Stupid Firefox!!!

[Merciless]

hey, at http://imikya.com , after you click enter, the main page, the flash banner at the top is aligned to the left in firefox browser. i've asked this question hundreds of times and nobody seems to have a solution, anybody got any ideas so that i can put that banner flash animation in the middle?

[tech_support]

Try instead of using
<div align="center"> put
<div style="text-align:center; margin:0 auto;">

BTW, FireFox is not stupid, IE is :)

[jscheuer1]

Try instead of using
<div align="center"> put
<div style="text-align:center; margin:0 auto;">

BTW, FireFox is not stupid, IE is :)

Should work in most cases. But, they (FF and IE) are both utterly dumb. They are just ordinary browser programs and, as such have no intelligence whatsoever.

Which would you choose if forced to surf with only one or the other while trapped on a desert island? FF, probably but, what if the search and rescue website was IE only?

These programs can only do what they were written to do. Users (which includes both site designers and site surfers) have quite a bit of control over them if they choose to exercise it.

[Masterskinnie]

Firefox is one of the best browsers out there and is becoming more widely used, so the search and rescue site will be ff compatible.
It is being said here too that people who do not use windows is helpless because those that use other systems do not put IE on them. It is a useless and pathetic use of time. Besides, FF compatible is normally IE compatible There is few cases in which IE does not read CSS very well. But FF got best browser reward for so long now. It is the most professional and completely free and generally open source

[jscheuer1]

Actually, Opera is a better browser than either IE or FF.

[Twey]

Has a better rendering engine, anyway. The user features aren't so good, though, in my opinion, and of course it's closed-source.

[pcbrainbuster]

Well if I had to choose three of the best browsers they would be -

Netscape Navigator,
FireFox,
Internet Explorer,

These of course are my opinions...

[Masterskinnie]

I would agree on firefox and netscape. ie is just trying to keep people from using the better browsers. As far as opera, i'll try it and see how it goes.

[mburt]

I try to stay away from navigator... I like FF because the extensions and customizability (a word?). I use IE only for testing purposes.

[boxxertrumps]

Same here.
i have FF and the settings saved in my folder at school.
Same thing with gridwars and winamp...

[tech_support]

Netscape uses the Internet Explorer/FireFox rendering engine anyway.

[boxxertrumps]

IE uses a mosaic rendering engine, mozzilla uses gecko.
netscape was based off mosaic for a while but has recently switched over to mozzilla, then firefox, and now i beleive its an origanal rendering engine...

[Twey]

No, it uses both Gecko and Trident (Mosaic was the name of the browser IE used to be, not a rendering engine). It offers options to switch between them.

[paleopterix]

Yes, I think Firefox is a worthless piece of crap. What you have against IE probably lies in some instinctual adversity towards a greedy company like micros0ft, but not in the browser itself. Why Firefox is crap? One example of stupidity: take a <div> with a certain fixed height and place some large text inside. IE will redimension the div to fit all the text (although they say this is not "standard"(=STUPID) behaviour). You can anyway tell it not to do it, putting an overflow:hidden in the style. But what does that crappy Firefox (and probably many other "w3c" compatible browsers)? it lets the text spill out of the div! What's the point in having a fixed div container then, if not for containing? Why putting the text inside it then ??????????? Why bother putting <div>s in the html for god's sake?
Let me give a concrete problem: lets imagine i have to cut a large text to fit exactly in a certain rectangle. As there's no way of calculating the final height of a text, this could be done putting a word at a time in a <div>'s innerHTML and see when it overflows. This works wonderfully in IE, but in the stupid Firefox, the <div> never overflows! The text just flows out of it, like it was broken or something. Now, give me a viable solution to this problem using Firefox, and I'll take back all the nasty words I've written about it.:mad:

[Twey]

What you have against IE probably lies in some instinctual adversity towards a greedy company like micros0ft, but not in the browser itself.Wrong. I dislike Microsoft, but tend to advise people to stay away from their products on technical rather than ethical grounds. Of these products, IE has to be one of the worst I've encountered, including Windows itself.
Why Firefox is crap? One example of stupidity: take a <div> with a certain fixed height and place some large text inside. IE will redimension the div to fit all the text (although they say this is not "standard"(=STUPID) behaviour).Er, that's not stupidity, it's following the standards. You seem to miss the point of standards entirely. The standards are entirely correct here, too: this bug not only breaks compatibility with the standards and thus with all other browsers, thus making our lives far more difficult than they should be, but also completely breaks page layouts, as I discovered in only too much detail with my own site.
I wished to have two <div>s, one with a navigation bar inside and one with the actual content, floated to the left. Their widths were specified in percentage sizes. Unfortunately, in IE, if the text in the navigation bar is too long, it doesn't just look kind of ugly like it does in more compliant browsers (which is bad, obviously, but still usable), it actually increases the width of the navigation bar and causes the content element to float-drop down, completely messing up the design of the page. My solution to this in the end was to have IE insert line-breaks in the middle of words if it needed to, but that's very ugly.
Let me give a concrete problem: lets imagine i have to cut a large text to fit exactly in a certain rectangle. As there's no way of calculating the final height of a text, this could be done putting a word at a time in a <div>'s innerHTML and see when it overflows."Cut" how, exactly? This shouldn't be necessary: the browser will insert line-breaks where necessary with
word-wrap: break-word;

[boogyman]

Quote:
What you have against IE probably lies in some instinctual adversity towards a greedy company like micros0ft, but not in the browser itself.

Wrong. I dislike Microsoft, but tend to advise people to stay away from their products on technical rather than ethical grounds. Of these products, IE has to be one of the worst I've encountered, including Windows itself.


Quote:
Why Firefox is crap? One example of stupidity: take a <div> with a certain fixed height and place some large text inside. IE will redimension the div to fit all the text (although they say this is not "standard"(=STUPID) behaviour).

Er, that's not stupidity, it's following the standards. You seem to miss the point of standards entirely. The standards are entirely correct here, too: this bug not only breaks compatibility with the standards and thus with all other browsers, thus making our lives far more difficult than they should be, but also completely breaks page layouts, as I discovered in only too much detail with my own site.



I could not have put it any better myself. Not that any of you care, but for the slim case that you might actually read this:

the web is still in its infancy. If you think about the standards that are in other types of publishing ... eg (books / magazines / newpapers etcetc) those all have a certain rule set that they need to be made by or follow.... while we all probably hated english in highschool (least I know it was my least favorite subject) the standards are there for everyones own good.... If there were no standards in publishing, or even spelling, could you read a sentence like?

la f am alnla to pw nl'w&#37; says hi, i am going to the store?


what was that? you couldn't decrypt it? oh yah my bad, i didnt give you the key. Oh and yah.... there really is not key. well that is what IE is doing to the web.

If you want to see the web grow and be successful then you BETTER be supporting the standards, and while IE does suck at support for them, Bill Gates is coming around...even if in very minute baby steps. Hopefully that as Gates and his colleagues will see that his "browser wars" mentality will die down some and he doesnt consistently try to re-invent the wheel and he starts supporting the standards, so that people can start designing correctly and those that cannot design correctly can LEARN! If you know HTML right now then its really NOT a huge step to jump into being standards compliant.




Why bother putting <div>s in the html for god's sake?

I am guessing that you do all of your work in nested tables... and if thats the case then you are using up ALOT of extra storage space and also it slows down the browser from processing the information.
People complain about slow loading times, then they do everything in nested tables :)) well gee if you try to squeeze a square thru a round circle do you thinkits going to go easily? No.
With standards and using structure like you are supposed to... eg HTML (Structure -- Content) CSS (Presentation -- Layout) and Javascript/Other Language (Dynamics - Some "Action") then you will find yourself that you have less code, less storage, faster loading time, and wow.... just as great if not better a look.

[Masterskinnie]

...I like FF because the extensions and customizability (a word?). I use IE only for testing purposes.

I'll give word. I also only use IE for testing purposes because so many still use it just because it is easy to get to. not enough take the time to look for the other browsers

[boogyman]

I'll give word. I also only use IE for testing purposes because so many still use it just because it is easy to get to. not enough take the time to look for the other browsers

its not that they dont take time... its that IE comes installed on their computer, and alot of people are hesitent about downloading software that they do not "need"... even though having a browser that is more standards compliant is something they do NEED

[Masterskinnie]

... One example of stupidity: take a <div> with a certain fixed height and place some large text inside. IE will redimension the div to fit all the text (although they say this is not "standard"(=STUPID) behaviour). You can anyway tell it not to do it, putting an overflow:hidden in the style. But what does that crappy Firefox (and probably many other "w3c" compatible browsers)? it lets the text spill out of the div!...

okay, post the use of this fixed <div> in this forum for me to open and view. Maybe you are over exaggerating about it. i have never seen this problem. it always worked for me in firefox and screws up now and then in IE

[pcbrainbuster]

Well though I do agree on some of the things that were said here I simply think that every browser is good in it's own way that other browsers don't have...

For example in IE you could do so many things that I think other browsers can not do,

eg filters, (some other thing that allows you to create microsoft office powperpoint style animations), and some other stuff I can not remember...

But I can't say anything about any other browser seeing as how I have only experience with IE ....

But anyway before you can call anything crap or stupid you have to think about your own capabilities (eg if you can program that good) but at the same time if you are not good at programming and depend on someone else to upgrade then you have to also thing about othjer things (like if they have the time/or if they are busy, their priorities....)

So, I simply think that all browsers are good (because no browser is perfect or the best seeing as how every browser has something unique within itself)...

Please notice that this was rushed and may have missing words or letters...

[Masterskinnie]

its not that they dont take time... its that IE comes installed on their computer, and alot of people are hesitent about downloading software that they do not "need"... even though having a browser that is more standards compliant is something they do NEED

it is what i was saying. it is already there so they do not bother. not unless they do business or are computer geeks like a lot of us here. no offense to anyone. But then. Windows did the same thing with office. if browsers weren't free, windows wouldn't have ie still

[boogyman]

yes every browser has their own capabilities, but what makes the web so unique to any other publishing forum is that it does not have the restrictions that others do... eg if you wrote an article and went up to a newpaper and asked if you could publish it... however there were spelling errors and the entire paper was 1 paragraph when it should have been 3/4 what do you think the newpaper is going to say? ... no thanks .... right? well while all browsers have differences there needs to be a common GUIDELINE on how to do stuff... which is what IE is fighting against... yes the filters in IE are neat, but that still doesn't mean that the entire structure and processing of the data should be "tossed" / "crinkled" up because of 1 extra additive feature?

[Twey]

Many users aren't even aware that there are browsers other than IE. One of the best things Firefox has done is that it's changing that.

IE's filters aren't really IE's. All IE does is provide hooks to various DirectX features. For reasons of platform compatibility, other browsers don't do that, but Microsoft doesn't care if their browser doesn't run on any other platforms.
For example in IE you could do so many things that I think other browsers can not do,

eg filters, (some other thing that allows you to create microsoft office powperpoint style animations), and some other stuff I can not remember...But nothing really useful, just eye-candy and incompatible versions of things other things already have. In my opinion, IE's best feature is its conditional comments, since they can be used to get around most of its bugs in a relatively elegant manner.

pissa is completely right about the "guidelines." That's the purpose of the Web. Just as you and I are communicating because we both understand the rules of a certain language (written English), so browsers communicate because they all understand the rules of HTML, DOM, &c. If I invent a new word, say "hargfardl," then you have no idea what I mean, and a breakdown of communication ensues. If I explain what it means, you have two options: you can remember its meaning and relate that to it next time I use it, or you can declare it a nonsense word and refuse to parse it, which may at times result in the meaning of my communication and your perception of the meaning of your connection differing. However, if the word "hargfardl" refers to a complex philosophical principle that makes sense only within my worldview, no matter how much I explain it to you you will still fail to comprehend it, or at least it will take a great deal of effort for you to attempt to figure out my entire worldview so it makes sense. This is what IE does with things like filters.
On the other hand, if I were to simply redefine a word, such as using "flurbs" to refer to pigs, it would simply take more effort for you to remember that "flurb" meant a pig, but there'd really be no point in doing so, since a word is already defined in English for that and everyone who speaks English understands it.

[pcbrainbuster]

Well Twey it seems you have beeten me again at something :), but for now and a long time I think I will stick to IE (i'm pretty sure that IE will go far along with other browsers and one day they all will be around perfect :))

As you can see my mind will simply not change :)
(any way there are so many ways to comabt any problem ...)

[boxxertrumps]

But what does that crappy Firefox (and probably many other "w3c" compatible browsers)?
IE's CSS height works the same as w3c's min-height...
w3c is in charge of setting the standard for (browser interpretted)web development, So without them IE wouldn't have any html to screw around with. Standards arent stupid, they define how things are interpretted. twey is right, you cant make "pig" actually mean "cow" and expect people to undertand you.

But if you want them to work exactly the same, use overflow:scroll;

And pages look better in IE because of their over-zelous (hope the context is right) error correction. if i could get a slimmed down browser without any error correction, id be happy.

[Twey]

IE's CSS height works the same as w3c's min-height...And that's irritating, but not really a problem. The problem is that IE has nothing that functions like the W3C's height :)
And pages look better in IE because of their over-zelous (hope the context is right) error correction.Pages designed for IE look better in IE. Pages designed for anything else tend to look rubbish, if they fall foul of even one of IE's many bugs.
if i could get a slimmed down browser without any error correction, id be happy.It would be almost completely useless on the Web of today :)

[boxxertrumps]

i mean to use it for design purposes, not general browsing.

if there arent any errors in my code, then it would look more or less the same in every browser. (other than a few CSS flaws, those cant be helped...)
And any bugs i come across in other browsers would be easy to work out... (i hope)

[Twey]

Only in acceptably compliant browsers.

[boogyman]

... but Microsoft doesn't care if their browser doesn't run on any other platforms.
Not just their browsers, Bill Gates doesn't give a hoot if any of his products run on anything but windows.

[boxxertrumps]

He just wants to make money, like all corporations...
Its why i favor open source development and creative commons/gnu type licences.
But Isn't IE available for mac also?

[Twey]

IE was available for Mac. It hasn't been since v5.5, though. There was even work on a UNIX version of IE at one point (Microsoft very carefully avoided mentioning the L word in their description of the platforms on which it would run, but I suspect it would support Linux too), but I've never found a version, and I don't know if they ever got around to a release.
He just wants to make money, like all corporations...
Its why i favor open source development and creative commons/gnu type licences.Corporations and open-source/Free software aren't mutually exclusive... have a look at RedHat (http://www.redhat.com/) for an example of a large company that's done very well indeed out of Free software.

[pcbrainbuster]

Well if you were a buisness man what would you want most :)
(for those of you who can't answer the "equation" it's money ...)

[boogyman]

its spelt buSIness but I am a businessman, even though its as a webmaster, but I am not among the greedy Gates type.

I agree though, money does drive the world, it just happens that it drives us differently ... eg (Gates, Anna Nicole)

[tech_support]

Well if you were a buisness man what would you want most :)
(for those of you who can't answer the "equation" it's money ...)
People being satisfied of the products being bought.

Example:

USER + GOOD PRODUCT = HAPPY USER
COMPANY + HAPPY USER = MORE CHANCE OF USER BUYING PRODUCT AGAIN

[Twey]

That's the traditional way of doing business, yup.

[techno_race]

Well if I had to choose three of the best browsers they would be -

Netscape Navigator,
FireFox,
Internet Explorer,

These of course are my opinions...


I would agree on firefox and netscape. ie is just trying to keep people from using the better browsers. As far as opera, i'll try it and see how it goes.


I try to stay away from navigator... I like FF because the extensions and customizability (a word?). I use IE only for testing purposes.


Same here.
i have FF and the settings saved in my folder at school.
Same thing with gridwars and winamp...


Netscape uses the Internet Explorer/FireFox rendering engine anyway.


IE uses a mosaic rendering engine, mozzilla uses gecko.
netscape was based off mosaic for a while but has recently switched over to mozzilla, then firefox, and now i beleive its an origanal rendering engine...
I advise most computer users to stay away from Netscape Navigator. I have it and use it to test JavaScripts. (Since Netscape thought of JavaScript in the first place.) However, in the latest version, version 8, Netscape included WeatherBug in Netscape Navigator. Netscape mightn't have known this, but WeatherBug is actually some Trojan horse I can't remember the name of.

The only reason I know any of this is that, when I was installing Netsape Navigator 8, I was watching the installation process when my computer said (in a familiar (spelling?) voice) "A Trojan horse has been detected." Being used to the feel of avast!, I immediately clicked 'Move to Chest' in the avast! alert box. If I didn't have avast!, I don't know what would have happened.

_______________
techno_race

P.S. To clean up the Mosaic story, people started calling Mosaic Mozilla, then...

See more:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape