FE Devs PLEASE READ

[SirPoonga]

edit:  GOTO http://fe.donkeyfly.com
If you are an FE dev pm on that board me so you can access the programmers area




I've been talking to planetjay.  He has too many domains:)  Once I get a job I might pick one up from him once I get a job.  HE said he'd install YaBSEE on it for me:)  I'd make a FE Dev forum.  What you think?  Swap ideas, programming tricks, etc...

[Minwah]

This could be a good idea...

I'm struggling with a couple of things myself atm  

[)p(]

what would it add to this place...we can discuss anything fe related here allready?

Peter

[Howard_Casto]

It might be good for posting source code and examples, and what we have so far in dat projects like the controls.dat I am working on ever so slowly.  These things can be posted here, but the general population usually just scratches their head.  So a "nerds only" forum might be good.

We could have forums for each of the fe's and for each of the projects going on.  Might be nice, I dunno.  

[SirPoonga]

I was thinking the forum would have sections like Programming tips, Ideas, projects.

[SirPoonga]

It's being born,  PJ decided to host it:)
fe.donkeyfly.com

[Dave Dribin]

Can you install PhpWiki?  The Wiki seemed like a good idea for collaboration.

-Dave

[SirPoonga]

Well, PJ installed it, I'll ask him.  What about phpwiki makes it better?

[Howard_Casto]

Warning! Two posts already.... we are sharing our knowledge, no good could come from this.

[Dave Dribin]

Well, PJ installed it, I'll ask him.  What about phpwiki makes it better?

A Wiki isn't a replacement for a forum, just a different tool.  You could have 'em both.  A Wiki is basically user editable web pages.  Anyone can add pages, too.  It's supposed to be a very good tool for colloboration and discussion since you can organize material any way that makes sense, which is not the case for a forum.

I guess we could just use the one I setup earlier, too:

http://www.dribin.org/dave/phpwiki/

-Dave

[Dave Dribin]

Hmm... I'm having problems on that new forum.  I can create an account, and can I login.  It shows me my username in the upper left.  But, as soon as I click on anything else, like my profile or a message thread, it goes right back to Guest.  It sounds like a cookie problem, but I have them enabled.  And I have no problem on this board.  Anyone else having problems?

-Dave

[)p(]

Hmm... I'm having problems on that new forum.  I can create an account, and can I login.  It shows me my username in the upper left.  But, as soon as I click on anything else, like my profile or a message thread, it goes right back to Guest.  It sounds like a cookie problem, but I have them enabled.  And I have no problem on this board.  Anyone else having problems?

-Dave

just as with this forum I had to set the privacy option for cookies to allways allow for the mamehost.com domain...

Peter

[Howard_Casto]

Yup you got it.... and welcome guys.

[Dave Dribin]

just as with this forum I had to set the privacy option for cookies to allways allow for the mamehost.com domain...

Well, I've checked and double checked... still no go.  Tried allowing *all* cookies, still no.  Tried my laptop, still no go.  I'm using Mozilla 1.1 (and Galeon 1.2.6, but that's based on Gecko).  I have no problems on other sites requiring cookies, including this one.  Very weird...

-Dave

[Howard_Casto]

Allowing all cookies doesn't make any difference.....
You have to manually add the site address and set it to always allow.  After that restart your browser and login once and you should be good.  

It seems to be a glitch in yabbse.  

[SirPoonga]

Actualy, since it's just IE6 who do you think the glitch is with...

[Howard_Casto]

Actualy, since it's just IE6 who do you think the glitch is with...

Yabbse, because other sites grab cookies fine in ie6.....

Remember, we conform to ie, as it uses internet standards and other browsers (cough, cough, netscape, cough cough) don't.  If a site isn't displayed properly in internet explorer, 99.9% of the time it's because it's not compliant to the internet standards.

Everyone always blames m$ for their problems, but remember, m$ is kind of like the phone company.  If it weren't for m$ computers wouldn't be in every home and widely available.    Not saying it's bug-free by any means, it's just point your fingers to anyone but m$ first as they set the standard.  

Not a big deal though.

[planetjay]

Well, PJ installed it, I'll ask him.  What about phpwiki makes it better?

A Wiki isn't a replacement for a forum, just a different tool.  You could have 'em both.  A Wiki is basically user editable web pages.  Anyone can add pages, too.  It's supposed to be a very good tool for colloboration and discussion since you can organize material any way that makes sense, which is not the case for a forum.

I guess we could just use the one I setup earlier, too:

http://www.dribin.org/dave/phpwiki/

-Dave

OK. I looked at phpwiki. And I couldn't find a link to DL it for further testing. But I did get these errors:

PHP Warnings
lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

It may not be ready for primetime. I'll check it out again later.

And enjoy the new Forum.

[SirPoonga]

Yabbse, because other sites grab cookies fine in ie6.....

I said it is IE6 because there is no other problems on this board with other browsers.

Remember, we conform to ie, as it uses internet standards and other browsers (cough, cough, netscape, cough cough) don't.  If a site isn't displayed properly in internet explorer, 99.9% of the time it's because it's not compliant to the internet standards.

cough cough, neither does IE conform to stanrdards, couch cough.  There are alot of things in IE that do not conform to standards.  It's typical M$, take something and make their own thing out of.  The marquee that IE has is not a standard, for an example.  HC, every day you become more and mroe bill's whipping boy  Just because microsoft says so doesn't mean it is a standard:)

I look at your comment again and I laugh, it was always netscape that conformed to W3C and IE never did.  That was the version 4 days though.

[planetjay]

Well at least Howie's nose is OFFICIAL MICROSOFT SHADE OF BROWN.  

Anyway IE does come much closer to standards compliance than Netscape TODAY. However, IE is also MUCH MORE TOLERANT. IE will ignore errors that cause NS to not display pages.

Today's ONLY Browser Choice is IE. I hear that tomorrow it may be Mozilla. We'll see.

[SirPoonga]

Well at least Howie's nose is OFFICIAL MICROSOFT SHADE OF BROWN.  

Anyway IE does come much closer to standards compliance than Netscape TODAY. However, IE is also MUCH MORE TOLERANT. IE will ignore errors that cause NS to not display pages.

Today's ONLY Browser Choice is IE. I hear that tomorrow it may be Mozilla. We'll see.

In order for that to happen M$ can't be such a monopoly.  Competitors have to have a chance instead of being bought out.

[Howard_Casto]

 Just because microsoft says so doesn't mean it is a standard:)

Actually yes it does whether you like it or not.  M$ is the most powerful and widely used/accepted  software collection on the planet.  

What that means is more people use ie than anything else, and thus the standard is based around it.  Any changes are usually made to make it more ie friendly simply because more people use it.  

And pj is right, ie is more error tolerant and internet standard compliant than any browser right now, it's the only acceptable browser to use at the moment.  Mozilla is very impressive, but I'm not holding my breath.  

Once again, not liking the truth doesn't change it any.  :-)

I never said I was a fan of m$ or some of their more "unique" tactics.  It's just I know who's in charge and they are it.  

Btw regarding monopolies.  If the phone company hadn't been a monopoly then we wouldn't have phone lines everywhere in the US.  If the us oil company hand't become a huge monopoly we wouldn't have a national stockpile of oil, just in case.  If the local utilities weren't monopoly's then most people would be without safe/standardized utilities.  If m$ hadn't become a monoply the desktop pc would have never became a reality.  At least not at the huge scale it is today.  

I am a strong suporter of certain monopolies... personally I would say that m$ should become a goverment regulated service, like at&t became.  But the U.S. goverment screwed them, forcing them to sell any of lucent technologies inventions, so I don't know if that would be fair to them.

[SirPoonga]

Once again, not liking the truth doesn't change it any.  :-)

Stretching the truth and having the wool pulled over your eyes doesn't change anything either

[planetjay]

 Just because microsoft says so doesn't mean it is a standard:)

Actually yes it does whether you like it or not.  M$ is the most powerful and widely used/accepted  software collection on the planet.  

What that means is more people use ie than anything else, and thus the standard is based around it.  Any changes are usually made to make it more ie friendly simply because more people use it.  

And pj is right, ie is more error tolerant and internet standard compliant than any browser right now, it's the only acceptable browser to use at the moment.  Mozilla is very impressive, but I'm not holding my breath.  

Once again, not liking the truth doesn't change it any.  :-)

I never said I was a fan of m$ or some of their more "unique" tactics.  It's just I know who's in charge and they are it.  

Btw regarding monopolies.  If the phone company hadn't been a monopoly then we wouldn't have phone lines everywhere in the US.  If the us oil company hand't become a huge monopoly we wouldn't have a national stockpile of oil, just in case.  If the local utilities weren't monopoly's then most people would be without safe/standardized utilities.  If m$ hadn't become a monoply the desktop pc would have never became a reality.  At least not at the huge scale it is today.  

I am a strong suporter of certain monopolies... personally I would say that m$ should become a goverment regulated service, like at&t became.  But the U.S. goverment screwed them, forcing them to sell any of lucent technologies inventions, so I don't know if that would be fair to them.

I agree.

[Howard_Casto]

Once again, not liking the truth doesn't change it any.  :-)

Stretching the truth and having the wool pulled over your eyes doesn't change anything either

no comment....;P

[SirPoonga]

no comment....;P

What?  You saying I have the wool over my eyes, on the contrary, I have a very open mind.  I don't let M$ run my life.  I'm not completely anti-M$, they do have some good stuff (like visual studio) but to have them control every aspect of my life like they want is out of the question.  You say standards became what they are because M$ made them, hence they are making your decisions on what is best.

[Howard_Casto]

no comment .... ;P ;P :p

[Dave Dribin]

OK. I looked at phpwiki. And I couldn't find a link to DL it for further testing.

http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/

But I did get these errors:

PHP Warnings
lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

On my system?  What were you doing when it happened?  I view and edit pages just fine.

And enjoy the new Forum.

Thanks for setting it up.  If I could log in, I would.

-Dave

[SirPoonga]

Thanks for setting it up.  If I could log in, I would.

Try this, try finding your cookie and deleteing it.   Then make sure your cookie setting are correct.  then try again.

[planetjay]

OK. I looked at phpwiki. And I couldn't find a link to DL it for further testing.

http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/

But I did get these errors:

PHP Warnings
lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

On my system?  What were you doing when it happened?  I view and edit pages just fine.

And enjoy the new Forum.

Thanks for setting it up.  If I could log in, I would.

-Dave

I clicked on RecentChanges. Still does it today too.  

Yeah delete you cookie too.

[SirPoonga]

OK. I looked at phpwiki. And I couldn't find a link to DL it for further testing.

http://phpwiki.sourceforge.net/

But I did get these errors:

PHP Warnings
lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

lib/WikiDB/backend/dumb/MostRecentIter.php:20: Notice[8]: Undefined variable: limit

On my system?  What were you doing when it happened?  I view and edit pages just fine.

And enjoy the new Forum.

Thanks for setting it up.  If I could log in, I would.

-Dave

If you get logged in, PM me once you do.

[Dave Dribin]

If you get logged in, PM me once you do.

Ok, deleted all cookies and it now works.

-Dave

[planetjay]

Thank You For Playing!

[u_rebelscum]

Remember, we conform to ie, as it uses internet standards and other browsers (cough, cough, netscape, cough cough) don't.

IE and netscape 7.0 are pretty much the same as far as html/xml/css standards as concerned.  IE, however, is setup to use a lot more non-compliant html (cough, cough, activeX, cough, cough) code than netscape 7.  (Netscape 4.x, of course, was a different story, and wasn't nealy as compliant as IE was, or netscape 7 is now.)

To say "to conform to IE means to conform more to the standards" is false because of all the non-standard IE-only code that IE likes, but is not part of the standards.

If a site isn't displayed properly in internet explorer, 99.9% of the time it's because it's not compliant to the internet standards.

I'll go with that, but the following should also be included: "If a site isn't displayed properly in netscape 7, 99.9% of the time it's because it's not compliant to the internet standards, and 99% of that is because it's using non-compliant IE only code."

[Howard_Casto]

Remember, we conform to ie, as it uses internet standards and other browsers (cough, cough, netscape, cough cough) don't.

IE and netscape 7.0 are pretty much the same as far as html/xml/css standards as concerned.  IE, however, is setup to use a lot more non-compliant html (cough, cough, activeX, cough, cough) code than netscape 7.  (Netscape 4.x, of course, was a different story, and wasn't nealy as compliant as IE was, or netscape 7 is now.)

To say "to conform to IE means to conform more to the standards" is false because of all the non-standard IE-only code that IE likes, but is not part of the standards.

If a site isn't displayed properly in internet explorer, 99.9% of the time it's because it's not compliant to the internet standards.

I'll go with that, but the following should also be included: "If a site isn't displayed properly in netscape 7, 99.9% of the time it's because it's not compliant to the internet standards, and 99% of that is because it's using non-compliant IE only code."

You can't coun't active-x because it's a plugin.  Also it doesn't matter that some ie functions don't comply to the standard, because unlike netscape conventions, the page will still load properly.  Netscape has a "oh my god bad code let's crap all over ourselves" Mentality, while ie, and it's looking like mozillia simply ignore the offending lines of code and can often make a good guess as to what it's gonna do.  

Every time the internet standard is updated (which is rarely anymore) all (or at least most) of the added ie features are included while many of the more obscure netscape ones are removed.  Why?  Because weather you like it or not m$ makes the better browser at this point and their additions make more sense than some of the "unique" features netscape and other browsers include in their language.    

[u_rebelscum]

You can't coun't active-x because it's a plugin.

mybad.  Should have coughed "DOM" or "jscript/javascript".

Also it doesn't matter that some ie functions don't comply to the standard, because unlike netscape conventions, the page will still load properly.

Huh.  It seems like you are saying the equivelent of "Doesn't matter that the Windows software isn't cross-platform, because unlike on a Mac, it runs in Windows"  
If you meant to say "IE displays non html standard pages better than Netscape", you need to add: "... if it follows the IE html convention."

Also it doesn't matter that some ie functions don't comply to the standard, because unlike netscape conventions, the page will still load properly.  Netscape has a "oh my god bad code let's crap all over ourselves" Mentality, while ie, and it's looking like mozillia simply ignore the offending lines of code and can often make a good guess as to what it's gonna do.

Which netscape are you talking about here?  Netscape 7.0 is mozilla + a different skin + email & junk.  Seems like you almost said that netscape 7.0 makes "a good quess at to what it gonna do," at the same time as "oh my god bad code let's crap all over ourselves".  
Can you link to a couple of these pages?

The only pages I have problems with (on netscape 7) are those with javascript or cgi that basically say "if not IE, don't load the page correctly."
Example: http://www.kpmg.ca/english/
news discription: http://www.webstandards.org/#a000091 quote "the problem is outdated, brain-dead browser detection and related scripting."
fixed page: http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/fixed/kpmg/  Just a simple change in the scripts.

Every time the internet standard is updated (which is rarely anymore) all (or at least most) of the added ie features are included while many of the more obscure netscape ones are removed.  Why?  Because weather you like it or not m$ makes the better browser at this point and their additions make more sense than some of the "unique" features netscape and other browsers include in their language.    

First, I don't want unique junk, I want conformity (I'm talking html only, thou' ).  
Second, change your first sentence to "... (which is rarely anymore) most of the added features has been IE features ..."; a lot of the IE stuff have been and are still left out.  
There are so many "IE only" features that a fraction can account for so much of the changes.  With MS going so low and claiming one of their features was added even if the W3 feature just does the same thing but uses different terms/words/methods, many people think W3 adopted the IE way when it wasn't really.

Note that mozilla (& netscape 6/7) have also dropped all the netscape 4.x and before unique junk you probably are talking about (remember <blink>? yuck).  However, the more recent w3.org upgrades (html 4, xhtml and since) have excluded more IE only than netscape 4 only (because IE has so much more unique junk to exclude).  I think 100% of netscape 4 junk was left out, but does not come close to the huge volume of IE junk left out / dropped.

[Howard_Casto]

Sounds like a m$ hater or a netscape user to me, so there's no point in arguing with you.  

[Dave Dribin]

Mozilla and Mozilla-based browsers are really good these days.  I've been using Galeon for the last 1 1/2 and it works fine on probably more than 99% of the sites I've been to.  Those that don't work, I ignore and don't go to 'em.  I have yet to miss out on anything good on the web.  There was one online store that I was having problems with.  They told me they didn't support Mozilla.  So I went to one of their competetors that did.  I have no sympathy for a web designer that doesn't follow standards.  Yes, Netscape 4.x sucked, but things have changed alot since then.

-Dave

[u_rebelscum]

Sounds like a m$ hater or a netscape user to me, so there's no point in arguing with you.  

Kinda OT, huh?

BTW, I use netscape, but just because I dislike their tactics less than I dislike MS's.  I'm more of an "let the user choose" and an "underdog fan" than a MS hater or NS lover.  

I'd use mozilla, but my brother uses it, so I can't copy him.  
Ahh, brotherly rivalry, now that's [sarcasm] real [/sarcasm] logic at work.  

[Lilwolf]

I really don't like MS.  

but all the other browsers seem to suck these days.  Netscape can't seem to get a browser to work if their company depends on it.... oh yeah, it did, and they are now AoL...

Mozilla is better, but doesn't seem as good as IE.

IE is pretty stable, and once you load the sun plugin it works well for me.  But the JVM has been my front mark for a bit

[Howard_Casto]

Yeah no offesne, but if you are using netscape then you probably just have a grudge against m$.  I don't necesarily agree with m$'s tactics but no one can argue the results.  I use ie because it's the only acceptable browser out there, except for maybe mozilla.  

And there are several keys differences between mozilla and netscape btw.  Although I am not an expert on how they work, from what I have read the main diference between mozilla and netscape is that mozilla handles "ie" scripting better and doesn't crap all over itself when it finds bad code.  In other words it's netscape pretending to be internet explorer. ;-)

I don't care what browser you like or use, but if you aren't using ie then you are really missing out, as you can't properly view half of the pages on the internet today.  it used to be that this was also the case in ie, (as it couldn't view netscape specific pages)  but now days virtually ALL webpages are compatible with ie first and netscape, mozilla, misc are merely an afterthought.  

On a mac the only good browser is a m$ product.  That should tell you how good internet explorer is.  

[planetjay]

Howard is still right. However since this is nearing a flame war, Topic closed.