EDGE not supported.

On 12/10/18 9:41 AM, Ken Blake wrote:

[snip]

Not everyone agrees with my opinions, of course, but to me, those are
the three *worst* browsers available: Edge, IE, and Chrome. My
personal favorite is FireFox.

I once thought Opera was going to be my favorite someday (it wasn't
yet). That was before Opera became too much like Chrome. I prefer
Firefox. Of course it's not perfect, but it seems to be the least bad of
them.

--
15 days until the winter celebration (Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:00:00 AM for 1
day).

Mark Lloyd
http://notstupid.us/

"Sunday: A day given over by Americans to wishing that they themselves
were dead and in Heaven, and that their neighbors were dead and in
Hell." [H.L. Mencken]

On 10/12/2018 16:38, Ken Blake wrote:
Yes, also that of many other people, including several close friends
who opinions I respect on a lot of things.

Chrome my be good in some respects, but to me its UI is so terrible
that I won't use it.


Oh come on.
No UI could be more terrible (and ugly) than that of MS Edge.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

On 10/12/2018 11:51, mechanic wrote:

http://acid3.acidtests.org/


IE11: Pass

Chome 71.0.3578.80 (Official Build) (64-bit): Fail

Firefox 63.0.3 (64 bit): Fail (even worse)

All running on 64 bit Windows 7.

Very disappointing.

--

Brian Gregory (in England).

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:00:24 +0000, Brian Gregory
wrote:

On 10/12/2018 16:38, Ken Blake wrote:
Yes, also that of many other people, including several close friends
who opinions I respect on a lot of things.

Chrome my be good in some respects, but to me its UI is so terrible
that I won't use it.


Oh come on.
No UI could be more terrible (and ugly) than that of MS Edge.




I agree. As I've said many times here, I think Edge is
terrible--probably the worst of all browsers. In my opinion Chrome is
better than Edge, but only slightly.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 18:09:40 +0000, Brian Gregory
wrote:

On 10/12/2018 11:51, mechanic wrote:

http://acid3.acidtests.org/


IE11: Pass

Chome 71.0.3578.80 (Official Build) (64-bit): Fail

Firefox 63.0.3 (64 bit): Fail (even worse)

All running on 64 bit Windows 7.

Very disappointing.



It's not disappointing to me. I have no interest in tests like that.
There are many characteristics of browsers: browser load speed, web
page load speed, standards compatibility, UI, availability of addons
etc. Tests like these test only some of those characteristics.

We all work in different ways and have different likes and dislikes,
so which characteristics are important to one person aren't
necessarily the same as which are important to the next. That's why
so many people like Chrome even though I find it terrible.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 08:27:45 -0500, "Mayayana"
wrote:

"Neil" wrote

| When one looks in the HTML header at code variations based on different
| browsers or versions, it's to accommodate quirks within those browsers
| that don't support the parameters that the site is implementing. Better
| would be to avoid such parameters altogether, but that can be limiting,
too.
|

Yes, and it's just not realistic. Especially
for commercial sites that want to maximize
traffic. Only the most basic functionality
and the loosest layout design can be used
for all browsers.
I have 2 versions of all webpages, one for
IE and one for all other browsers. It's not
because I need to use special razzmatazz.
I avoid script and newer CSS/HTML that older
browsers might not handle. But I still need
two versions. It's for very basic stuff:

* Older IE versions don't see CSS :hover, which
I use for menus, so I have to give them script.

* Subtle layout differences, like IE displaying
a label or image a few pixels higher or lower
than other browsers. Those have to be adjusted
to prevent elements overlapping each other.

* I use nested, redundant tables and divs
because older IE versions can't be made to
treat a div as a block element.

It goes on and on. The only solution is to
either test in each browser or design pages
like in the late 90s, with only simple HTML.

On the good side, pretty
much anything but IE acts the same way. And
until IE11, Microsoft have built in support for
"quirks mode", so that I can design for IE6 and
it will work in all other versions exactly the
same way.

But then with IE11 the fun begins. With IE11,
quirks mode only works if "compatibility" is set
for the domain (requiring specific user action
that most people won't understand), and in Edge
it's broken altogether.
So for anyone who wants to keep supporting
everything, both of those browsers now need
special attention. And that also means testing
on Win10, because that's the only way to get
Edge.


Of course I'm all confused. But if I must have
several browsers on call, how does one auto-sync
all the favorites, automatically, across all of
them?

Peter Jason wrote:


Of course I'm all confused. But if I must have
several browsers on call, how does one auto-sync
all the favorites, automatically, across all of
them?

Google runs a service.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/sync-you...wsers-systems/

I don't find the examples particularly attractive.

Paul

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 16:18:05 -0500, Paul
wrote:

Peter Jason wrote:


Of course I'm all confused. But if I must have
several browsers on call, how does one auto-sync
all the favorites, automatically, across all of
them?

Google runs a service.

https://www.raymond.cc/blog/sync-you...wsers-systems/

I don't find the examples particularly attractive.

Paul

Thanks, I'll check it out.

"Brian Gregory" wrote

|
| IE11: Pass
| Chome 71.0.3578.80 (Official Build) (64-bit): Fail
| Firefox 63.0.3 (64 bit): Fail (even worse)
| All running on 64 bit Windows 7.
|
| Very disappointing.
|

Did you look at the code? It's extremely complex
javascript, doing as much as possible dynamically,
loading iframes.... In other words, it's a really badly
designed webpage. There's almost no HTML there.

A test like that has almost no relevance at all to
real webpages. It's more like a test of whether a
sportscar can take a corner at 70 MPH. That might
be impressive, but can it take a corner at 20 in the
snow without sliding? That's what matters.

Chrome and Firefox both render my site perfectly.
They don't need script to do it. IE11 is incompatible
with earlier versions of IE unless running in compat
mode for a given domain.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 10:55:37 +1100, Peter Jason wrote:

The august Australian Taxation Office doesn't
support EDGE and politely suggests one uses IE11,
and some of the others. Why is this so?
They probably use a plugin that is not supported by Edge. My Annke
CCTV control box doesn't run under Edge either.

On 11/12/2018 00:33, Mayayana wrote:
"Brian Gregory" wrote

|
| IE11: Pass
| Chome 71.0.3578.80 (Official Build) (64-bit): Fail
| Firefox 63.0.3 (64 bit): Fail (even worse)
| All running on 64 bit Windows 7.
|
| Very disappointing.
|

Did you look at the code? It's extremely complex
javascript, doing as much as possible dynamically,
loading iframes.... In other words, it's a really badly
designed webpage. There's almost no HTML there.

A test like that has almost no relevance at all to
real webpages. It's more like a test of whether a
sportscar can take a corner at 70 MPH. That might
be impressive, but can it take a corner at 20 in the
snow without sliding? That's what matters.

Chrome and Firefox both render my site perfectly.
They don't need script to do it. IE11 is incompatible
with earlier versions of IE unless running in compat
mode for a given domain.

I tried 5 different browsers - the best score was Safari with 98/100

May *we* view YOUR site Mayayana?

--
Regards,
David B.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 19:33:39 -0500, Mayayana wrote:

Did you look at the code? It's extremely complex
javascript, doing as much as possible dynamically,
loading iframes.... In other words, it's a really badly
designed webpage. There's almost no HTML there.

That's the case with many sites these days.

Someone claimed earlier that Edge wasn't standards compatible, I
pointed out a test that showed otherwise. Things have moved on
since that test was current and now specs diverge from the test in
some areas, there seems no really up-to-date equivalent. No-one
suggests that sites can't exist based on simple HTML2 and no CSS or
Javascript, but most commercial sites have moved on from those days.

On Mon, 10 Dec 2018 08:41:46 -0700, Ken Blake wrote:

Not everyone agrees with my opinions, of course, but to me, those are
the three *worst* browsers available: Edge, IE, and Chrome. My
personal favorite is FireFox.

I don't think you've spelled out your criteria for this comparison
of yours.

"mechanic" wrote
Mayayana wrote:
|
| Did you look at the code? It's extremely complex
| javascript, doing as much as possible dynamically,
| loading iframes.... In other words, it's a really badly
| designed webpage. There's almost no HTML there.
|
| That's the case with many sites these days.
|
| Someone claimed earlier that Edge wasn't standards compatible, I
| pointed out a test that showed otherwise. Things have moved on
| since that test was current and now specs diverge from the test in
| some areas, there seems no really up-to-date equivalent. No-one
| suggests that sites can't exist based on simple HTML2 and no CSS or
| Javascript, but most commercial sites have moved on from those days.

I don't understand what you said there. Most sites
have moved on from HTML, to CSS and javascript?
Nearly all sites use a lot of CSS. That's not a problem.
A webpage is HTML and CSS. No one "moves on" from
HTML. Without it the page would be blank.

Javascript is supposed to be for programmatic
responsiveness. HTML makes a button. CSS sets the
design of the button. Something happens via javascript
when you click the button. The page content
shouldn't depend on javascript. The acid test is using
very little HTML and fairly simple CSS. Most of it is using
script to create HTML elements dynamically and move
them around. Then it grades performance based on how
accurately that was done. It's nonsense, except maybe
if you're designing advanced online games.

Real world web designers, making real world webpages,
need to know that fairly recent CSS and HTML are
supported and that browsers interpret HTML and CSS
the same way. For instance, it's a problem if one browser
sets default padding for a table at 10px and another sets
it at 5px.

The non-Microsoft people have pretty much cooperated
on those points. Microsoft have historically broken
compatibility with their own product, WITH EVERY IE
VERSION! Little stuff, like table padding.

IE11/Edge are a
problem because MS broke compatibility with their own
browser, depending on web designers to put in more
work to rewrite their pages.

Did you read my link to Wikipedia?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrac...and_extinguish

"then vice president of Intel, Steven McGeady, used the phrase[8] to
explain Microsoft vice president Paul Maritz's statement in a 1995 meeting
with Intel that described Microsoft's strategy to "kill HTML by extending
it".

That's always been the Microsoft ploy. They did it
first with ActiveX. It was brilliant, and only worked in
Windows, except that it had nothing to do with HTML
and was very dangerous. ActiveX is essentially
running local software in webpages.

People like you who are loyal to Microsoft, blaming
others for MS scams, are the collateral damage.
If IE11/Edge don't work out then MS will drop them
like a hot potato. They don't care.

Meanwhile, the Web goes on.
Rule #1 in good web design is that a page should degrade
gracefully and people shouldn't have to have the latest
of everything. If script is disabled... if people don't have
Flash...if it's an older browser... if it's an older OS... the
page should still work, because the Internet is not intended
as a toy for teenage boys with gaming machines.

The acid test page is very poorly designed in that sense.
It's not anything like a real world page. It tests script
details that will rarely be relevant and breaks otherwise.
Since I don't enable script. I see a block of big text, in a
white box, on a gray background. There isn't even any
explanation of what the page is for! I also normally
block iframes. They're mainly used for ads and they're
a security risk. They should never be used when there's
another option. But the acid test is broken without them.

"Peter Johnson" wrote

|
| The august Australian Taxation Office doesn't
| support EDGE and politely suggests one uses IE11,
| and some of the others. Why is this so?

| They probably use a plugin that is not supported by Edge. My Annke
| CCTV control box doesn't run under Edge either.

But at least they support IE6.

!--[if lt IE 7] html class="no-js lt-ie10 lt-ie9 lt-ie8 lt-ie7"
lang="en" ![endif]--
!--[if IE 7] html class="no-js lt-ie10 lt-ie9 lt-ie8" lang="en"
![endif]--
!--[if IE 8] html class="no-js lt-ie10 lt-ie9" lang="en" ![endif]--
!--[if IE 9] html class="no-js lt-ie10" lang="en" ![endif]--
!--[if gt IE 9]!--