Mozilla Adds Undetectable document.all Support, Part of New Novell Linux Distribution?

Friday July 23rd, 2004

Jacob writes: "Mozilla builds starting tomorrow will now support an undetectable version of document.all. This will help with sites that blindly use document.all in DHTML scripts. The support should also show up in the next Firefox release. More information is available in the bug."

An important thing to remember is that this will not break existing scripts that check for document.all, it will only work in cases where the script assumes it is running in IE, and does not first check to be sure that document.all works. If document.all is checked for, Mozilla will continue to block its use and act as it always has.

Update: The Register is reporting that Novell will soon be coming out with a slimmed down version of SuSE Linux targeted at exterprise desktops. The interesting part of this story is that they will be shipping a browser that "supported IE6 extensions, making it possible to access IE-only websites." Time will tell if this new support for document.all is related to the Novell news.

#1 Good Move

by TonyG

Friday July 23rd, 2004 2:25 PM

yet another sound strategic move to make Mozilla better than the rest. If that means a certain amount of rendering warts then so be it

#2 Reply

by Racer

Friday July 23rd, 2004 2:36 PM

I assume there is a pref to disable this feature...correct?

#32 Pref

by ndeakin

Saturday July 24th, 2004 5:59 AM

The pref to turn it off is 'browser.dom.document.all.disabled'

#3 Even better

by zeur00

Friday July 23rd, 2004 2:57 PM

I know i sound pathetic but the fact is that i unfortunately have to use daily sites that aren't corectly coded for web standards nor mozilla. Some of those sites detect document.all and if not present simply reply with a annoying message of 'browser not supported' or so. Others, decide to show a downgraded interface if they don't detect ie (for no apperent reason except lack of evangelization/documention or developper lazines). So i was thinking maybe there can be a way (preferably available in the interface, or -if not possible- a preference) through whitch i could enable a complete ie-stealth mode (user agent, document.all & other hacks) on a per site basis so as to be able to finnaly close ie for everything else except except windows update.

#7 Re: Even better

by zachariah

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:12 PM

I'd look for (request) an extension be made to do this, rather than having it built in.

#51 Re: Even better

by mwood

Monday July 26th, 2004 11:12 AM

Maybe next time such a wart must be added, *some* kind of notice should be given to the end-user? I agree that popping a dialog is too intrusive, but wouldn't it help evangelism a bit to just post a Mr. Yuck face or some such on the status bar whenever a crutch for nonstandard junk is activated? It won't slow down anyone who doesn't care.

#4 Yay!

by arielb

Friday July 23rd, 2004 2:57 PM

"First do no harm' more websites that work under firefox means that more people will keep firefox

#5 This sounds good

by WillyWonka

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:00 PM

This sounds good, but now I can see people saying "Great, now I don't have to detect anything!" and they'll just go ahead and use document.all.

#8 Re: This sounds good

by zachariah

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:13 PM

This is along the lines that I am worried.

Are we now rewarding bad coding on websites, just like IE does, which helped get us into this mess to begin with?

#10 Re: This sounds good

by mlefevre

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:23 PM

I guess it's possible, but that'd be pretty silly. They don't have to detect anything anyway - IE 5+ supports the standard getelementbyid method of doing this as well as document.all, so people can use the standard way without bothering with detection. It'd only make a difference if they wanted to support IE 4.

#11 Re: This sounds good

by bmason

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:26 PM

See comment 9 of the bug. The point is that if you don't detect and just assume document.all, Mozilla will not do anything for you.

#12 Re: Re: This sounds good

by bmason

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:27 PM

Don't mind me, I just said the exact opposite of that comment. It's Friday.

#6 @WillyWonka

by TonyG

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:06 PM

Possibly - I personally would never target code at one browser or another and I would like to think that neither would most other developers. However, I really don't know. I think self respecting devs wouldnt, but I do not know how much they account for. A lot fo the stuff I see coded for IE only is a few years old, which makes me thing the cowboys behind the code are now estate agents or whatever they moved to next following the dot com bubble bursting.

So, I would hazard a perhaps optimistic guess that devs these days at least code switch on document.getElementById ...

#29 Re: @WillyWonka

by vcs2600

Friday July 23rd, 2004 10:29 PM

Here's how most "web developers" write their javascript -- (1) Find site that does something similar (2) Steal their javascript.

Consequentially there's a lot of ancient, obfuscated, poorly-coded stuff that keeps going around and around and appearing on new sites. (I hate to admit it, but I recently was working with some crap that sniffed IE3 for the Mac.)

Trying to explain "standards compliance" to people who don't even know what the code is doing in the first place is a futile effort. 90% of these guys have 0 programming skills, much less the ability to discern such subtleties. Better to just make it work and let them live on in their ignorance.

#9 As for Novell/SuSE...

by marcoos

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:20 PM

I remember seeing some Opera banners on SuSE webpage (saying something like "Download SuSE's favorite browser"), so it's possible that the IE-compatible browser The Register is mentioning, is Opera.

#13 just great

by kaldari

Friday July 23rd, 2004 3:56 PM

Great, now no one has to write standards compliant HTML! That was sarcasm, BTW.

#14 This smacks of Mozilla diverging from its course

by Dracos

Friday July 23rd, 2004 4:01 PM

One of Mozilla's main goals is standards compliance. While this addition may mean that a few sloppily coded sites will allow Moz/FF users in, it plays into the warping of the standards that MS uses to maintain their marketshare. Just because Opera (iirc) implements document.all doesn't mean anyone else should, even if it's just a stub to allow users to experience deeper malfunctions in sites foolishly coded to IE. Moz and Opera should instead present users with warning prompts saying "this site is not compliant with web standards and may behave unexpectedly."

#16 Much more than that

by danielwang

Friday July 23rd, 2004 4:21 PM

a more comprehensive article can be found at

Mozilla does display a warning, though only silently in the background. If there is a need, I'm sure someone will write a extension for the bloody prompt. However, most users DO NOT care. And even if you do, you will probably get annoyed; if you are looking for something for work and you are busy, you probably don't want to be bothered with what seems to be trivial at that time.

As I see it, this is a practical compromise. And a happy one.

#18 Re: This smacks of Mozilla diverging from its cour

by zeur00

Friday July 23rd, 2004 4:32 PM

Of course it should popup with a message as to show and educate the user about the unfunctionality in the site :D (the current patch includes a warning in the javascript console, but something more visible might be better). But at the same time the patch must take into account the fact that for instance mainstream application (like for instance implementations of mySAP Portal) don't want to render in mozilla and it's better IMHO to fool the application and make it work in mozilla (with warnings and all) than force the user to open an ie just for that task.

The best approach would be IMHO to show the site in the default standard compliant mode but popup-up a dialog on first instance of document.all or other ie-only behaviour and allow the user to see a the site in a complete ie-emulation mode (not just document.all, something more along the lines of, so that functionality is not lost and user still have an incentive to complain to their service provider about standard compliancy support.

Just my 2 eurocents

#24 Re: Re: This smacks of Mozilla diverging from its

by martrootamm

Friday July 23rd, 2004 6:52 PM

A pop-up is too annoying, because it requires the user to switch attention to that one and then "confirm" that s/he has seen and read it and press some button to get rid of it.

I suggest that it would be more sensible instead to make use of that yellow "information/notification bar", which can be seen in upcoming versions of IE when it is supposed to block pop-up windows, because then it is less intrusive towards the user.

#26 How views changed

by martrootamm

Friday July 23rd, 2004 7:06 PM

In the ole good early days of the web, when there were not yet so many *stupid* web site surfers, it wasn't the _browser_ that was at fault, but the _site_, which was at fault when something was wrong. Now it's the other way around: stupid users were made to think that it's the browser that is at fault when a site doesn't work — probably by ignorant web developers.

So, here I'm just reiterating: that back then, _a site didn't work with browser_, now _the browser doesn't work with the site_. I think there should be some research into how web users began thinking in this flawed a way. Why it is the fault of ignorant web developers — well, it all was probably so in the beginning, too, but I still wonder how the mindset changed.

#15 Yellow bar it?

by guice

Friday July 23rd, 2004 4:16 PM

Wouldn't it had been smarter to just display a small yellow bar, like it does the pup-up blocking in Fx, to say that this site uses document.all which is not a DOM supported method and that some feature will not work until the website is correctly updated?

Or something of that nature.

I agree it's a bad idea to have this within the Mozilla builds. It seems to go the wrong direction in giving a user a faulse sense of compliance. No longer will they just run document.all and wonder why it's not working. Now they'll just use it w/out understanding that it's not correct syntax (there is no DOM/DOM2 validators unfortunately).

#19 Re: Yellow bar it?

by willll

Friday July 23rd, 2004 4:46 PM

> Wouldn't it had been smarter to just display a small yellow bar, like it does the pup-up blocking in Fx, to say that this site uses document.all which is not a DOM supported method and that some feature will not work until the website is correctly updated?

This is the worst of both worlds: support an unstandard extension of the DOM and create more unfriendlyness towards normal users. Getting rid of unfriendness by supporting a few dynamic pages was the point of the change. Why on earth would a non-geek user care if a website used document.all without a standard alternative? They wouldn't. At all. Alerting them of it would be a waste of their time and make it seem like Firefox was a geek browser and not for them. It is a very different situation with pop-up blocking. If Firefox was a browser only for web developers, it would be a different story, but it isn't, and I'm sure this change was made to attract people who aren't web developers.

> It seems to go the wrong direction in giving a user a faulse sense of compliance.

A typical user has no sense of web standard compliance so it can't be decieved. If a web developer cares about compliance they will look at the JS console where we report this as a warning or error or something.

#23 Re: 1.7

by ccurtis

Friday July 23rd, 2004 6:35 PM

> A typical user has no sense of web standard compliance so it can't be decieved. If a web developer cares about compliance they will look at the JS console where we report this as a warning or error or something.

If a web developer cared about compliance, they wouldn't be using document.all and if they did they would at least have the decency to sniff it out. I think the user should be warned that the site uses proprietary and broken formats and that any oddities experienced are due to this and not bugs in Mozilla.

#37 Re: Re: 1.7

by jgraham

Saturday July 24th, 2004 4:07 PM

"I think the user should be warned that the site uses proprietary and broken formats"

Why stop there? Why not pop the annoying bar up for every page that uses another nonstandard feature in implemented in the Mozilla DOM (there are many). How about using it if we render the page in quirks mode? What about if the page doesn't validate? Defines accesskeys that conflict with application keys? Has out-of-order headings?

With enough persistance, we can probably get the yellow bar to appear for almost every site on the net.

#38 Yellow bar it!

by interra0

Saturday July 24th, 2004 4:53 PM

I'm voting to include yellowbar on every issue of incorrect website behavior. I'd include these links on the yellowbar as well as explanation text:

* "Javascript Console". Link should bring up Javascript Console which should have all incidents logged in "Messages" or "Warnings" category. Or should have separate category "Standards Compliance".

* "report to webmaster" linked to e-mail "mailto:webmaster@<domain.ext>". The link should also fill in the "Standards Compliance" messages (mentioned above) related to the domain in question in the body of the message. Letter could be ready to press "Send".

These two items above together with 4% Mozilla browser market share can be best evangelization campaign ever. Hope Mozilla Lawers would check my suggestions for legitimacy as it is somewhat obtrusive suggestion.



P.S. If people like the idea I'll fill it in the bugzilla and let you know for bug# to vote for :)

#41 Re: Yellow bar it!

by arielb

Saturday July 24th, 2004 6:38 PM

yellow is for security. pick another color :)

#48 I vote for blue

by GuruJ

Monday July 26th, 2004 12:00 AM

A blue "information" bar with an exclamation bar and white text.


[!] This site may not work properly with Mozilla. _Click here_ to report this error to the site webmaster (_More..._)

The _More..._ link should be right-aligned with a separate <hbox>. Clicking on the link should load the JavaScript Console and a Mozilla Help Item. _Click here_ works as detailed for "report to webmaster" in the parent post.

#17 So what's the point?

by gmiller

Friday July 23rd, 2004 4:24 PM

Uh... So what's the point? Is this to support a half dozen geocities sites? It's been a long time since I ran across a site in the wild that only supported the IE4 way of doing things.

#20 document.all - good idea

by robdogg

Friday July 23rd, 2004 5:44 PM

It not being a standard notwithstanding, I always thought that document.all was a great idea. And the only reason, NS didn't adopt it is because MS came up with it first. document.all gives you access to the collection of all controls on the page - very intuitive.

#28 Re: document.all - good idea

by vcs2600

Friday July 23rd, 2004 10:18 PM

document.all predates getElementById(). Microsoft found a problem with the W3C DOM, fixed it, and then the W3C chose a different solution (method rather than collection).

Because of its legacy value, it probably should have never been excluded from Mozilla. However once, Mozilla left it out, web developers started using it incorrectly to sniff the browser. (This never worked as intended, due to IE/Mac and Opera.)

I agree that it was probably done mostly for political reasons. Glad they found an elegant solution to the 'sniffing' problem while still maintaining legacy compatibility.

#21 Not good enough.

by MillenniumX

Friday July 23rd, 2004 5:48 PM

This is a dark day for standards. It might have been tolerable if Mozilla displayed an error exhorting users to contact the Webmaster of a broken site. But instead there's basically no error message at all, because let's face it: no one checks the JavaScript Console except for developers. I don't mean to knock the JavaScript Console -it's ridiculously useful for Web development- but an error displayed only there is an error which may as well not be displayed at all.

So essentially, we're just rewarding poor development practices here. This should have been made an optional extension at best; rolling it in has just slammed yet another nail in the coffin of the W3C.

#25 Re: Not good enough.

by martrootamm

Friday July 23rd, 2004 6:57 PM

And which large corporate entity, in your humble mind, was the most prominent slammer (how ironic) of nails into the W3C's coffin?

#40 where were you all this time

by arielb

Saturday July 24th, 2004 6:37 PM

The W3C was made irrelevant years ago when IE took over 95% of the browser market. Now IE is the standard that most web designers code for and when people trying firefox come across a favorite site that works in IE and doesn't "work" in firefox, they will simply ditch firefox. that's the reality. W3 standards are for the future when enough people switch to firefox. but they *won't* switch if their old sites don't work

#42 Re: Not good enough.

by ajaksu

Saturday July 24th, 2004 6:38 PM

Nailing W3C's coffin seems to be all the rage in Mozilla projects lately, IMHO.

#22 FYI, SuSE is now SUSE n/t

by Kovu

Friday July 23rd, 2004 6:12 PM


#27 don't see how it hurts

by stylo

Friday July 23rd, 2004 9:13 PM

I don't see how it would harm coding practices in the future. No one is not going to stop object detection because of this, otherwise their scripts will soon have problems a few lines into them (unless very simple AND every browser did the same). Even then, would you change how you switch from getElementById and rely on this? No.

I don't see this helps very much because:

1) relatively few scripts out there go right into it without a document.all check 2) of those that do, once you get past document.all, you're likely to run into other ms-only js anyway and get stuck

Then again, it will help a few gimpy legacy form check scripts and such out, so why not? And guess what? My cc processor just came out with a page [b]last week[/b] to modify how their page appears to your customers and here's the type of dumbass code they wrote:

function Link1() { document.colorform.hexval1.value=document.colorform.hexval.value; document.all("font1").style.color=document.colorform.hexval.value; return true; }

So, there ya go.

#30 Crazy idea for an extension

by dezydery

Saturday July 24th, 2004 12:48 AM

How about an extension that on seeing document.all used issues the following extra HTTP request:

Head / HTTP/1.1 Host: User-Agent: Bad Code Deteced On Your Site - see for details

#34 Re: Crazy idea for an extension

by Prognathous

Saturday July 24th, 2004 10:23 AM

Why an extension? This would actually fit nice in the core Mozilla. How about opening a bug for this?


#39 Re: Re: Crazy idea for an extension

by interra0

Saturday July 24th, 2004 5:04 PM

See above. Visitors e-mailing webmaster together with User-Agent active mangling should be effective, as they will be covering two types of webmasters.

1) those who has webmaster@<domain.ext> email.

2) those who care to check websites stats (and are analyzing User-Agents).

Both ways are effective, however first is more obtrusive thus more effective!


#47 Re: Crazy idea for an extension

by sanderg

Sunday July 25th, 2004 1:52 PM

This is what I use with MSIE when I have to:

Windows Registry Editor Version 5.00

[HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SOFTWARE\Microsoft\Windows\CurrentVersion\Internet Settings\User Agent\Post Platform] "Please remove browser specific support from your website"=""

#31 Depending on rendering mode?

by vramdal

Saturday July 24th, 2004 5:45 AM

I certainly hope document.all will only be available in quirks mode.

#33 Reply

by Dizzle

Saturday July 24th, 2004 8:45 AM

It would be interesting to know what percentage of websites use document.all?

When I first jumped onto Mozilla years ago, I thought they should have a document.all conversion to document.getElementById but then I realized the value of supporting only standards. If this was the route we were eventually going to take we should have supported document.all and document.layers from Moz1.0 we would have a lot more users by now.

#35 Re: Reply

by bzbarsky

Saturday July 24th, 2004 11:03 AM

Do you have any idea how much work _full_ support for document.all (and hence the rest of the IE DOM, if it were actually to be supported) and document.layers would have taken?

Just document.layerN.document.write() would be a huge mess, to say nothing of the rest.

#44 Reply

by Dizzle

Sunday July 25th, 2004 8:44 AM

I can only imagine how much work it would be.

I just had an idea. What if there was an option in Mozilla that was turned off by default but when turned on it would send back the url of any site that uses document.all to a Mozilla database then the evangalists can start emailing those webmasters to update their site.

#46 Re: Reply

by mlefevre

Sunday July 25th, 2004 9:43 AM

I think that's solving the wrong part of the problem. We already know about a large number of sites that need evangelism, and it's easy to find more without doing anything automated with the browser. The problem is a lack of people to do the emailing...

#36 Supporting IE quirks

by dtobias

Saturday July 24th, 2004 2:48 PM

At the rate Mozilla is adding support for quirks, misfeatures, proprietary junk, and so forth, from IE (and the forums, newsgroups, and Bugzilla continue to be full of people continuing a drumbeat in favor of further moves in that direction), if someday Mozilla actually does win the browser war and become the majority browser, it won't actually matter; Web authors around the world won't be using correct, standards-compliant code any more than they now are, as they continue to put out sloppy tag soup that depends on all the quirks of the current popular browsers, in which category Mozilla will then fall. And, if some future Mozilla version were actually to attempt to promote greater standards compliance by *removing* some of those quirks, everybody would blame the browser, not the badly coded sites, just like they do now; they'll tell their friends "Don't use Firefox 2.0 Beta... it's badly broken. It doesn't even show those neato blinking marquees in correctly! Hopefully, they'll fix it by the final release... it's a shame, because Firefox used to be such a great browser!"

#45 Reply

by Dizzle

Sunday July 25th, 2004 8:46 AM

There is a huge problem with the standards. I've tried to code sites in Strict HTML 4.0 you miss a lot of important features like link targets. And if you put certain tags in the wrong spot, like title in the body. Then you won't validate.

It's like pulling teeth to get a fully standard compliant website. Then when you have one IE wont align things properly.

#55 Well don't put <title> in <body> then

by leafdigital

Thursday August 19th, 2004 8:33 AM

I mean why would you do that? Are you completely incompetent? No, you just made a mistake, right? So isn't it nice that validating is pointing it out for you?

(As for HTML strict not supporting target=; that's what HTML transitional is for.)

Not that I validate all my pages or anything, but putting <title> inside <body>? For f's sake.

By the way I think all the clamour about this being a disaster that Mozilla will actually show like 4 more IE-only pages without complaint... get real. This does no harm at all to Web standards. Everyone who knows anything about Javascript already knows about getElementById. Those Web developers who don't know anything about Javascript aren't going to learn because one browser they probably don't use either a) displays a nasty icon in the statusbar, b) displays a weird blue box thing off the top of the page, c) displays an irritating popup, or d) momentarily electrifies their mouse.


#43 hah!

by buff

Sunday July 25th, 2004 6:38 AM

hah! I knew they would add it eventually. It doesn't really bother me. I would rather have mozilla work all the time even on crappy sites than have to explain while web designers don't know how to code to standards. The end user doesn't care about standards they just want it to work, from my experience.

#49 Carefully done, it is a good idea.

by fedetxf

Monday July 26th, 2004 5:16 AM

I think it is nice for the mozilla team to take be proactive with dead sites from the NN4/IE4 era. These sites/their developpers are dead, fired or just never learned the new stuff after they discovered the web. This kind of features must be adopted with care, because the main focus and the area where mozilla will mostlý benefit is making people code for standards.

#50 Not An Ideal Thing To Have To Do...

by cpewebmonkey

Monday July 26th, 2004 10:50 AM

...but right now Mozilla/Firefox just doesn't have the market share to leverage developers to use standards-compliant code. Get the market share first (which I think the adoption of some document.all support is geared towards), then you have enough clout to dictate how developers build their sites. Think about it. It's what Netscape used to do when they dominated the browser world, and it's what IE does now.

Imagine if Gecko-based browsers could reclaim 10+% of the market again, THEN slowly phase out document.all support in future versions. The potential that at least 1 out of ever 10 people who visit your site may not be able to utilize it properly will go a long way towards driving developers to code for standards than all the "it's the right thing to do" speeches we can give. But before any of that can happen, you have to get the product into the hands of a wider market.

#52 Hall Of Shame

by joharilanng

Monday July 26th, 2004 7:34 PM

What if Mozilla was to host a "Hall Of Shame" for sites that didn't comply to standards? The Mozilla browsers could automatically detect bad sites and provide this feedback back to the Mozilla servers. As a web designer I think I would freak if I saw one of my sites up there.

By doing this, end-users aren't bothered in the slightest, but we - the "guardians of web standards" (and anyone else interested) - could see the bad apples out there and take whatever action was required.

#53 Hall Of Shame

by joharilanng

Monday July 26th, 2004 7:47 PM

What if Mozilla was to host a "Hall Of Shame" for sites that didn't comply to standards? The Mozilla browsers could automatically detect bad sites and provide this feedback back to the Mozilla servers. As a web designer I think I would freak if I saw one of my sites up there.

By doing this, end-users aren't bothered in the slightest, but we - the "guardians of web standards" (and anyone else interested) - could see the bad apples out there and take whatever action was required.

#54 OK.... It is good

by jongampark

Wednesday July 28th, 2004 6:14 PM

A few years ago, I suggested IE JScript compatibility for the mozilla browsers. At that time, folks at the Mozilla responded like this. "Why should we support non-standard browser technology?" It was so aggressive.

I didn't like the IE, but why people keep using the IE was that many popular sites were written in IE JScript only. You should understand the importance of Korea market in IT world. We call Korea "MS nation". However although MS depencency is comparably lower than Korea, many sites in the US also depend on IE only JScript. So, for marketting-oriented strategy, it is neccessary to make the Mozilla work with that kinds of script also.

Think of the MS strategy. They first step into standard technology or popular technology, for example Javascript. They increase their power in that field, and slowly change and add some modifications that other browsers can't use. Then.. suddenly.... many sites depend on their technology. So, other browsers can't be used for browsing such sites.

I'm glad to hear that now the mozilla can support document.all.

If you want to go further, why don't you visit sites like,,,, etc?

#56 Can I use if(document.all)?

by pavan

Thursday July 28th, 2005 9:27 AM

Hello friends, I am relatively new to java scripting and I read in few of the postings that document.all is disabled in latest version of mozilla. I have a question regarding this. Can I use if(document.all) condition while scripting to perform any action? Say to display some text in iframe... If not, I guess I need to define a div and use document.getElementById. Is that right?

#57 addition to an old topic

by rt2

Wednesday November 16th, 2005 5:23 PM

This is a mostly a pretty silly conversation. People want to use browsers that work with the sites that are already out there. When people on here say "standards," I have to laugh. INTERNET EXPLORER --IS-- the standard. Enough with all the holier-than-thou idealistic standards stuff. Mozilla/Gecko/Firefox ought to support the theoretical standards as much as possible, but it ABSOLUTELY HAS TO support the REAL ONES. A "standard" is not what some acronym-having organization says it is. It's what people actually use. If the EWRDGFW organization says that Betamax video tapes are the video media standard, it doesn't make it so. Nobody loves Internet Explorer. But it is the standard. Mozilla/Firefox are trying to catch up, and doing a pretty good job. #2 has to adapt to #1. It's always been that way. And wishing it wasn't doesn't change a thing; some people need to get over themselves.

p.s. I haven't followed the whole recent conversation on this topic, but if Mozilla really is going back and forth between supporting doc.all that is the worst thing they can do. I tested it out in a recent version of Firefox and the support does seem to be there -- as it should be. And it's also silly to claim that there are anything remotely approaching elegant standards for HTML. The whole thing is a huge hodge-podge of various languages, standards, and approaches anyway. There is no one elegant all-encompassing standard out there; a browser's job is just to properly render webpages, and that's it. For most people on this planet, "properly" means "the same way Internet Explorer renders them." HTML "standards" are important, but so are IE standards. If Microsoft decided the day should have 25 hours, they could win a bunch of followers; and we're only talking about some small subset of HTML here.

#58 addition to an old topic

by hannodb

Thursday May 8th, 2008 3:53 AM

I signed up just to say that rt2's post is just about the best post I've read on browser compatibility so far. I agree 100%.

I've been coding for 7 years now, at 3 different companies. At the first two companties. we coded blissfully unaware of the issues of browser compatibility. We use IE, like more than 70% of other people, and if it works in IE, we were happy. It is the job of the browser to display whatever we code, and IE is the standard. Getting the program to work flawlessly is enough of an effort in IE, without having to worry about other wannabe browsers and their "standards".

If Mozilla wants to overtake IE in the market, it must be able to do everything IE can do, AND MORE, not less. I like my code be neat and maintainable just as much as the next guy, and therefore, I don't want to litter my code with if statements, and write the same code a hundred different ways, just because the creators of some browsers have delusions of grandure, and believe everyone should conform to THEIR way of doing things. It's not going to happen, so adapt or die. If 70% of the users used Mozilla, then Mozilla could dictate all they want, but for now, they need to comply with the standards set by IE.