PDA

View Full Version : FireFox - Menu Compatibility



Shadow502t
01-11-2005, 12:18 AM
I have several sites using menus from DynamicDrive, and now that FireFox is becoming more common (among my clients as well), I am running into issues with compatibility and menus not working.

I am not keen on replacing menus in an array of sites, and so I'm mostly concerned with finding out if it is possible to edit some part of the code for the exising menus in order to have them work under Firefox.

On another site, I saw a posting about editing the script so that it would read Opera browsers as Netscape, and get around issues that way. I've not seen that for FireFox, though to my understanding it is a lot closer to Netscape than Opera is.

Scripts I am using:

Top Navigational Bar II
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex1/topnavbar.htm

Sample site: http://www.barnabasfm.org

Smart Folding Menu Tree
http://www.dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex1/navigate1.htm

Sample site: http://www.davidsonashe.com

For the menu tree, I am not concerned with the issue of cookies and the visitors last menu state being remembered. Just so long as the menu appears and functions.

Can anyone help?? :confused:

- Shadow502t

Shadow502t
01-12-2005, 06:39 PM
* Bump *

Anyone?

Brooks
01-13-2005, 06:23 PM
I am using the jimmenu57 menuing system and Firefox. It classifies it as a dom-build.js. Firefox is not like Netscape; but it is like Mozilla.

Brooks :)

speedracer
01-14-2005, 07:23 AM
well, the Top Navigational Bar II is one of all time favorite menu at DD, but unfortunately, it was last updated in 2001... i think its best to update with new menu. i recommend in your case the Top Navigational Bar III found here: http://dynamicdrive.com/dynamicindex1/topmen3/index.htm

the tree menu, for a quick fix try this:

find this part in the script:

if (ie4||ns6)
document.onclick=checkcontained


and use this instead:

if (document.getElementById)
document.onclick=checkcontained

or

modify this:

var ns6=document.getElementById&&!document

to this:

var ns6=document.getElementById

Gabber
01-15-2005, 07:01 PM
"I have several sites using menus from DynamicDrive, and now that FireFox is becoming more common (among my clients as well), I am running into issues with compatibility and menus not working."

so far, firefox can only retrive very simple scripts in some cases. and this will be its downfall, since IE and Netscape support many many stuff Firefox simple does not. Firefox must change and support more to have a future.
Simple as that... and this goes for scrollbars, sound support, and tons of other stuff people won't get around in the XXI century.
Use a simple menu, or the one suggested above...
Yet, here it is: Firefox blocking the development of a site that works in every other browser...
And people talk about Microsoft.

cr3ative
01-15-2005, 07:16 PM
SILENCE!


so far, firefox can only retrive very simple scripts in some cases.
What version of Java are you using??! Mine has not ONCE failed to load a script.


and this will be its downfall, since IE and Netscape support many many stuff Firefox simple does not.
Name one thing Netscape has which FireFox does not (as a browser)


Firefox must change and support more to have a future.
14 million downloads can't be wrong. And we're constantly working and improving. I've seen the latest version of IE built into Longhorn, and it's nothing better from the XP version - any progress they are making is certainly sideways, not forwards.


this goes for scrollbars
Scrollbar colouration is illegal markup. It has never been written that browsers should obey that tag. In fact, to be strict, they shouldn't.


sound support
Explain, mine works fine.


and tons of other stuff people won't get around in the XXI century.
Ppfrt.


Yet, here it is: Firefox blocking the development of a site that works in every other browser...
And people talk about Microsoft.
Firefox is the safer, faster, smarter, more adaptible and more accessible than Internet Explorer ever will be.

/rant

www.getfirefox.com
www.spreadfirefox.com

(Yeah, I'm a bit touchy about FireFox *hugs browser*)
:)

cr3ative

Gabber
01-16-2005, 03:08 AM
"14 million downloads can't be wrong."

I think I.E. has more... so... what is the point?


"Firefox is the safer, faster, smarter, more adaptible and more accessible than Internet Explorer ever will be."

faster and safer for now... as for the rest I don't see why.


"Explain, mine works fine."

embed tag does not work all the time, while it does in IE.


"Scrollbar colouration is illegal markup. It has never been written that browsers should obey that tag. In fact, to be strict, they shouldn't."

Neither w3 or Firefox decide this. Internet is everything but strict. and this was a nice inovation people like. if Firefox can't support it, too bad. it should.


"What version of Java are you using??! Mine has not ONCE failed to load a script."

I can show you a sh*tload of javascripts that don't work in Firefox. maybe they use some IE functions? dunno...
anyway, Firefox is evrything but "more adaptible and more accessible than Internet Explorer ". because if it was, it would be free as it is now, but also supportive of sites like this:
http://www.dhteumeuleu.com/

this site is brilliant, a great piece of art like I had never seen before...and would never see, if I used Firefox.

Don't get me wrong, I liked Firefox speed and some features... I like the free download ideia (altough I suspect behind it is a merchandising technique for Mozilla-like browsers).
why not embrace all Ie, Netscape, Opera and whatever features in a safe way? Why not implement NEW features? New boundaries?
'nough said, I support the ideia behind FF, but it must improve and adapt to existing features, instead of claiming they should not exist.

greetz


ps: I am also touchy when it comes to fashions... I prefer to see all points of view... I don't like sites with scripts saying me to stop using IE and get Firefox, which is better (with some advertising pictures). Even Microsoft does not do this kind of stuff in the open.

Minos
01-16-2005, 04:49 AM
Okay...so...instead of allowing everyone in the world to view your site, you would rather only those with IE? That is the same mindset the Microsoft has when it comes out with "IE only" crap. The idea of new boundaries is the same...why? As a developer (doesn't matter what kind, web, game, or otherwise...), it is essential to make sure everyone can view your site/play your game...not JUST those with IE, or ATI vid cards.

By "pushing the boundaries", IE limits these capabilities to only IE users. If every other browser continued this, guess what would happen? Standards would be non-existent, as each browser would push further and further to distance itself from its competition. The web would no longer be a web...It would be a cracked mirror, with sharp divisions between each shard of what it once was.

FPit
01-16-2005, 10:08 AM
FireFox rulez, period. I use both IE and Firefox, and Firefox has all the potential to beat IE.

Gabber
01-16-2005, 05:09 PM
http://www.kalsey.com/blog/2004/09/why_i_dont_recommend_firefox/

It shows very well what is going on... a marketing strategy for dummies. If Firefox had the time of IE, many security breaches had been found. There hasn't been a day I don't see a bug in Firefox, wheather is gets slow, render pages in a funny way, needs something to add and so on...

"I use both IE and Firefox, and Firefox has all the potential to beat IE"
exactly. But I would not count on it...Microsoft is not dumb, and you can bet the next IE will have all features that firefox has...
It will be an interessing war, and damn, how I would like FF to be a great free browser.


"By "pushing the boundaries", IE limits these capabilities to only IE users. If every other browser continued this, guess what would happen? Standards would be non-existent, as each browser would push further and further to distance itself from its competition. The web would no longer be a web...It would be a cracked mirror, with sharp divisions between each shard of what it once was."

unless there is a standard for minimun requeirements... w3 can do that... but not how it has been doing, not so picky. One should consider his taget audience, and people can sure as hell change browser to see a site, it's a webmaster's risk. usually people would preferably to this than too see a lousy site because it must adapt to all browsers.
As for myself, my site was 100% in IE, and good in Netscape... Firefox has some bugs... now I've coorected them... right now I think 99% of peole will see my site in good conditions, altough in firefox some scripts won't work...
And if all were equal, there would be no innovation, just small improvements in the same circle... with w3 (aka sun, etc etc) dictating the rules.
But I think it is Firefox that must adapt to existing stuff and not the other way around... after all, they are the software makers... and many people will drop FF as soon as they realise the sites are not so good...

As for me I'll use both, one for major browsing, other for selected...

greetz

Minos
01-17-2005, 04:23 AM
You know what's odd? Firefox displays sites properly, and not vice versa. It interprets the code exactly as you have it...and according to w3 standards. It doesn't add silly spacing, or give you the options of completely tweaking the browser (which I find HIGHLY annoying anyway, I don't go through setting all my visual stuff to have some 'clever' designer change it. If I buy a red car, to I want my mechanic to paint it blue, when all I asked for is an oil change??). It is actually IE, from what I have seen, that has done some wierd things.

For instance, say I have

<div class="myHover" name="theHover">Hover me!</div>

Now, in javascript, I say

document.getElementById("theHover")

...will that work? In IE, yes, but it shouldn't. A name is NOT the same as an ID, and whereas Firefox will not do this, IE does. IE is allowing the designer to have a serious flaw in their code, which only amounts in having more and more do the same thing...

cr3ative
01-17-2005, 04:58 PM
*applauds*

Yes, IE has created some pretty slack coding. There was one site which managed to crash my FireFox, but when I ran it through the w3 validator, it had over eighteen thousand markup mistakes.

cr3ative

Gabber
01-19-2005, 01:08 AM
18 000?!?!?! wOW!
mine has a few, but mainly because the validator does not read all well... (I think it's because I can't really define my characters because of 1 or 2 javascripts).

"It doesn't add silly spacing, or give you the options of completely tweaking the browser "

I hate this! I had to adapt to both due to this! Firefox follows stuff by the book, and IE does not. here IE is clearly stupid. hence, what looked good in IE , looked bad in Firefox. I am glad I could fix it for both... I managed it, but it gave me twice the work.
This is why I think there should be standards (and this is were Firefox gets my 2 cents). Yet, I don't agree using all rigit standards, that is all... Some flaws should be adapted (most programs , even professional ones have tons of flaws, that are automatically compensated... so why not html, which is so simple?). but others should not.. and some tags like bgsound and marquee should be stopped or adopted by all...
(here goes the copyright... omfg) argh... :)))

greetz

Minos
01-19-2005, 04:00 AM
You know what else is cute? I just picked up a book on DHTML and CSS, and it states that Microsoft was actually granted a patent in 1999 called "Style sheets for publishing systems." This was despite the fact that the W3C has had CSS since at least 1994. Soo, in theory (minusing a few flaws the W3c has quickly noted), Microsoft could then force you to sign a licensing agreement for every site that used CSS. That probably won't happen, but then again, why then would M$ go for that patent?

Gabber
01-20-2005, 05:14 PM
Bill Gates in ASCII = 666

:P

If Microsoft could, maybe it would patent the internet