Re: OT - Re: Internet Explorer 7

Dave Hinz wrote:

On Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:22:28 GMT, JMark <woof@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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?]
.

Loading