FIREFOX SUCKS ROCK-SCUM!

[MrLeN]

Man, I've just about had it with FireFox. I mean, what's the big thing? Why does everyone like FireFox so much? It's a piece of JUNK!

Sure it understands all the W3C simple standard stuff, but every time I want to get a bit complicated, it just looks at me with a blank face and says.. "huh??".

I don't care what anyone says. IE Rocks. Ok, so it's owned by a ruthless company. So? I don't care. That doesn't concern me. It works! It always did.

All those idiosyncrasies that everyone complains about. All the things that make people say IE is not valid. ALL the code that it renders CORRECTLY even when it's WAY OFF course. Did you know that someone spent a LOT OF TIME and effort to get all those so called "mistakes" to render? It's no mistake. It's called INSIGHT.

Now, I have a website that I am building at http://www.promoterhost.com I decided that I would ad a "More Info" link, which would open a new <TR>. So I asked around and finally worked out how to do it.

The result is at my test site here:

http://www.aesap.com

Now click "More Info" on the right (in FireFox). Look what happens. IE seems to understand my code - Yet again (of course). But pretty, prim and proper (good for nothing) FireFox "doooesn't geeet iiiit" (yet again).

Keep opening and closing the More Info link. What is FireFox thinking?

Can anyone help me to solve this, before I damage something?

FireFox sucks. It always did, always will. My code is "W3Ceee Vaaaalid" *rollseyes*.

What more does it want? Doesn't understand JavaScript now?

There's always something!

Stuff the W3C standards. IE wrote the standards 10 years ago. Maybe everyone should have just ran along with it, instead of trying to be stubborn, saying:

"Umm.. just a sec, as soon as I get my hand out of the back of my pants, to stop scratching my rear, I'll see if I can get a browser working from these so called "standards". Just give me ten years, and we'll go through things like Nutscrape and Mozilla and Firefox and drive all the webmasters totally insane for the next decade. Yeah that's a good idea."

Can everyone just go download the latest version of IE and be done with it? FFS!

MrLeN

[speed]

JavaScript (swap.js):

function HideandUNhideObj(ThisObj){
    if((nav = document.getElementById(ThisObj)).className == 'myHide')
        nav.className = 'myShow';
    else
        nav.className = 'myHide';
}

Remove the following from the style sheet:

#a100webspacecom,
#atspacecom,
#geocitiescom,
#hostravecom {
 display: none;
}

Add the following to the style sheet:

.myShow {
    visibility: visible;
}

.myHide {
    display: none;
}

For each of the <tr>s you want hidden add class="myHide" e.g.

<tr id="hostravecom" class="myHide">

That gets it working for me in both Firefox and IE6, I've not tried any other browsers, I'll leave that to you.

If you find it doesn't work then I might have forgotten to paste something here, so let me know.

Also this will not allow visitors to access the additional information if they have JS off, which might be something you need to think about.

Edit: I just tried Opera 8 and it seems to work in that as well.

[MrLeN]

THANK YOU!

You da man!

You da maaaan!

http://www.aesap.com/index2.html

MrLeN

[speed]

Glad to help, I like the odd interesting problem.

[MrLeN]

Well, just stick with me.

I middle name is OddInterestingProblem :)

Thanks again. Very much appreciated.

Now I can get on with the site.

MrLeN

[Evic]

In Firefox if you click the More Info link twice, it will show/hide the tr. Then if you click it again it loads the tr with a blank tr underneath it.

On a side note, what you are blaming on FF for not working isn't FF's problem. Your code is wrong, IE is just putting it's "mistake filter" in place and doing the right thing.

More often than not, I find IE's mistake filter messes my stuff up - which is why you should always do it correctly and not rely on that mistake filter.

Also, I use FF because it doesn't trust anyone. Even the newest update of IE has the CSS glow overflow bug, and Microsoft has said that buffer overflow will remain until the new IE is released. So, you have fun w/ that gaping hole into your system. I'll stick with FF. :)

And extensions are awesome too.

[MrLeN]

Ok genius, please point out exactly where my W3C compliant XHTML is wrong?

MrLeN

[wsmeyer]

Just because code is W3C compliant doesn't mean it isn't poorly written.

The way you originally had it you neglected the colspan in the <td> that appeared. IE assumed you wanted it there where FF will display it as you had presented it.

If you don't like FF that's your opinion and I have no problem with it, but please come up with a better reason than it won't try and fix poorly written code.

William.

[MrLeN]

You're both mad.

My code was compliant and the colspan "was" in place. I've been writing code for 6 years. I'm not so stupid to leave out a colspan and say "duh??".

I can't work out why it wasn't working, but the only change I made was to change the javascript, with the help of speed. Maybe he knows why it caused a problem in FireFox.

You're just one of those FireFox activists. Fancy coming into this thread, telling me that I had errors which I didn't have, just so you could accuse me of writing poor code.

My code is perfect. It's Firefox that isn't.

See. Look what I have now:

http://www.promoterhost.com

Isn't it pretty? And the code is A1. So go suck a rock.

MrLeN

[wsmeyer]

It's is pretty, it suits you perfectly...




What version of IE are we all on? What, no new browser ideas for four years??? “R-I-I-I-G-H-T!” In case you forgot, Microsoft’s original online strategy for MSN was to copy that other crappy closed network, AOL. Apple is not much better. Apple has spent five years trying to put the Nextstep Operating System I was selling back in 1995 underneath their pretty Mac interface.

William.

[MrLeN]

ROFLMAO - Good one.

Maybe you should become a graphic artist?

MrLeN

[wsmeyer]

Yeah, too bad that when you are done rolling on the floor and realize that is a screen shot OF YOUR WEBSITE you'll probably just edit your post.

William.

[MrLeN]

I'm gonna take a screenshot of your website too.

Just so you don't feel left out :)

MrLeN

[wsmeyer]

Please do! I welcome input on my website by you or anyone else.

Any opinion that starts out something like:

"I think this could have been done better..."

or

"I don't like the way you did this because..."

or

"Maybe you should try/do this..."

Will be appreciated and fully considered.

Any opinions that start out "this sucks" will simply be ignored.

William.

[MrLeN]

ok, now I have a new problem.

When I open the links that say "More Info"..

The page jumps back up to the top. That's going to be pretty sad when I have 100 links.

I think I have to place some anchors somewhere - or something. I'll see how I go. If I can't work it out I'll come back for help.

..and to tell people off, who try to tell me my code has errors "when it doesn't", just so they can suck rocks with all the other FF "rock scumm'ers", and people who lie about errors that aren't there and make up errors and fake screenshots to prove their reduntant points; as if they ever had any.

MrLeN

[MrLeN]

It's all good.

I can sort this one out myself :)

..just have to give the <a link..'s some names.

I might call them ffsux1, ffsux2, ffsux3 etc :)

MrLeN

[Evic]

A W3C compliancy check doesn't make sure your javascript is correct. Genius.

[MrLeN]

No shit shirlock!

That's exactly my point..

ESPECIALLY when FireFox is involved in the equation.

MrLeN

[Evic]

First of all, I'm not sure if the berating makes you feel like more of a man, but you're really not helping your situation out here. We are here to help, and that's what we are attempting to do.

Now, I'm not sure what your reply had to do with my post, so we'll just ignore that part.

You say your website is W3C compliant. That's all fine and dandy. Whatever application you are using to check that compliancy (whether it be an online scanner, a stand-alone app, whatever) does not check to make sure the logic within your javascript is correct. There's nothing in the world that can tell you if your logic is correct.

Just because something works in IE doesn't mean it is correct, and the same is for FF or any other browser. Your job as a web designer is to provide the most suitable solution to your customers/visitors, and the most suitable solution is to develop you website based on standards and accurate logic so that it works in all browsers.

I have seen thousands of Hide/Unhides and they work perfectly fine in IE, FF, and any other browser I try. It's not a problem with FF, it's a problem in your code.

[MrLeN]

Take another look.

http://www.promoterhost.com

It works fine now.

It was the JS.

MrLeN

[Evic]

That's what I told you from the beginning.

[mike]

If you don't like FF, that's fine (I'm a fan). Don't like IE? That's fine too.

I'm all for debating the merits of everyone's preferred browsers however a little less vitriol is in order.

[MrLeN]

Ok, I just had to go look up vitriol.

..I understand now.

I didn't mean to be vitreolus.

I just couldn't take it when I was told my code was wrong when it wasn't, for the sake of defending FireFox.

But I am getting better with my vitrialism and I promise to keep improving.

MrLeN

[Evic]

I wasn't necessarily defending Firefox, I could care less what anyone else uses as I develop my websites to work in all browsers.

I just couldn't take it when I was told my code was wrong when it wasn't, for the sake of defending FireFox.

You said 2 posts before:

It works fine now.

It was the JS.

Was it your code or was it not? I'm almost 100% confident it was as I've seen this sort of thing work numerous times in various browsers, FF included.

[jawn_tech]

I personally am torn in this thread. Aside from the site in question, in many (if not most) cases it is a code issue why things don't display properly. But I'm also a webmaster advocate in thinking that browser developers share the responsibility in making sure their browser displays properly written code, properly. Sometimes it does come down to a case of whether it's a broken site or a broken browser. Again, generally speaking. As for me, I don't loose sleep over display issues from a browser that only 1% of my traffic is coming from, if they were to arise... unless it truly is a code issue.

[icb01co2]

erm, I havent fully read all of these posts so im sorry if this has already been said but what does been W3C complient have to do with JavaScript?

If your script is working in IE and not in FF then your code is wrong. If you dont like FF then dont bother trying to get your code to work in it.

[MrLeN]

Evic,

I think we have a different understanding of the term code. When I say code, I'm referring to anything I see in the source. ie: The HTML or XHTML

If I am referring to the JavaScript, I'll say "JavaScript".

For example. If I was trying to help someone and I could see that there was a problem with the JavaScript, I'd say: "There's something wrong with the JavaScript". I wouldn't say:

In Firefox if you click the More Info link twice, it will show/hide the tr. Then if you click it again it loads the tr with a blank tr underneath it.

On a side note, what you are blaming on FF for not working isn't FF's problem. Your code is wrong, IE is just putting it's "mistake filter" in place and doing the right thing.

Note. You made this statement after speed had already suggested a fix, and I had thanked him, and he had said no problem.

It was while I was including this fix that yourself and wsmeyer decided to go on about the old code, providing me with screenshots and all. Hey; I knew it didn't work, which is exactly why I made this thread.

When I said:

Ok genius, please point out exactly where my W3C compliant XHTML is wrong?

I made the reply under the assumption that you had already read the posts which showed that the problem had already been solved. So how was I to know that you were referring to the JavaScript?

Again, that is why I said:

Ok genius, please point out exactly where my W3C compliant XHTML is wrong?

Then wsmeyer piped up with:

The way you originally had it you neglected the colspan in the <td> that appeared. IE assumed you wanted it there where FF will display it as you had presented it.

If you don't like FF that's your opinion and I have no problem with it, but please come up with a better reason than it won't try and fix poorly written code.

This was entirely incorrect. All my tr's were in place, just as they should have been. Any wonder in my next reply I said that you're both mad.

In other words, both yourself and wsmeyer had deviated from the topic and wanted to dwell on a problem that had been corrected, and I had false statements to contend with.

Now in my opinion, the JavaScript I had originally used should have worked in FireFox. But it didn't, so I had to find a new solution.

I knew it was the JavaScript when I first posted. Read my first post. You'll see that I had a very clear understanding that the JavaScript did not work in Firefox.

So why on earth you keep coming back here with "I told you so, I told you so" just doesn't make any sense to me.

Now I am really not trying to be vitreous. Maybe I have a deeper understanding of where people are coming from than most. But as far as I can see, you are not trying to be helpful. You are dead set on proving that you are "right". But in doing so, you are offering nothing that I have not already acknowledged or already know.

First of all, I'm not sure if the berating makes you feel like more of a man, but you're really not helping your situation out here. We are here to help, and that's what we are attempting to do.

I am not berating. I am intelligent enough to know when someone isn't sincere. In view of this, I was not appreciative of the responses that I got - after the problem had already been solved.

That's what I told you from the beginning.

This post really confused me. I stated that the problem was the JavaScript in my original thread post.

You just keep coming back to try and prove yourself right. Here you are again. What do you want me to do? I don't understand you. What?

The only sense I can make of your replies is that you want to defend FireFox. That's fine. I don't mind, but can you try and stick with logic? Then I wont get so confused and vitreous with you.

There's nothing in the world that can tell you if your logic is correct.

There's nothing wrong with my logic. It's superior, to be frank. I just have a problem thinking down to the level of people like you and I get a bit upset. For that, I am Sorry.

MrLeN

[icb01co2]

Yes, it is true your logic and you personally are "superior". Thank you for showing me the errors in my ways.

Personally when i use the word "code" I am not refering to HTML. As any idiot can learn HTML, and even it appear to make it validate (I think you mentioned that once or twice - well done).

But your right the people that made FF are idiots I mean it only a cross platform web browser its not like trying to solve the infinately difficult problem of a Hide/Unhide table row.

I see now that the problem with FF is its not idiot proof. Im sure you have the same distaste for in car child locks.

[MrLeN]

Originally Posted by icb01co2

Yes, it is true your logic and you personally are "superior". Thank you for showing me the errors in my ways.

Personally when i use the word "code" I am not refering to HTML. As any idiot can learn HTML, and even it appear to make it validate (I think you mentioned that once or twice - well done).

But your right the people that made FF are idiots I mean it only a cross platform web browser its not like trying to solve the infinately difficult problem of a Hide/Unhide table row.

I see now that the problem with FF is its not idiot proof. Im sure you have the same distaste for in car child locks.

Ok. I am going to practice not being vitreous.

Here goes.. deep breath...

Thankyou for your reply.

Your comments are very much appreciated.

I'll take them into consideration.

MrLeN

[Evic]

Was it your code or was it not? I'm almost 100% confident it was as I've seen this sort of thing work numerous times in various browsers, FF included.

I wasn't saying "told you so" I was geniunely curious whether that was the problem or not.

On a side note, I've spent way to much time with this thread and should have stopped a long time ago. Not looking at it anymore.

[MrLeN]

Originally Posted by Evic

That's what I told you from the beginning.

..looks like a "told you so" to me.

MrLeN

[jaca]

On to another problem we are encountering with Firefox (1.7) and Mozilla (1.7 I think).

Even after reinstalling RealPlayer 10 after installing both these browsers, Cannot get .ram or.rm to work.

Firefox opens the player and evokes a "Bad MetaData" header.

Mozilla...the player just sits there and does nothing...as does Opera (7.1)

All of these audios work fine in IE

Thanks in advance for any ideas

Jan

[Evic]

Are these .ram or .rm files being linked to, or are they embed'd within a page?

If embed'd ensure you are using a W3C compliant embed tag. If you design your site with Frontpage, there is a 99% chance you are not.

[ADAM Web Design]

Originally Posted by Evic

Are these .ram or .rm files being linked to, or are they embed'd within a page?

If embed'd ensure you are using a W3C compliant embed tag. If you design your site with Frontpage, there is a 99% chance you are not.

That implies that there's a 1% chance that the code is W3C compliant and correct. With FrontPage, that's a serious leap of faith on your part. :)

Seriously...while I don't agree with the way MrLeN went about presenting his problem, I do agree with the idea that FF is not the knight in shining armour among web browsers that some claim it is.

Here's why:

• I've coded things with IE and FF side-by-side (to show no favouritism), and IE will render it as intended whereas FireFox often requires a CSS hack. This may be because I've coded web pages long before FF was even a gleam in some geeks' eyes, but this is something I've noticed.
  
  I'm going to start documenting specific instances, since it's happened so often, and at some point I will prepare a report outlining my own findings.
  
  And to wsmeyer: your whole idea of "poorly written and standards-compliant" does not hold water. The whole point of standards is that they're meant to be met or exceeded. If code meets or exceeds those standards, and it's "poorly written", then the standards are too low. And if the standards are too low, then why do we as designers have to use them as guidelines for building websites?
  
• FF uses 52 MB of RAM, and has a safe mode. It's a web browser. Its job is to render web pages. Why the hell does it need half as much RAM as PhotoShop to do that? No one has yet come up with an answer to this.
  
• The whole basic flaw in the Open Source movement FF is based on. If it's Open Source code, that means everyone has access to it, including people that shouldn't.

Anyway, having said all that, speed long ago solved the issue (as he does quite well with about 95% of the really tough stuff) and so it's a dead issue.

The only reason I made any comments at all is because someone said to find reasons other than "poorly written code". So...there are some reasons.

[Evic]

FF uses 52 MB of RAM, and has a safe mode. It's a web browser. Its job is to render web pages. Why the hell does it need half as much RAM as PhotoShop to do that? No one has yet come up with an answer to this.

When I first started using FF I asked the same question. The reason FF seems as if it's using so much more RAM than IE is because the majority of IE is nothing more than calls to explorer.exe where the true processing occurs.

On my system currently I have FF open w/ 8 tabs and 13 extensions it takes 89MB of RAM.

IE opened and pointed at the webproworld.com website takes 21.5MB.

explorer.exe is taking 47MB.

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not saying IE is using all 47MB of explorer.exe's footprint, but that is the reason that IE loads so quickly on initial start and has a smaller footprint. Because the majority of IE is always loaded on your machine, otherwise Windows Explorer, your taskbar, task manager, etc. wouldn't work as they all rely on explorer.exe.

[MuNKyonline]

Bringing out a Firefox o/s will solve all of this! Then we can say goodbye to Internet Explorer lol.

Joking aside...

I don't see how anyone has these problems with Firefox. Every page I make works in both browsers, sure they look a little different spacing-wise sometimes but nothing too bad!