NOTHING EVER FUCKING WORKS THE WAY IT SHOULD IN IE, THE PIECE OF SHIT

this applies moreso to IE6 than IE7

7/19/2007 9:20:03 AM

the browser was around for quite a while - you don't think it might be a personal problem?

7/19/2007 9:21:02 AM

IE6 4 life!

7/19/2007 11:07:49 AM

*shrugs*

I've never had any problems with it.

7/19/2007 11:15:54 AM

fine

disable an option tag or fill a select tag with the innerhtml js command

OH THATS RIGHT YOU CANT

gotta change everything for the retarded cousin of browsers

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 11:23 AM. Reason : it's bad when safari plays nicer than ie6 ]

7/19/2007 11:22:51 AM

Quote :

"or fill a select tag with the innerhtml js command OH THATS RIGHT YOU CANT"

You shouldn't be doing that anyway.

7/19/2007 11:29:11 AM

i agree with this thread

YEARS ago, i hated firefox, but that was because my coding was sub-par...nowadays, IE just pisses the hell out of me because it can't seem to read code correctly (and yes, i'm sure my code is correct)

AND...agreed, it's almost embarrassing when safari performs better than IE

7/19/2007 12:08:22 PM

web standards are for fags.

7/19/2007 12:24:43 PM

i still code with regards to a web-safe palette!

7/19/2007 12:30:05 PM

all the browsers need to get together, hug it out, and agree on some goddamn standards

7/19/2007 1:36:59 PM

Look dude, stop trying to be original and do what Stein says.

You don't have the mental capacity to go out on a limb.

7/19/2007 1:37:53 PM

ID 10 T error?

7/19/2007 1:47:23 PM

IE1 FTW!

7/19/2007 3:05:16 PM

^haha back in the days of Spyglass Mosaic. Think they got rid of that by version 3 or 4.

7/19/2007 3:22:09 PM

Quote :

"YEARS ago, i hated firefox, but that was because my coding was sub-par...nowadays, IE just pisses the hell out of me because it can't seem to read code correctly (and yes, i'm sure my code is correct)"

I'd like to point out that, in BigMan157's case, IE isn't acting wrong, so much as it just isn't allowing him to be lazy

7/19/2007 3:47:19 PM

oh, bullshit. everything about coding for MS is allowing the "programmer" to be lazy. and they have every right to be angry.

7/19/2007 3:56:14 PM

Except not in this case. At all.

7/19/2007 4:12:39 PM

loook at me i made a program with a web browser in it!

7/19/2007 4:20:33 PM

innerHTML is not only faster in many cases than using DOM methods, but variations in browser implementation also often make using innerHTML easier and more reliable

and yes, i realize that this particular thread describes browser implementation making innerHTML difficult and less reliable, but in general, innerHTML is not always the wrong approach. as with all coding, there are pros and cons to each approach. it's not as black and white as you make it appear

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 4:23 PM. Reason : internet tuff guys]

7/19/2007 4:22:08 PM

fuck ms and fuck the jews am i right

7/19/2007 4:29:32 PM

you said it!

7/19/2007 4:30:27 PM

hey i almost just got fired wanna know why

i accidentally inserted a goddamned excel spreadsheet into a database instead of a table

7/19/2007 4:34:27 PM

Quote :

" Mozilla Foundation Security Advisory 2007-23 Title: Remote code execution by launching Firefox from Internet Explorer Impact: Critical Announced: July 17, 2007 Reporter: Greg MacManus and Billy Rios Products: Firefox and Thunderbird Fixed in: Firefox 2.0.0.5 and Thunderbird 2.0.0.5 Description Internet Explorer calls registered URL protocols without escaping quotes and may be used to pass unexpected and potentially dangerous data to the application that registers that URL Protocol. The vulnerability is exposed when a user browses to a malicious web page in Internet Explorer and clicks on a specially crafted link. That link causes Internet Explorer to invoke another Windows program via the command line and then pass that program the URL from the malicious webpage without escaping the quotes. Firefox and Thunderbird are among those which can be launched, and both support a "-chrome" option that could be used to run malware. Note: Other Windows applications can be called in this way and also manipulated to execute malicious code. This fix only prevents Firefox and Thunderbird from accepting bad data. This patch does not fix the vulnerability in Internet Explorer. Workaround Mozilla highly recommends using Firefox to browse the web to prevent attackers from exploiting this problem in Internet Explorer. References https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=384384CVE-2007-3670 "

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 6:36 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2007 6:35:44 PM

point?

7/19/2007 6:44:36 PM

if(document.all) alert("I hate you.");
else alert("<3");

and innerHTML is faster in this occasion rather than having to count the children, remove all the children, and create new children via DOM

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 8:08 PM. Reason : when i say childNodes i don't want grandchildren you goddamn function]

7/19/2007 8:03:58 PM

IE for life. I've never had a single problem with it. In two weeks of trying FireFox, I experienced no less than four separate instances of things not working properly, including:
- A JavaScript applet went into an infinite loop and continually refreshed the secure content
- A failure to initialize Flash even after proper install...why don't they bundle it and make it native??
- other two were smaller things, not necessarily FF's fault

Internet Explorer performed all of the above perfectly fine without any tweaking required.

I am now leaving this thread, as it will ultimately, like all tech feuds, boil down to "yes it is", "no it isn't."

7/19/2007 8:06:25 PM

the only thing i hate about FF is the height:100% CSS bug

oh, and the fact that it renders text the ugliest of all the browsers installed on my machine

7/19/2007 8:09:51 PM

Quote :

"point?"

the point is, MSIE has known flaws that can be exploited to run arbitrary malicious code on your machine. most of their flaws are due to their willful disregard for adhering to any kind of coding standards. the fact that IE is so ubiquitous, makes it far more likely to be the subject of such attacks.

now if you trust MS to get to it and fix it when they get to it, then fine.

but yall have to excuse me for not wanting to deal with that kind of product.

FF is a much better browser in all regards.




[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 8:14 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2007 8:14:04 PM

Quote :

"Workaround Mozilla highly recommends using Firefox to browse the web to prevent attackers from exploiting this problem in Internet Explorer."

hahaha why is this funny?

7/19/2007 8:22:05 PM

The fact that Microsoft left IE6 stagnate for so long by not supporting PNG images with alpha channels is just amazing. What a nightmare the lack of PNG support caused web designers. Sigh.

7/19/2007 8:33:33 PM

im with you bigman, IE sucks hard.
MS needs to following the dang standards.

firefox's forms suck too. and yes i know about firefoxy, but not every user on the planet does.
IE needs special js detectors so i can load separate stylesheets for the pages that look great in everything but IE.

and yeah i'll give you video problems in safari.

but all in all... IE =


and ^, you got that flippin right

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 9:44 PM. Reason : ]

7/19/2007 9:44:11 PM

those firefox faggots who thought that was an IE exploit are retarded. IE handles the firefox URL as it should. That exploit was 1000000% firefox's fault.

7/19/2007 9:45:51 PM

^ you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. perhaps the text is too dense? here, i'll distill the important bits for you:

Quote :

"Internet Explorer calls registered URL protocols without escaping quotes and may be used to pass unexpected and potentially dangerous data to the application that registers that URL Protocol. The vulnerability is exposed when a user browses to a malicious web page in Internet Explorer .... Other Windows applications can be called [from IE] in this way and also manipulated to execute malicious code."

7/19/2007 10:38:54 PM

Quote :

"if(document.all) alert("I hate you."); else alert("<3");"

document.all also works in Opera, just fyi.

Quote :

"and innerHTML is faster in this occasion rather than having to count the children, remove all the children, and create new children via DOM"

Fast enough to not work. You know you can just replace the entire node, right?

The problem with this whole thing is that people are going to whine "this wouldn't be a problem is MS just followed the standards!!!1" which ignores the fact that innerHTML isn't part of any standards and, on top of that, was originally an IE only thing. Personally I think it's pretty silly in this age of standards compliance to be reliant on something that isn't standardized at all. Yes, it generally works. Yes, it's generally fast, but the fact that it has a completely unstandardized implementation across browsers generally leads me to shy away from it since there are far more well defined ways to be adding one element to another, ones that have very consistent implementations across browsers.

Quote :

"MS needs to following the dang standards."

Why? Why should they have to follow standards set forth by a group who has absolutely no power whatsoever when they're the king of the web browser world? Not that I'm against standardization so that everything works the same in every browser, but what pull does the W3C have that should make Microsoft listen to them?

Quote :

"FF is a much better browser in all regards."

Yeah, call me when it decides that software shouldn't have memory leaks. Nothing like a freshly opened copy of Firefox with 3 tabs eating 400MB.

Quote :

"^ you seem to have a problem with reading comprehension. perhaps the text is too dense? here, i'll distill the important bits for you:"

So if it's an IE exploit, what exactly are they patching Firefox for regarding it? That part doesn't make much sense.

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 11:14 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2007 11:11:39 PM

Quote :

"Nothing like a freshly opened copy of Firefox with 3 tabs eating 400MB."

1.) They will claim that is by design and used for caching
2.) It's in pre-Alpha - most features still aren't implemented
http://wiki.mozilla.org/Firefox3/Product_Requirements_Document

7/19/2007 11:17:49 PM

Quote :

"2.) It's in pre-Alpha - most features still aren't implemented "

Firefox 2.0.0.4 is in pre-Alpha?

That's news to me.

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 11:22 PM. Reason : .]

7/19/2007 11:19:26 PM

haha oops - seeping pills making me loopy - I saw 'firefox 3'


</signing off>

7/19/2007 11:26:08 PM

7/19/2007 11:34:06 PM

Quote :

"So if it's an IE exploit, what exactly are they patching Firefox for regarding it? That part doesn't make much sense."

read http://blogs.zdnet.com/security/?p=362 for more background on the issue

of course, mozilla claims it's IE's fault, MS says it's firefox. i agree with the guy who published the flaw

Quote :

" Internet Explorer and Firefox are both to blame. Firefox could have registered their URL protocol handler differently, for example with pure DDE, but IE is still to blame for not escaping ” (quote) characters. The latter can be evidenced by the fact that you can inject arbitrary arguments to a wide range of other URL protocol handler applications, such as irc:// (mIRC), aim:// (AOL Instant Messenger), hcp:// (Windows HelpCenter) and mms:// (Windows Media Player) to name just a few. This is a generic flaw in Internet Explorer that has been left unpatched since at least 2004."

and of course, more telling and not the least bit surprising, is that mozilla has quickly issued a patch in 2.0.0.5, whereas microsoft has ignored the issue since 2004

[Edited on July 19, 2007 at 11:45 PM. Reason : the more things stay the same]

7/19/2007 11:42:01 PM

Quote :

"Why? Why should they have to follow standards set forth by a group who has absolutely no power whatsoever when they're the king of the web browser world? Not that I'm against standardization so that everything works the same in every browser, but what pull does the W3C have that should make Microsoft listen to them? "

well firefox has claimed close to 30% of the market

7/20/2007 12:33:06 AM

IF ANYONE HERE AS EVER CREATED A SIMPLE WEBSITE... THEY FUCKING HATE IE6

7/20/2007 7:44:20 AM

7/20/2007 8:50:45 AM

i dont like how IE is so damn integrated into windows.... allows for all sorts of nasty things to happen

7/20/2007 10:19:11 AM

IE definitely forces you to click "HotGurlz Click email now!"

7/20/2007 10:44:38 AM

Quote :

"Why? Why should they have to follow standards set forth by a group who has absolutely no power whatsoever when they're the king of the web browser world? Not that I'm against standardization so that everything works the same in every browser, but what pull does the W3C have that should make Microsoft listen to them?"

so that it doesn't have to be tailored to, especially considering how horrible of a browser it already is. everybody else, literally, can follow the standards... what makes M$ so freakin special that they should make web programmers work way more than they should to do the same thing in their browser that already works in the rest?

7/20/2007 11:03:38 AM

because they have the moneys and the people usin their shit. firefox/opera/safari/* does not

7/20/2007 11:20:27 AM

if i could afford to, i'd leave IE out in the cold when making a site

but people are retarded and something like 60-70% of 'em use IE so >.<

7/20/2007 11:27:26 AM

Quote :

"so that it doesn't have to be tailored to, especially considering how horrible of a browser it already is. everybody else, literally, can follow the standards... what makes M$ so freakin special that they should make web programmers work way more than they should to do the same thing in their browser that already works in the rest?"

Yeah man, IE6 and Microsoft really held back the development of websites as a whole for years and years.

What makes them so special? The fact that they've had the dominant browser since 1999 and that web pages as we know them today were essentially built on the backs of Microsoft. IE is essentially the de facto standard when it comes to web development. If it doesn't work in IE, it might as well not work (though granted this is becoming less and less the case).

Turn your question around: What makes the W3C/Mozilla/Opera/etc. so special that people should cater to them when even they aren't all on the same page? Mozilla, Opera, and Safari, just as examples, all are supposed to be standards compliant browsers, but even they don't handle things exactly the same as one another. What makes them any different than IE?

By the way, the "M$" thing is real cute.

7/20/2007 11:39:12 AM

I like how bigman thinks IE is the reason he's a failure.

7/20/2007 12:44:43 PM

because championing a mongoloid browser makes you such a success

7/20/2007 1:10:07 PM