based upon my results
inside what you later referred to the transactional area. If you have
the lingual differentaitions between transactional area as opposed to
encrypted area - then - by all means - flex it.

FFS. Encryption is how the page is secured. Everything Else, includes
whatever mechanisms the web developers decided to authenticate you, to
maintain your session, to validate your inputs, to determine the
workflow, anything.

But, give me some
details. What is it that causes FF to freeze in a transactional area or
in the transactional side where IE does not.

I don't know, but it's not encryption. You're getting the site's data
just fine, but the data that the site sends probably isn't compliant,
and Firefox doesn't display it in the same broken way that IE does.
In other words, they're writing it so it works with IE's broken
rendering engine, regardless of if it's right or not.
Again, all you've established is that something some braindeaded
developer wrote, works on IE and not on Firefox. You haven't shown that
the problem is with firefox, and I am very confident that your guess of
it being "firefox doesn't handle encryption right" is completely
incorrect.

I seriously doubt the designers of
the financial web site I am referencing are clueless.

I've worked in the financial IT industry for a long time. Trust me.
Those developers aren't any less likely to be clueless and myopic than
any others.

Keeping in mind that I do not have your IT financial experience, I have
to ask why, if you are in the industry, that you don't fix or at least
point to the cluelessness and myopic mentality.

Because I'm not in charge of the developers. I'm not going to defend
their problems, I'm explaining (or trying, futilely) to you, that the
problem most likely isn't your first guess which was firefox encryption.

The tech support
folks are for sure.

SeewhutImean?

Are you saying tech support contacts are actually designers? I've been
eventually patched through to "the IT department" in some instances
after dealing with a phone guy for 20 minutes or so and even the IT guy
didn't seem like he was a designer moreso than facilitator/admin user -
as he spoke about "old tickets" on the problem at hand.

By the time you get to level 3 or level 4, yeah, you're probably talking
to either an infrastructure guy or a designer. And why wouldn't someone
who gets escalated to know about "old tickets"?

I suspect you misread what I mean by it. I'm saying "If that was the
only difference once you get into the transactional side of the site,
then perhaps that could be the problem, but you haven't shown that to be
the only difference". You claimed that firefox has a problem with
encryption, when really, all you know is that when you go to an
encrypted web app, you have problems. You haven't explored the other
differences. Me, I have direct personal knowledge that the encryption
mechanisms in Firefox do work, because I've tested each one of them by
turning them on individually on the webserver end and verifying them.
In a financial, web-based environment.

Why not say so then up front?

I did. You just didn't get my point.

What you describe IS all I have done as I
equate encryption with what you refer to as the transactional area
(side)and is probably more than an average user is going to even
consider. My equating the two is reinforced, from time to time, by
error messages that indicate a problem with 128 bit encryption - an
error message that is meaningless to me for the most part.

Oh, you have an _error message_. How nice of you to mention that. Do
you happen to, you know, have the text of it handy?

So, when I
notice that the problems appear to occur exclusively under specific URLs
indicated by the little "lock" icon in the location bar - I think
encryption - for good or ill.

All you've confirmed at this point that there are some sites that don't
work with FF, not that FF is the problem. A quick analysis by the w3c
validator should give at least an indication if the page is compliant or
not.

Absolutely, and also that these sites function without a hitch in IE.
This is the biggest issue.

You continue not to get it. If they only check their broken site with a
broken browser and it renders as they expect there, that doesn't mean
that their site suddenly isn't broken, it's just broken in such a way
that the broken broswer displays it the way they expect it to display.

My premise of argument is that you've established correlation and not
causation. If you have read it otherwise, then you have read wrongly.

Your premise focuses upon what I am calling encryption. My premise is
moreso what I wrote and you snipped...

Encryption is turning the datastream into something not easily readable
in transit. That's all.

"...IN terms of on-demand use, I need it now, without having to peck
around
to find that there is some functionality problem associated with the
browser itself - holds FF back among basic and advanced users alike.
And I'm root'n for FF."

I snipped it because it doesn't seem to say anything.

People won't just change banks to suit an emotional attachment to the
open source movement

My direct personal experience differs from your global sweeping
statement. It's not so much attachment to open-source, it's a case of
"your **** is broken, are you going to fix it? No? OK, bye then."

and corporations won't rely on a product that
requires more time and saavy that an average user can give.

You claim to be pro-ff, but you're spouting what looks an awful lot like
Microsoft's FUD.

With FF
seeking to be a leading alternative in the "Microsoft Free" corridors of
preference - then their stuff has to work all the time.

A properly coded website will perform identically regardless of browser.
Your bank doesn't have one.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 20:12:21 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 18:11:01 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

Well, sure, clueless web designers often only test with the browser they
themselves use. But you mentioned encryption, are you saying it's not
encryption but something else now?

I answered the latter part already.

You may think you answered it, OK.

Actually, you wrote, "But you mentioned encryption, are you saying it's
not encryption but something else now?"

Yes, I did.

Which was answered as a deduction on my part based upon my results
inside what you later referred to the transactional area. If you have
the lingual differentaitions between transactional area as opposed to
encrypted area - then - by all means - flex it.

FFS. Encryption is how the page is secured. Everything Else, includes
whatever mechanisms the web developers decided to authenticate you, to
maintain your session, to validate your inputs, to determine the
workflow, anything.

So, anything might include mechanisms that don't validate in FF...no?

But, give me some
details. What is it that causes FF to freeze in a transactional area or
in the transactional side where IE does not.

I don't know, but it's not encryption. You're getting the site's data
just fine, but the data that the site sends probably isn't compliant,
and Firefox doesn't display it in the same broken way that IE does.

Can you explain "same broken way"?

In other words, they're writing it so it works with IE's broken
rendering engine, regardless of if it's right or not.

Give me some half tech sources I can read to better understand IE's
broken rendering engine. Right relative to what or whom (or is it
who?)?

Again, all you've established is that something some braindeaded
developer wrote, works on IE and not on Firefox. You haven't shown that
the problem is with firefox, and I am very confident that your guess of
it being "firefox doesn't handle encryption right" is completely
incorrect.

Yes, we can cling to the encryption word - a word that covers
authentication, input validation or "anything" - your words. You've
also seemingly said there is a higher functionalality with IE than FF -
that IE handles what you term as "right or not" and FF does not. IE
thereby being more inclusive and thereby more functional.


I seriously doubt the designers of
the financial web site I am referencing are clueless.

I've worked in the financial IT industry for a long time. Trust me.
Those developers aren't any less likely to be clueless and myopic than
any others.

Keeping in mind that I do not have your IT financial experience, I have
to ask why, if you are in the industry, that you don't fix or at least
point to the cluelessness and myopic mentality.

Because I'm not in charge of the developers. I'm not going to defend
their problems, I'm explaining (or trying, futilely) to you, that the
problem most likely isn't your first guess which was firefox encryption.

Yes, the encryption word should be scuttled. FF just doesn't handle
anything not "right". Is that better?



The tech support
folks are for sure.

SeewhutImean?

Are you saying tech support contacts are actually designers? I've been
eventually patched through to "the IT department" in some instances
after dealing with a phone guy for 20 minutes or so and even the IT guy
didn't seem like he was a designer moreso than facilitator/admin user -
as he spoke about "old tickets" on the problem at hand.

By the time you get to level 3 or level 4, yeah, you're probably talking
to either an infrastructure guy or a designer. And why wouldn't someone
who gets escalated to know about "old tickets"?

That last sentence "doesn't seem to say anything". The old tickets were
referenced in a way that the IT guy didn't appear to be involved in
fixing anything - that the tickets were even beyond his domain.

I suspect you misread what I mean by it. I'm saying "If that was the
only difference once you get into the transactional side of the site,
then perhaps that could be the problem, but you haven't shown that to be
the only difference". You claimed that firefox has a problem with
encryption, when really, all you know is that when you go to an
encrypted web app, you have problems. You haven't explored the other
differences. Me, I have direct personal knowledge that the encryption
mechanisms in Firefox do work, because I've tested each one of them by
turning them on individually on the webserver end and verifying them.
In a financial, web-based environment.

Why not say so then up front?

I did. You just didn't get my point.

Your point is centered around the word "encryption" and it means, in
your words, "anything".

What you describe IS all I have done as I
equate encryption with what you refer to as the transactional area
(side)and is probably more than an average user is going to even
consider. My equating the two is reinforced, from time to time, by
error messages that indicate a problem with 128 bit encryption - an
error message that is meaningless to me for the most part.

Oh, you have an _error message_. How nice of you to mention that. Do
you happen to, you know, have the text of it handy?

No, I occasionally receive an alert that says ERROR and follows up with
a blurb about 128 encryption when FF stutter and spits in what YOU call
the transactional side. There are two options to the alert, IIRC, OK
and "details" - or maybe it says "help". The "details or help" data are
not familiar to me and therefroe not of much use. If I remember to save
the next message - would you like it - or any other dtat that pops up?

So, when I
notice that the problems appear to occur exclusively under specific URLs
indicated by the little "lock" icon in the location bar - I think
encryption - for good or ill.

All you've confirmed at this point that there are some sites that don't
work with FF, not that FF is the problem. A quick analysis by the w3c
validator should give at least an indication if the page is compliant or
not.

Absolutely, and also that these sites function without a hitch in IE.
This is the biggest issue.

You continue not to get it. If they only check their broken site with a
broken browser and it renders as they expect there, that doesn't mean
that their site suddenly isn't broken, it's just broken in such a way
that the broken broswer displays it the way they expect it to display.

Without your definition of "broken" it appears that anything that
doesn't work in FF is broken - i.e. similar logic. Could it be that
every browser other than FF has greater flexibility - adheres to
protocols/standards established that FF hasn't caught up to? It sounds
like FF might well be broken - in terms of functionality/flexibility.


My premise of argument is that you've established correlation and not
causation. If you have read it otherwise, then you have read wrongly.

Your premise focuses upon what I am calling encryption. My premise is
moreso what I wrote and you snipped...

Encryption is turning the datastream into something not easily readable
in transit. That's all.

"...IN terms of on-demand use, I need it now, without having to peck
around
to find that there is some functionality problem associated with the
browser itself - holds FF back among basic and advanced users alike.
And I'm root'n for FF."

I snipped it because it doesn't seem to say anything.

Sure it does. It says the average user who needs a browser that will
work when they need it might find FF to be too "right" and instead of
delving into what is "right" or what is "broken" they use what works.
Howszat?


People won't just change banks to suit an emotional attachment to the
open source movement

My direct personal experience differs from your global sweeping
statement.

YOU made the statement that YOU changed banks when their transaction
side didn't accomodate FF. You wrote, "Only time I had a problem, I
contacted the bank and they were unhelpful to a huge degree. Easy fix
there, I switched banks."

I concluded that the sweeping generalization wasn't referring to open
source attachment since you wrote, "You claim to be pro-ff, but you're
spouting what looks an awful lot like Microsoft's FUD." below. Rather
black and white, right or wrong, broken or unbroken.

It's not so much attachment to open-source, it's a case of
"your **** is broken, are you going to fix it? No? OK, bye then."

This sounds as though commercial enterprise must adhere to your standard
as opposed to FF obtaining funtionality based upon existing standards -
or lack there of due to whatever variety exists in your broken realm.
That's not going to happen, and if it did, it would happen slower than
the reverse. FF tries rather hard to accomodate the IE fuctionality
issues - they constantly develop addons that, in my view, try to make
their browser more diverse and thereby functional with an eye toward
user capture.




and corporations won't rely on a product that
requires more time and saavy that an average user can give.

You claim to be pro-ff, but you're spouting what looks an awful lot like
Microsoft's FUD.

I'm pro functionality. When I turn the key I want to car to start. I
think FF handles alot of the intrusive internet elements well, including
cookies. I think the IE config, custom or otherwise is crap - and more
confusing. I can't say whether designers write your broken sites to
accomodate IE or IE accomodates broken sites better or just has more
diversity - meaning possibly less security. I also don't know how much
design is altered to accomodate AOL users and the like who use their
proprietary browsers. I'd bet that a designer's priorities are that the
least number of users are affected and FF may be below the mass appeal.
What I am saying, instead of spouting, is that I can better rely on IE
than FF when in a pinch, as is the case for what I'd bet are a majority
of users. To say differently would not be true. It has nothing to do
with some allegance to MS. There are plenty of folks who feel as I do,
they'd like to see a clean, fully functional, secure browser that
innovates and competes with the Redmond behemoth - that sways a
significant portion of the designer/developers away from spoon fed crap
meted to a purchasing public - but it isn't there yet.


With FF
seeking to be a leading alternative in the "Microsoft Free" corridors of
preference - then their stuff has to work all the time.

A properly coded website will perform identically regardless of browser.
Your bank doesn't have one.

Not a bank. A large financial portal similar to Fidelity or T. Rowe
Price, as examples.

I'd also be interested in your take on server types - do MS Windows
servers act identical to linux or unix or other larger servers in terms
of proper code and or interface? Are MS servers "broken" too? The
reason I ask is that I had to fiddle fart security settings in IE to
access what is said to be a linux server, whereas FF was less resistant.

Whether or not it shows, I enjoy this discussion.



--

JMark

X11 [R6?]

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:22:28 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

FFS. Encryption is how the page is secured. Everything Else, includes
whatever mechanisms the web developers decided to authenticate you, to
maintain your session, to validate your inputs, to determine the
workflow, anything.

So, anything might include mechanisms that don't validate in FF...no?

Yes. And encryption isn't one of those mechanisms.

I don't know, but it's not encryption. You're getting the site's data
just fine, but the data that the site sends probably isn't compliant,
and Firefox doesn't display it in the same broken way that IE does.

Can you explain "same broken way"?

you know what? I could.

In other words, they're writing it so it works with IE's broken
rendering engine, regardless of if it's right or not.

Give me some half tech sources I can read to better understand IE's
broken rendering engine. Right relative to what or whom (or is it
who?)?

Well, w3c wrote the spec. They have a validator, online. I even
mentioned it previously in this thread.

Again, all you've established is that something some braindeaded
developer wrote, works on IE and not on Firefox. You haven't shown that
the problem is with firefox, and I am very confident that your guess of
it being "firefox doesn't handle encryption right" is completely
incorrect.

Yes, we can cling to the encryption word - a word that covers
authentication, input validation or "anything" - your words.

No, it doesn't. Don't put words in my mouth. You obviously missed a
"haven't".

You've
also seemingly said there is a higher functionalality with IE than FF -
that IE handles what you term as "right or not" and FF does not. IE
thereby being more inclusive and thereby more functional.

One last time: you can write crappy HTML that works just fine in IE,
because IE is also crappy. That doesn't mean that a browser that
renders it as written is wrong.

Because I'm not in charge of the developers. I'm not going to defend
their problems, I'm explaining (or trying, futilely) to you, that the
problem most likely isn't your first guess which was firefox encryption.

Yes, the encryption word should be scuttled. FF just doesn't handle
anything not "right". Is that better?

FF doesn't display broken HTML in the same way that IE displays that
broken HTML.

By the time you get to level 3 or level 4, yeah, you're probably talking
to either an infrastructure guy or a designer. And why wouldn't someone
who gets escalated to know about "old tickets"?

That last sentence "doesn't seem to say anything". The old tickets were
referenced in a way that the IT guy didn't appear to be involved in
fixing anything - that the tickets were even beyond his domain.

With problem statements such as you're giving here, I'm not surprised
that people wouldn't want/be able to help.

Why not say so then up front?

I did. You just didn't get my point.

Your point is centered around the word "encryption" and it means, in
your words, "anything".

NO, there is encryption, which you're wrongly focusing on, and then
there's everything else. The problem isn't with encryption, it's with
the everything else. This isn't a subtle difference.

Oh, you have an _error message_. How nice of you to mention that. Do
you happen to, you know, have the text of it handy?

No, I occasionally receive an alert that says ERROR and follows up with
a blurb about 128 encryption when FF stutter and spits in what YOU call
the transactional side. There are two options to the alert, IIRC, OK
and "details" - or maybe it says "help". The "details or help" data are
not familiar to me and therefroe not of much use.

To you.

If I remember to save
the next message - would you like it - or any other dtat that pops up?

I don't see any point in me spending more time with you, no.

You continue not to get it. If they only check their broken site with a
broken browser and it renders as they expect there, that doesn't mean
that their site suddenly isn't broken, it's just broken in such a way
that the broken broswer displays it the way they expect it to display.

Without your definition of "broken" it appears that anything that
doesn't work in FF is broken - i.e. similar logic. Could it be that
every browser other than FF has greater flexibility - adheres to
protocols/standards established that FF hasn't caught up to? It sounds
like FF might well be broken - in terms of functionality/flexibility.

Take it up with the w3c. It's their spec. Maybe you can get them to
change it to match Microsoft's mangled implementation. If you honestly
aren't aware of how badly Microsoft is following the standards, then you
need far more education than I'm willing to provide.

"...IN terms of on-demand use, I need it now, without having to peck
around
to find that there is some functionality problem associated with the
browser itself - holds FF back among basic and advanced users alike.
And I'm root'n for FF."

I snipped it because it doesn't seem to say anything.

Sure it does. It says the average user who needs a browser that will
work when they need it might find FF to be too "right" and instead of
delving into what is "right" or what is "broken" they use what works.
Howszat?

So you're blaming the end user's ignorance instead of the crappy website
designer. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, I just diagree with
it.

People won't just change banks to suit an emotional attachment to the
open source movement

My direct personal experience differs from your global sweeping
statement.

YOU made the statement that YOU changed banks when their transaction
side didn't accomodate FF. You wrote, "Only time I had a problem, I
contacted the bank and they were unhelpful to a huge degree. Easy fix
there, I switched banks."

yes, I did. And then you told me that people don't do that, which seems
to be at odds with my direct personal experience, you see.

I concluded that the sweeping generalization wasn't referring to open
source attachment since you wrote, "You claim to be pro-ff, but you're
spouting what looks an awful lot like Microsoft's FUD." below. Rather
black and white, right or wrong, broken or unbroken.

It's not so much attachment to open-source, it's a case of
"your **** is broken, are you going to fix it? No? OK, bye then."

This sounds as though commercial enterprise must adhere to your standard
as opposed to FF obtaining funtionality based upon existing standards -
or lack there of due to whatever variety exists in your broken realm.

No, if their tool doesn't work for me, I'll use someone else's. It's
pretty simple, really. I want online banking, and I'm not willing to
corrupt my system by installing a piece of software that I don't like to
do it.

A properly coded website will perform identically regardless of browser.
Your bank doesn't have one.

Not a bank. A large financial portal similar to Fidelity or T. Rowe
Price, as examples.

Oh, well of course, that changes everything (rolls eyes). (Oh,
Fidelity's site runs just fine on any browser I've thrown at it, FYI).

I'd also be interested in your take on server types - do MS Windows
servers act identical to linux or unix or other larger servers in terms
of proper code and or interface?

That question is so vague that it's meaningless.

Are MS servers "broken" too? The
reason I ask is that I had to fiddle fart security settings in IE to
access what is said to be a linux server, whereas FF was less resistant.

Can you be any less vague than "fiddle fart security settings"?

Whether or not it shows, I enjoy this discussion.

Then work on your comprehension rather than being intentionally dense,
because the latter is a good way to end it.

"Mr. Jaggers" lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com wrote in message
...


How are things down there in the sunny land of Texas?

9 inches of rain last weekend, now it's 35 degrees in the morning....

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:22:28 GMT, JMark wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote:

FFS. Encryption is how the page is secured. Everything Else, includes
whatever mechanisms the web developers decided to authenticate you, to
maintain your session, to validate your inputs, to determine the
workflow, anything.

So, anything might include mechanisms that don't validate in FF...no?

Yes. And encryption isn't one of those mechanisms.

I don't know, but it's not encryption. You're getting the site's data
just fine, but the data that the site sends probably isn't compliant,
and Firefox doesn't display it in the same broken way that IE does.

Can you explain "same broken way"?

you know what? I could.

In other words, they're writing it so it works with IE's broken
rendering engine, regardless of if it's right or not.

Give me some half tech sources I can read to better understand IE's
broken rendering engine. Right relative to what or whom (or is it
who?)?

Well, w3c wrote the spec. They have a validator, online. I even
mentioned it previously in this thread.

Yes you did, I'll look what sources I find over.


Again, all you've established is that something some braindeaded
developer wrote, works on IE and not on Firefox. You haven't shown that
the problem is with firefox, and I am very confident that your guess of
it being "firefox doesn't handle encryption right" is completely
incorrect.

Yes, we can cling to the encryption word - a word that covers
authentication, input validation or "anything" - your words.

No, it doesn't. Don't put words in my mouth. You obviously missed a
"haven't".

I missed way more than that.


You've
also seemingly said there is a higher functionalality with IE than FF -
that IE handles what you term as "right or not" and FF does not. IE
thereby being more inclusive and thereby more functional.

One last time: you can write crappy HTML that works just fine in IE,
because IE is also crappy. That doesn't mean that a browser that
renders it as written is wrong.


Because I'm not in charge of the developers. I'm not going to defend
their problems, I'm explaining (or trying, futilely) to you, that the
problem most likely isn't your first guess which was firefox encryption.

Yes, the encryption word should be scuttled. FF just doesn't handle
anything not "right". Is that better?

FF doesn't display broken HTML in the same way that IE displays that
broken HTML.

By the time you get to level 3 or level 4, yeah, you're probably talking
to either an infrastructure guy or a designer. And why wouldn't someone
who gets escalated to know about "old tickets"?

That last sentence "doesn't seem to say anything". The old tickets were
referenced in a way that the IT guy didn't appear to be involved in
fixing anything - that the tickets were even beyond his domain.

With problem statements such as you're giving here, I'm not surprised
that people wouldn't want/be able to help.

I haven't given you a problem statement.

Why not say so then up front?

I did. You just didn't get my point.

Your point is centered around the word "encryption" and it means, in
your words, "anything".

NO, there is encryption, which you're wrongly focusing on, and then
there's everything else. The problem isn't with encryption, it's with
the everything else. This isn't a subtle difference.

I've said I'm NOT focusing on encryption - I'm not focusing on HTML
either. I'm focusing on functionality. If it's not encryption - so be
it. Primarily in the transaction side of sites, where the transactions
are said to be secure, is where I experience FF non-functionality.


Oh, you have an _error message_. How nice of you to mention that. Do
you happen to, you know, have the text of it handy?

No, I occasionally receive an alert that says ERROR and follows up with
a blurb about 128 encryption when FF stutter and spits in what YOU call
the transactional side. There are two options to the alert, IIRC, OK
and "details" - or maybe it says "help". The "details or help" data are
not familiar to me and therefroe not of much use.

To you.

Yes, that's what I said - now who's being dense - in keeping with your
sentiments.

If I remember to save
the next message - would you like it - or any other dtat that pops up?

I don't see any point in me spending more time with you, no.

You continue not to get it. If they only check their broken site with a
broken browser and it renders as they expect there, that doesn't mean
that their site suddenly isn't broken, it's just broken in such a way
that the broken broswer displays it the way they expect it to display.

Without your definition of "broken" it appears that anything that
doesn't work in FF is broken - i.e. similar logic. Could it be that
every browser other than FF has greater flexibility - adheres to
protocols/standards established that FF hasn't caught up to? It sounds
like FF might well be broken - in terms of functionality/flexibility.

Take it up with the w3c. It's their spec. Maybe you can get them to
change it to match Microsoft's mangled implementation. If you honestly
aren't aware of how badly Microsoft is following the standards, then you
need far more education than I'm willing to provide.

With the replies such as you're giving here, I'm not surprised
that you wouldn't want/be able to help. Paraphrased a bit.


"...IN terms of on-demand use, I need it now, without having to peck
around
to find that there is some functionality problem associated with the
browser itself - holds FF back among basic and advanced users alike.
And I'm root'n for FF."

I snipped it because it doesn't seem to say anything.

Sure it does. It says the average user who needs a browser that will
work when they need it might find FF to be too "right" and instead of
delving into what is "right" or what is "broken" they use what works.
Howszat?

So you're blaming the end user's ignorance instead of the crappy website
designer. Yeah, I understand what you're saying, I just diagree with
it.

I'm not blaming anyone, nor generally calling designers clueless and
myopic - you are. I'm saying an end user wants in, and if FF doesn't
get them there and IE or any other browser does - FF suffers.

I disagree with it in principal myself. I think in a near perfect world,
with perfect designers and astute users there would be full flexibility
and functionality across the board and we'd all would benefit - yet that
isn't the way it is - in IT or any other commercial enterprise I can
think of.



People won't just change banks to suit an emotional attachment to the
open source movement

My direct personal experience differs from your global sweeping
statement.

YOU made the statement that YOU changed banks when their transaction
side didn't accomodate FF. You wrote, "Only time I had a problem, I
contacted the bank and they were unhelpful to a huge degree. Easy fix
there, I switched banks."

yes, I did. And then you told me that people don't do that, which seems
to be at odds with my direct personal experience, you see.

I assume you mean yourself. Yes, that was your experience. But how
many would do it? Translate "people" to plural, a significant portion
of the client base - they won't - they'll just use another browser and
when that browser works - they use it instead of FF.


I concluded that the sweeping generalization wasn't referring to open
source attachment since you wrote, "You claim to be pro-ff, but you're
spouting what looks an awful lot like Microsoft's FUD." below. Rather
black and white, right or wrong, broken or unbroken.

It's not so much attachment to open-source, it's a case of
"your **** is broken, are you going to fix it? No? OK, bye then."

This sounds as though commercial enterprise must adhere to your standard
as opposed to FF obtaining funtionality based upon existing standards -
or lack there of due to whatever variety exists in your broken realm.

No, if their tool doesn't work for me, I'll use someone else's.

Absolutely - if the tool FF doesn't work for a client user or a
corporate user THEY'll use someone else's. That is the point - whatever
the reasoning, whoever is to blame. I do it myself when I need to
access a site.

It's
pretty simple, really. I want online banking, and I'm not willing to
corrupt my system by installing a piece of software that I don't like to
do it.

That would be the entire windows OS then?


A properly coded website will perform identically regardless of browser.
Your bank doesn't have one.

Not a bank. A large financial portal similar to Fidelity or T. Rowe
Price, as examples.

Oh, well of course, that changes everything (rolls eyes). (Oh,
Fidelity's site runs just fine on any browser I've thrown at it, FYI).

I don't access Fidelity, it was, as stated, an example (rolls eyes). If
you have an account with Fidelity then you can confirm it works in the
transaction side without flaw - if you don't - you cannot - right?



I'd also be interested in your take on server types - do MS Windows
servers act identical to linux or unix or other larger servers in terms
of proper code and or interface?

That question is so vague that it's meaningless.

Well, I gather that you don't use MS OS, particularly since you appear
to be posting from a Debian linux OS. Other of your replies have
mentioned broken software that appears to be meant to extend beyond the
IE browser. The question asks whether the "banking" or "financial"
servers being accessed makes a difference.


Are MS servers "broken" too? The
reason I ask is that I had to fiddle fart security settings in IE to
access what is said to be a linux server, whereas FF was less resistant.

Can you be any less vague than "fiddle fart security settings"?

I could.


Whether or not it shows, I enjoy this discussion.

Then work on your comprehension rather than being intentionally dense,
because the latter is a good way to end it.

Have the last word. Nice chatting with you. I'll check into the w3c
org sites.

--

JMark

X11 [R6?]

I played around with the beta, but uninstalled it. The beta has bugs,
some sites didn't look right with it, and sites that wouldn't wouldn't
work at all because they checked the browser version and said "please
upgrade to IE 6".

B.J.

Frank wrote:
IE7 is available, and provides tabbed pages, warnings of spoof Paypal, ebay
and bank websites, and 1000% enlargement of pictures and text.

I recommend it.

http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/ie7/default.mspx




--
B.J. Herbison / / http://www.herbison.com/herbison/bj.html
The Next Asylum / 203 Long Hill Road / Bolton, MA 01740-1421 / +1 978
634-1061

Here is how the March 20 release of Internet Explorer 7 responds when I
clicked on an link to a fake second chance offer that I just received.

http://www.frankcoins.com/Image1.jpg

On Sat, 25 Mar 2006 14:04:34 GMT, Frank wrote:
Here is how the March 20 release of Internet Explorer 7 responds when I
clicked on an link to a fake second chance offer that I just received.
http://www.frankcoins.com/Image1.jpg

Nice. Do they at least give credit to Netcraft and their toolbar which
has been available for a long time, for this wonderful "innovation"?