[ fade ] tags not working
Moderator: TheMachine
[ fade ] tags not working
the [ fade ] tags aren't causing text to fade.
edit: I'm using Firefox 1.0.3 as my browser
edit: I'm using Firefox 1.0.3 as my browser
[fade]THIS IS A TEST OF FADE[/fade]
[blur]BLUR[/blur]
[wave]THIS IS A TEST OF WAVE[/wave]
Whatever 'S' is
works fine on IE, la~
[blur]BLUR[/blur]
[wave]THIS IS A TEST OF WAVE[/wave]
works fine on IE, la~
Pyrella - Illusionist - Leader of Ixtlan on Antonia Bayle
if you were walking around and you came upon a tulip with tits, would you let it be for the rest of the world to enjoy.. or would you pick it and carry it off to a secluded area to motorboat them?
-Cadalano
if you were walking around and you came upon a tulip with tits, would you let it be for the rest of the world to enjoy.. or would you pick it and carry it off to a secluded area to motorboat them?
-Cadalano
damn, I was striving for full lynx compatibility. The banners work omg~
Pyrella - Illusionist - Leader of Ixtlan on Antonia Bayle
if you were walking around and you came upon a tulip with tits, would you let it be for the rest of the world to enjoy.. or would you pick it and carry it off to a secluded area to motorboat them?
-Cadalano
if you were walking around and you came upon a tulip with tits, would you let it be for the rest of the world to enjoy.. or would you pick it and carry it off to a secluded area to motorboat them?
-Cadalano
IE works great for people with half a brain.
Stay patched, don't click anything retarded. If you're real worried, use some common fucking sense and don't run as administrator - those evil programs won't be able to install themselves. You don't see linux/unix/bsd people running as root.
One day Firefox will actually have full compatibility with the shit on sites I visit. Until then, I don't feel like tracking down third party plugins, and manually updating every other day.
Stay patched, don't click anything retarded. If you're real worried, use some common fucking sense and don't run as administrator - those evil programs won't be able to install themselves. You don't see linux/unix/bsd people running as root.
One day Firefox will actually have full compatibility with the shit on sites I visit. Until then, I don't feel like tracking down third party plugins, and manually updating every other day.
Pyrella - Illusionist - Leader of Ixtlan on Antonia Bayle
if you were walking around and you came upon a tulip with tits, would you let it be for the rest of the world to enjoy.. or would you pick it and carry it off to a secluded area to motorboat them?
-Cadalano
if you were walking around and you came upon a tulip with tits, would you let it be for the rest of the world to enjoy.. or would you pick it and carry it off to a secluded area to motorboat them?
-Cadalano
- noel
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 10003
- Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Calabasas, CA
Well said.pyrella wrote:IE works great for people with half a brain.
Stay patched, don't click anything retarded. If you're real worried, use some common fucking sense and don't run as administrator - those evil programs won't be able to install themselves. You don't see linux/unix/bsd people running as root.
One day Firefox will actually have full compatibility with the shit on sites I visit. Until then, I don't feel like tracking down third party plugins, and manually updating every other day.
There are certain sites I go to with FF, and certain sites I go to with IE. Sucks it has to be that way, but idiot developers have coded their sites exclusively for IE, which will fuck up the way FF displays shit. Hopefully MS will stop doing proprietary crap, and get serious about web standards and we won't have this shitty problem.
To be clear. It's not Microsoft's fault per se, it's the developers that code specifically for IE instead of coding for web standards.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
- Sylvus
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 7033
- Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: mp72
- Location: A², MI
- Contact:
Hey go fuck yourself! The product I make my living on supports only IE, and that's because we don't have the time or resources to make it work with all browsers, plus IE made some things easier to do than Netscape did (at the time). If people want to adopt standards, why not adopt those of the browser that 90% of the world was using (at the time, anyway) before firefox ever came out?noel wrote:To be clear. It's not Microsoft's fault per se, it's the developers that code specifically for IE instead of coding for web standards.
In summary, IE4eva!
Off the top of my head, here are a few reasons why that is crap:Sylvus wrote:Hey go fuck yourself! The product I make my living on supports only IE, and that's because we don't have the time or resources to make it work with all browsers, plus IE made some things easier to do than Netscape did (at the time). If people want to adopt standards, why not adopt those of the browser that 90% of the world was using (at the time, anyway) before firefox ever came out?noel wrote:To be clear. It's not Microsoft's fault per se, it's the developers that code specifically for IE instead of coding for web standards.
In summary, IE4eva!
- less time to code web-standard compliant pages once you have overcome the learning curve
- reduces server loads by reducing page sizes
- increases cross-browser compatibility for what now amounts to over ONE THIRD of all browsers
- allows application skinning by redesign of the CSS stylesheet ONLY
- improves page load times by reducing page sizes
- reduces page complexity thereby easing maintenance and extensibility
- allows for alternative browser sources (cell-phone versions) using ONLY stylesheet extension
- allows printing styles for preparing alternative stylesheets for printing
- can be marketted as following professional standards (W3C compliant pages, etc)
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
- noel
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 10003
- Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Calabasas, CA
http://www.alistapart.comSylvus wrote:Hey go fuck yourself! The product I make my living on supports only IE, and that's because we don't have the time or resources to make it work with all browsers, plus IE made some things easier to do than Netscape did (at the time). If people want to adopt standards, why not adopt those of the browser that 90% of the world was using (at the time, anyway) before firefox ever came out?noel wrote:To be clear. It's not Microsoft's fault per se, it's the developers that code specifically for IE instead of coding for web standards.
In summary, IE4eva!
You would do well to read 'Designing With Web Standards' by Jeffrey Zeldman prior to continuing this discussion. I'm glad you feel that IE is a better product. The reality is that MS's slow adoption of web standards (CSS 3.0 anyone?), and proprietary implementation of 'features' has hurt, not helped web development and design.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
Firefox fares no better with overstretched margins than IE with the current version of phpBB 2.0.50 so therefore it is equally crappy.
Is there other free BBS software out there that can import phpBB data?
phpBB seems to be falling behind in convenience and features. Standard stuff like margin support for individual posts with large images (only the offending large image post is wide with the rest of the posts remaining readable without mad side to side scrolling skills, better HTML support for tables etc.) The point is moot if everthing else costs bling.
/dodges mod flames!
Is there other free BBS software out there that can import phpBB data?
phpBB seems to be falling behind in convenience and features. Standard stuff like margin support for individual posts with large images (only the offending large image post is wide with the rest of the posts remaining readable without mad side to side scrolling skills, better HTML support for tables etc.) The point is moot if everthing else costs bling.
/dodges mod flames!
Other notworthy locations include:noel wrote:http://www.alistapart.com
You would do well to read 'Designing With Web Standards' by Jeffrey Zeldman prior to continuing this discussion. I'm glad you feel that IE is a better product. The reality is that MS's slow adoption of web standards (CSS 3.0 anyone?), and proprietary implementation of 'features' has hurt, not helped web development and design.
http://www.zeldman.com
http://www.cogstudios.com
http://www.mezzoblue.com
http://www.csszengarden.com
http://www.htmldog.com
http://www.evolt.org
http://www.westciv.com
http://www.simplebits.com
veerle.duoh.com
to name a few.
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED
- Sylvus
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 7033
- Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: mp72
- Location: A², MI
- Contact:
I didn't say it was too hard, nor does IE preclude you from using CSS, which seems to be the brunt of your post for whatever reason. As I said above, when I started working on the product that I currently work on we used some of the features (read: IE-specific javascript implementation for the most part, though there were some IE-specific css elements) that were only found in IE, rather than Mozilla.archeiron wrote:Off the top of my head, here are a few reasons why that is crap:Sylvus wrote:Hey go fuck yourself! The product I make my living on supports only IE, and that's because we don't have the time or resources to make it work with all browsers, plus IE made some things easier to do than Netscape did (at the time). If people want to adopt standards, why not adopt those of the browser that 90% of the world was using (at the time, anyway) before firefox ever came out?noel wrote:To be clear. It's not Microsoft's fault per se, it's the developers that code specifically for IE instead of coding for web standards.
In summary, IE4eva!
As an architect, product manager, and software developer, I can safely say that web standards are not some backwater of web design; there are numerous organizations (including my own) moving in that direction because the benefits are numerous. It is similar to the argument that people used to use to suggest that using structure software development methodologies (any of them!) were "too hard".
- less time to code web-standard compliant pages once you have overcome the learning curve
- reduces server loads by reducing page sizes
- increases cross-browser compatibility for what now amounts to over ONE THIRD of all browsers
- allows application skinning by redesign of the CSS stylesheet ONLY
- improves page load times by reducing page sizes
- reduces page complexity thereby easing maintenance and extensibility
- allows for alternative browser sources (cell-phone versions) using ONLY stylesheet extension
- allows printing styles for preparing alternative stylesheets for printing
- can be marketted as following professional standards (W3C compliant pages, etc)
Was it a bad call at the time? Perhaps. Poor leadership (at the time), a young "standard" that was standard only to the browsers that comprised < 10% of the market share, all of our desktop products (which are required to use our web offerings) being based on an OS that is shipped with IE, and extremely tight deadlines didn't make cross-browser compatibility high on the list of priorities.
I'm not against working toward consortium standards today, most of the people on my team strive to, unfortunately "we don't have the time or resources to make it work with all browsers" means just that. I may have worded it poorly as I'd had a cocktail before posting, would it sound more reasonable if I changed "it" to say "our existing code" and differentiated it from "new code". I agree with you that developing for the standard will not take extra time or resources for new development. For the time being, IE is still required for our product until my bosses and their bosses make it a higher priority for me to rewrite our older, incompatible, working code than to develop new applications.
The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that when the 800lb Gorilla was MS IE, the w3c should have towed the line and developed their standards around what everyone was using at the time. Most of my argument is not based on 2005, it's based on 1999-2001. (and yes, I realize the w3c existed before that, though they were only on css 1.0 or maybe 2.0 at the time, iirc)If people want to adopt standards, why not adopt those of the browser that 90% of the world was using (at the time, anyway) before firefox ever came out?
- noel
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 10003
- Joined: August 22, 2002, 1:34 am
- Gender: Male
- Location: Calabasas, CA
I'm not as up on it as I have been in the past, but if you'd like to use CSS 3.0 which is the current CSS standard, IE does preclude you from using it because... IE does not support CSS 3.0.Sylvus wrote:I didn't say it was too hard, nor does IE preclude you from using CSS, which seems to be the brunt of your post for whatever reason.
You're like... one of a billion companies that's stuck in exactly the same boat. The fact is, as a developer, you could do more, and provide more features to your customers if you used MS's proprietary, non-standard extensions.As I said above, when I started working on the product that I currently work on we used some of the features (read: IE-specific javascript implementation for the most part, though there were some IE-specific css elements) that were only found in IE, rather than Mozilla.
Was it a bad call at the time? Perhaps. Poor leadership (at the time), a young "standard" that was standard only to the browsers that comprised < 10% of the market share, all of our desktop products (which are required to use our web offerings) being based on an OS that is shipped with IE, and extremely tight deadlines didn't make cross-browser compatibility high on the list of priorities.
You're pretty much right on all points. The point I'm trying to unsuccessfully make is that MS is not keeping up with the latest web standards, they're not implementing them as fast as they should, and they're still including non-standard extensions. Developers using those non-standard extensions didn't help themselves or the web design/development community, but they really didn't have many options at the time.I'm not against working toward consortium standards today, most of the people on my team strive to, unfortunately "we don't have the time or resources to make it work with all browsers" means just that. I may have worded it poorly as I'd had a cocktail before posting, would it sound more reasonable if I changed "it" to say "our existing code" and differentiated it from "new code". I agree with you that developing for the standard will not take extra time or resources for new development. For the time being, IE is still required for our product until my bosses and their bosses make it a higher priority for me to rewrite our older, incompatible, working code than to develop new applications.
The point I was unsuccessfully trying to make was that when the 800lb Gorilla was MS IE, the w3c should have towed the line and developed their standards around what everyone was using at the time. Most of my argument is not based on 2005, it's based on 1999-2001. (and yes, I realize the w3c existed before that, though they were only on css 1.0 or maybe 2.0 at the time, iirc)If people want to adopt standards, why not adopt those of the browser that 90% of the world was using (at the time, anyway) before firefox ever came out?
That said, times have changed. There are other options right now. There are also more and more browsers that are making their way to consumers. Ever surfed the web on a PDA? PSP? Mobile Phone? Tablet PC? Web standards are what will allow all of these browsers to work in the future. For specialty applications (like say Seibel or a companies internal database application, etc.), it's somewhat understandable to require one browser over another, but for any publically accessible web application, especially given the proliferation of new devices that will potentially bet hitting your site, it's in your best interest to code to standards, and it's in everyone's best interest to push MS to include the latest standards in their web browser.
Oh, my God; I care so little, I almost passed out.
This one looks like it fixes stretched margins from large images:
http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/1838
It's called "No Margin Stretch"
http://www.phpbbhacks.com/download/1838
It's called "No Margin Stretch"
- Sylvus
- Super Poster!
- Posts: 7033
- Joined: July 10, 2002, 11:10 am
- Gender: Male
- XBL Gamertag: mp72
- Location: A², MI
- Contact:
"Telegram for Winnow T. Mangina!"
-.. . .- .-. / .-- .. -. -. --- .-- .-.-.-
.. / .--. .-.. .- -. / --- -. / .. -- .--. .-.. . -- . -. - .. -. --. / - .... .. ... / .- -. -.. / -. . . -.. / -. --- / -- --- -.. ... .-.-.-
.. / .--- ..- ... - / -. . . -.. / ... --- -- . / ..-. .-. . . / - .. -- . / .. -. / ..-. .-. --- -. - / --- ..-. / - .... . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. / - --- / -.. --- / .. - .-.-.-
-.- . . .--. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .--. .- -. - ... / --- -. .-.-.-
-.. . .- .-. / .-- .. -. -. --- .-- .-.-.-
.. / .--. .-.. .- -. / --- -. / .. -- .--. .-.. . -- . -. - .. -. --. / - .... .. ... / .- -. -.. / -. . . -.. / -. --- / -- --- -.. ... .-.-.-
.. / .--- ..- ... - / -. . . -.. / ... --- -- . / ..-. .-. . . / - .. -- . / .. -. / ..-. .-. --- -. - / --- ..-. / - .... . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. / - --- / -.. --- / .. - .-.-.-
-.- . . .--. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .--. .- -. - ... / --- -. .-.-.-
-.-- --- ..- / .-. --- -.-. -.- / ... -.-- .-.. ...- ..- ... / .- -. -.-- --- -. . / .-- .... --- / -.. .. ... .- --. .-. . . ... / ... ..- -.-. -.- ... / -.-. --- -.-. -.- / -... -.-- / -.-. .... --- .. -.-. .Sylvus wrote:"Telegram for Winnow T. Mangina!"
-.. . .- .-. / .-- .. -. -. --- .-- .-.-.-
.. / .--. .-.. .- -. / --- -. / .. -- .--. .-.. . -- . -. - .. -. --. / - .... .. ... / .- -. -.. / -. . . -.. / -. --- / -- --- -.. ... .-.-.-
.. / .--- ..- ... - / -. . . -.. / ... --- -- . / ..-. .-. . . / - .. -- . / .. -. / ..-. .-. --- -. - / --- ..-. / - .... . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. / - --- / -.. --- / .. - .-.-.-
-.- . . .--. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .--. .- -. - ... / --- -. .-.-.-
-.. . .- -.. .-- --- --- -.. / --.- ..- --- - . ..--..Winnow wrote:-.-- --- ..- / .-. --- -.-. -.- / ... -.-- .-.. ...- ..- ... / .- -. -.-- --- -. . / .-- .... --- / -.. .. ... .- --. .-. . . ... / ... ..- -.-. -.- ... / -.-. --- -.-. -.- / -... -.-- / -.-. .... --- .. -.-. .Sylvus wrote:"Telegram for Winnow T. Mangina!"
-.. . .- .-. / .-- .. -. -. --- .-- .-.-.-
.. / .--. .-.. .- -. / --- -. / .. -- .--. .-.. . -- . -. - .. -. --. / - .... .. ... / .- -. -.. / -. . . -.. / -. --- / -- --- -.. ... .-.-.-
.. / .--- ..- ... - / -. . . -.. / ... --- -- . / ..-. .-. . . / - .. -- . / .. -. / ..-. .-. --- -. - / --- ..-. / - .... . / -.-. --- -- .--. ..- - . .-. / - --- / -.. --- / .. - .-.-.-
-.- . . .--. / -.-- --- ..- .-. / .--. .- -. - ... / --- -. .-.-.-
[65 Storm Warden] Archeiron Leafstalker (Wood Elf) <Sovereign>RETIRED