4WebHelp
 FAQ  •  Search  •  User Groups  •  Forum Admins  •  Smilies List  •  Statistics  •  Rules   •  Login   •  Register
Toggle Navigation Menu

 Which Wicket?
Post New TopicReply to Topic
View Previous Topic Print this topic View Next Topic
Poll :: Which is the most incompatible browser?

Netscape 2
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
MSIE 3
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
MSIE 4.5 Mac (THE black sheep of browsers?)
10%
 10%  [ 1 ]
Netscape 4.x (most perverse?)
30%
 30%  [ 3 ]
Opera
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
MSIE 5
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
MSIE 6
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Netscape 5 (the forgotten browser?)
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Netscape 6.x
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Netscape 7
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Lynx
20%
 20%  [ 2 ]
Mozilla
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Any AOL browser (!)
40%
 40%  [ 4 ]
Your choice not above?
0%
 0%  [ 0 ]
Total Votes : 10


Author Message
verto
Senior WebHelper
Senior WebHelper


Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 220
Location: Cambridge MA USA

PostPosted: Fri Jul 05, 2002 8:25 pm (15 years, 5 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

As far as I can tell, both of the two choices below answered a question equally well in a JavaScript certification test I just took.

JavaScript Certification question wrote:
"What code [will] force the full frameset to show when a page
that is part of a frameset is loaded?"

a.
if(location==top.location)
top.location.href="frameset2.html"

b.
if(top.location==self.location)
top.location.href="frameset2.html"

[There were also a few other more obviously bogus choices.]

In my understanding, 'self' refers to the global 'window' object, and so 'self.location' would be equivalent to 'location.' I also don't see how the ordering in the condition would have an effect.

I also tried making and testing a document in MSIE 6.0 for Win NT, and both conditions seemed to function equally well Question Crying or Very sad Embarassed
Cool Twisted Evil Exclamation Surprised

Can you see something I'm missing here? I'm just not enough of a whiz at JavaScript to know: Question
Does one of them answer the question better than the other? Question

Could i be missing a browser incompatibility issue?

________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
GENERAL DISCLAIMER:This disclaimer may be void where null in all cases unless explicitly not unprohibited or (p)re-exclusively assigned by sufficient presedimentation on behalf of every non-interested party to wit (or so it was said).
:::
.: :. . : :....: :.: .: :. verto .: :. . : :....: :.: .: :.
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by vertoSend Personal Message
Daniel
Team Member



Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:14 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

I can't vote for more than one option Sad A lot of those answer the question Smile

________________________________
Image
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by DanielSend Personal Message
Justin
4WebHelp Addict
4WebHelp Addict


Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Posts: 1060

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:19 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

Netscape 4 - For Obvious Reasons!
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by JustinSend Personal MessageSend email
Daniel
Team Member



Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:21 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

I was thinking of voting for NS4, but there are others I'd like to vote for too Smile I still haven't voted yet Very Happy

________________________________
Image
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by DanielSend Personal Message
Justin
4WebHelp Addict
4WebHelp Addict


Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Posts: 1060

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:25 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

Lynx has to be pretty incompatible because it's text only, and as for AOL, strictly it's just a skinned IE right? but I would never use AOL myself, so I wouldn't really know.
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by JustinSend Personal MessageSend email
Daniel
Team Member



Joined: 06 Jan 2002
Posts: 2564

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:27 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

It might be a skinned IE now, but I'm not sure it always was... It used to be a bit crappy, IMO (don't know what it's like now)... I used AOL for a month a couple of years ago, and couldn't stand it Smile (do you blame me?) The browser was useless, everything was slow, and their email interface was featureless (and it was the only one you could use)

________________________________
Image
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by DanielSend Personal Message
Justin
4WebHelp Addict
4WebHelp Addict


Joined: 07 Jan 2002
Posts: 1060

PostPosted: Sun Sep 29, 2002 4:30 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

And their promotional material is annoying too, I get one CD a week at least, they've even launched their own Official Monthly Magazine in the shops over here now, their email is still useless from what I've seen of it, and like you say, you didn't have an option to use other interfaces for email.

It still is crappy, but many newbies use it, I feel sorry for them actually, someone in this country got so annoyed that the punched the woman that advertises AOL on TV!
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by JustinSend Personal MessageSend email
verto
Senior WebHelper
Senior WebHelper


Joined: 14 Jan 2002
Posts: 220
Location: Cambridge MA USA

PostPosted: Mon Sep 30, 2002 9:54 pm (15 years, 2 months ago) Reply with QuoteBack to Top

I haven't used AOL's browser since back in '96 I think it was. Back then it was a version behind MSIE, essentially being v. 2 while IE was at v. 3, so it was relatively slow and feature-poor as well. Sad

Today my least favorite browser of the moment is probably NS 4.x for the Mac. I'm rebuilding an alternate page I had that was supposed to cover NS 4.x on both platforms. Problem was that not only does it look way different on the Mac, but the JavaScript didn't work either. Sad I'm fairly sure I've discovered at least two serious bugs in this browser that I'd never heard about before.

One bug is that is doesn't seem to support UTF-8 character encoding (less common than Latin-1), so on very many major sites, the CSS settings for 'font-family' are ignored (all your text shows up in Times Roman or whatever the default font is). Even the W3C's site doesn't work in it.

The other bug seems to be related to how many JavaScript sections are included in the <head> section. Confused Sad

BTW, if anyone else has run into either of these before, I'd be interested to hear more about them.

Anyway, I'm hoping there won't be more than a couple more to find before I can move on to a project that's more fun or rewarding than this. Smile

________________________________
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
GENERAL DISCLAIMER:This disclaimer may be void where null in all cases unless explicitly not unprohibited or (p)re-exclusively assigned by sufficient presedimentation on behalf of every non-interested party to wit (or so it was said).
:::
.: :. . : :....: :.: .: :. verto .: :. . : :....: :.: .: :.
OfflineView User's ProfileFind all posts by vertoSend Personal Message
Display posts from previous:      
Post New TopicReply to Topic
View Previous Topic Print this topic View Next Topic


 Jump to:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


Page generation time: 0.058162 seconds :: 19 queries executed :: All Times are GMT
Powered by phpBB 2.0 © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group :: Based on an FI Theme