Thu Jun 6 21:36:50 2002

M.

Thu Jun 6 22:18:17 2002

Thu Jun 6 22:34:34 2002

But yeah, as far as I'm concerned, HTML should be the "PDF" that pdf was trying to be. (who gives a rats ass if it's pixel perfect or not, I want to READ it. Not to mention I don't like acroshat) I once set out to make an HTML/CSS based word processor for BeOS that would have stored the documents and inserted pictures and media into a zip file container. Good idea, never really get started. (WYSIWYG HTML editors are a biotch to make I've heard.)

Thu Jun 6 22:53:56 2002

Not that it'd be difficult.
XHTML is HTML4++.

Seeing as how many of my hosted sites have users attending with browsers that are <5, I can't afford to drop the ball with CSS that might act of its own accord.

So I guess. XHTML + CSS == better *if*
date == 2005.
M.

Fri Jun 7 03:45:18 2002

Fri Jun 7 03:54:36 2002

Fri Jun 7 07:20:18 2002

ASP == Crap that doesn't play well with ("Macintoshes"). But no one seems to care until I point out that the "updates"

Sorry, that's utter, utter shite. ASP is completely server-side - the page gets read by the ASP ISAPI filter, response.writes get response.written, ASP processing ends, completed HTML page get handed to client.  I've written ASP for WAP devices, so how you can flam around saying it breaks Macintoshes?

HTML sucks arse - DHTML does anyway. Hacking a presentational language (and a flow-based presentational one at that) into a programming framework? Looovvlyy. :rolleyes:

Fri Jun 7 11:41:38 2002

The problem isn't ASP, it's IE for Mac.

IE for Mac is pretty bad.

Depending on the browser version, it can be incapable of playing client-side Javascripts, Flash and even certain types of server-generated HTML(like that done by ASP) are not represented the same way they would be on Win.

But I'm going to look into this a little more.

M.

Fri Jun 7 13:10:19 2002

even certain types of server-generated HTML(like that done by ASP) are not represented the same way they would be on Win.

Fri Jun 7 14:13:02 2002

from jdsmith575 posted at 8:45 pm on June 6, 2002

ASP == Crap that doesn't play well with Macs. But no one seems to care until I point out that the "updates" to the system crippled Mac usability. What does the system do you ask, it keeps track of student help requests.  Not important at all.

I think we went thru the same thing with Madan a while ago, and it came out that ASP is nowhere near the butler status (aka, guilty).

Fri Jun 7 17:14:31 2002

The three files of code I posted seemed to be correct but most OSYers wanted to analyze the entire HStore engine and I declined.

M.

Fri Jun 7 17:19:21 2002

from jdsmith575 posted at 4:45 am on June 7, 2002

ASP == Crap that doesn't play well with Macs. But no one seems to care until I point out that the "updates" to the system crippled Mac usability. What does the system do you ask, it keeps track of student help requests.  Not important at all.

ASP is server-side.  If whoever wrote the script is producing invalid or misrendered HTML, that's the fault of the mongoloid who wrote the script, not ASP.

Fri Jun 7 17:20:32 2002

from HitScan posted at 2:10 pm on June 7, 2002

Mad, you can use XHTML now. Even NS 4 can (more or less, heh) understand it. If you use transitional you don't have to use CSS for hardly a thing. The most important part of XHTML is the good habits it puts you in.

It's far more important to use Strict + CSS than it is to use XHTML over HTML 4.01.

Fri Jun 7 17:22:07 2002

from Madan posted at 6:14 pm on June 7, 2002

Uh, no Paolo. The result was actually inconclusive.

Fri Jun 7 17:38:43 2002

You're an ignorant little pigfucking shitdrinker, aren't you?

Whoa!  :eek:

Fri Jun 7 18:50:07 2002

from DrPizza posted at 12:19 pm on June 7, 2002

You're an ignorant little pigfucking shitdrinker, aren't you?

Fri Jun 7 21:41:02 2002

It's far more important to use Strict + CSS than it is to use XHTML over HTML 4.01.

I wrote a three page response, replete with four screen caps for Mac IE 4.5 breaking a set of XHTML sites, including W3C's official site.

My point made.  But if you want the screens, you can have them.

M.

Fri Jun 7 21:46:01 2002

I didn't say it was ASP anywhere in this thread. I said that that ASP's HTML is *NOT* supported by Mac IE 4.5. It isn't.

There are different ways to code "correctly" and depending on the browser, you can get completely different results. Mac IE 4.5-5 for Classic is crap. Pure and simple. It's HTML renderer sucks sour frog ass and the HTML forwarded by IIS/PWS is often unprocessable.

But thanks for being an ass.

M.

(Edited by Madan at 2:48 pm on June 7, 2002)

Fri Jun 7 22:53:01 2002

I didn't say it was ASP anywhere in this thread. I said that that ASP's HTML is *NOT* supported by Mac IE 4.5. It isn't.

There are different ways to code "correctly" and depending on the browser, you can get completely different results. Mac IE 4.5-5 for Classic is crap. Pure and simple. It's HTML renderer sucks sour frog ass and the HTML forwarded by IIS/PWS is often unprocessable.

I wrote a three page response, replete with four screen caps for Mac IE 4.5 breaking a set of XHTML sites, including W3C's official site.
My point made.  But if you want the screens, you can have them.

Fri Jun 7 23:34:08 2002

ASP has no HTML.  It doesn't generate any -- ANY -- HTML except for what you, the programmer,

When exactly did I say it did?

Please quote me.

tell it to generate.  None.  At all.  Every last character it produces is *your* fault.

HTML is interpreted by a BROWSER. ASP's problems, on Mac anyways, stem FROM THE BROWSER. How many times will I have to explain this before you stop misquoting me?
The HTML renderer on Mac IE SUCKS and renders even correct HTML incorrectly. THAT is ASP's problem.

Quote: There are different ways to code "correctly" and depending on the browser, you can get completely different results. Mac IE 4.5-5 for Classic is crap. Pure and simple. It's HTML renderer sucks sour frog ass and the HTML forwarded by IIS/PWS is often unprocessable.
Then for fuck's sake, stop telling the ASP engine to produce bad HTML.

Fuck you and Gate's dick you rode in on.

Quote: I wrote a three page response, replete with four screen caps for Mac IE 4.5 breaking a set of XHTML sites, including W3C's official site.
My point made.  But if you want the screens, you can have them.
What "point" was that?  I mean, you did notice that I said that XHTML *wasn't* the most important factor, and that well-formed HTML 4.01 Strict is far more useful than well-formed XHTML 1.x Transitional?

I wasn't even talking to you with that quote.

As for ASP. ASP is sent as HTML code towards a browser. If that browser sucks, the HTML code will be parsed like any other...INCORRECTLY. Go stuff your "I'm l334" attitude up your ass.

I may not know C++ but I know HTML and I don't need your condescending attitude telling me otherwise.

M.

Sat Jun 8 00:18:00 2002

The HTML renderer on Mac IE SUCKS and renders even correct HTML incorrectly. THAT is ASP's problem.

How the is it the fault of ASP that a browser borks itself on valid code ?

You're stating it backwards, that's a problem with IE on the Mac.

Sat Jun 8 00:18:10 2002

When exactly did I say it did?

HTML is interpreted by a BROWSER. ASP's problems, on Mac anyways, stem FROM THE BROWSER.

How many times will I have to explain this before you stop misquoting me?

The HTML renderer on Mac IE SUCKS and renders even correct HTML incorrectly.

THAT is ASP's problem.

As for ASP. ASP is sent as HTML code towards a browser.

If that browser sucks, the HTML code will be parsed like any other...INCORRECTLY. Go stuff your "I'm l334" attitude up your ass.

I may not know C++ but I know HTML and I don't need your condescending attitude telling me otherwise.

Sat Jun 8 00:20:16 2002

I wasn't even talking to you with that quote.

Sat Jun 8 00:36:20 2002

The problem isn't ASP, it's IE for Mac.

You had it right here, why'd you flip it around later ?

Sat Jun 8 00:53:44 2002

OK I apologize, ASP isn't crap. Programmers that don't test their systems fully until they go into full-time use are crap.  The system we use at school to keep track of orders for computer help is all done with ASP.  The system worked prefectly with any browser (that I've tried. Mac, PC, Linux). The big shot boss comes up with a list of tweaks that he wants implementd.  A lot of new features were added that are useful, but some of it is useless crap. According to the programmer (the mongoloid), ASP and Java are not playing together well an that is causing the problem (there appearing/disappearing text boxes etc.)  For awhile, students with Macs couldn't enter new service orders.  This isn't that big of a deal, just an inconvienece.  That was fixed. But right now, I can't update service orders on a Mac (any Mac OS, any browser), which is fundamental to my job.  If the system isn't fixed by August when I get back to school I plan on flying off the handle and killing someone, probably the local Linux retard or the Winjerk who can't seem to open his eyes to anything.

Sorry about the previous, stupid remark.

Sat Jun 8 14:23:31 2002

M.

(Edited by Madan at 7:26 am on June 8, 2002)

Sat Jun 8 14:23:49 2002

How the is it the fault of ASP that a browser borks itself on valid code ?

You're stating it backwards, that's a problem with IE on the Mac.

I'm doing no such thing. I didn't say it was even ASP's fault. Again, stop putting words in my mouth, spankuverymuch.

If ASP has rendering problems because of shitty browsers then there is a problem with ASP.  It may not be ASP's fault but MS has to deal with it. Misperception can obviously hurt them.  ASP isn't creating poor code but the browsers on Mac, specifically IE 4-5 obviously have issues interpreting certain forms of HTML.  

Since MS ASP HTML can render properly in Win browsers, it *isn't* ASP's fault, thus it has to be Mac IE browsers because if code renders DIFFERENTLY on multi-platform browsers we have a problem.

That's ASP's problem. That's the users' problem. That's MS' problem.

Quote: When exactly did I say it did?
You attributed some HTML to it.  You said, I quote "ASP's HTML".

That just means ASP-originated HTML code. Stop reading into my posts, like a fucking fortuneteller.

Quote: HTML is interpreted by a BROWSER. ASP's problems, on Mac anyways, stem FROM THE BROWSER.
This isn't a problem of ASP.  It's a problem of your HTML.

God, you're a jackass. Most ASP generated comes across perfectly on Win IE 5.5. But it breaks in Mac IE 4.5. The ASP's been checked to work and be compliant.

If we have two browsers doing different things, the problem isn't the coder, it's the browser. Stop being such a sanctimonious little prick, for ONCE in your life and grow up.

Quote: The HTML renderer on Mac IE SUCKS and renders even correct HTML incorrectly.
That has nothing to do with ASP.

You're right, this isn't *just* an ASP problem. This is a problem for the entire MS dev. community, that has to be resolved by the Mac browser team.

Quote: As for ASP. ASP is sent as HTML code towards a browser.
ASP isn't sent as anything.  The browser doesn't get the ASP at all.

Congratulations folks! You just saw Peter, in one of his classic: "I'm not going to read what you say" posts.

God, you're MWNH with glasses.

ASP is sent as HTML. No, the browser receives not a drop of ASP code. I never said this, so reread that comment. It receives transmorged HTML(that was sent by IIS/PWS).

SOMETHING is sent to the browser. HTML is sent to the browser.

Quote: I wasn't even talking to you with that quote.
Then why were you quoting me?

Because what you posted agreed with me. I said that one of the large concepts of XHTML was the use of CSS, which previous posts by others challenged. YOU indicated that you thought CSS was important to XHTML and I was simply seconding that to the others.

But in your zeal to jump down my throat, you must have missed it. :rolleyes:

But if to put things succinctly for the knowitall assclowns like you, if ASP works on Win IE perfectly but doesn't work on Mac IE near as well, then either ASP is at fault or Mac IE is at fault. If ASP works with Win IE then it probably isn't ASP and must be Mac IE.

Idiot.

M.

(Edited by Madan at 7:35 am on June 8, 2002)

Sat Jun 8 15:02:12 2002

ASP is sent as HTML. No, the browser receives not a drop of ASP code. I never said this, so reread that comment. It receives transmorged HTML(that was sent by IIS/PWS).

SOMETHING is sent to the browser. HTML is sent to the browser.

For fucks sake.

Madan, ASP sends nothing - NOTHING to the browser apart from HTML that was already on the page and anything you put in a response.write() call. There is no difference - no difference between this:

[CODE]
<body>
<h3>HELLO<h3>
</body>
[/CODE]

and this

[CODE]
<body>
<%
response.write "<h3>HELLO<h3>"
%>
</body>
[/CODE]

Do you see?

Sat Jun 8 15:07:55 2002

I'm doing no such thing. I didn't say it was even ASP's fault. Again, stop putting words in my mouth, spankuverymuch.

A) I didn't put words in your mouth, I asked a question.

B) The second line of my post points that you've stated that  the problem is with IE on Mac and then flipped to say that the problem is ASP.

Sat Jun 8 15:40:15 2002

M.

Sat Jun 8 15:52:18 2002

READ my posts, man. What the fuck is wrong with you?

Quote:  
ASP is sent as HTML. No, the browser receives not a drop of ASP code. I never said this, so reread that comment. It receives transmorged HTML(that was sent by IIS/PWS).
SOMETHING is sent to the browser. HTML is sent to the browser.

For fucks sake.
Madan, ASP sends nothing - NOTHING to the browser apart from HTML that was already on the page and anything you put in a response.write() call.

THAT IS WHAT I SAID. I said HTML is sent to the browser. DID I SAY ASP WAS SENT TO THE BROWSER? NO. I said HTML WAS SENT TO THE BROWSER.

There is no difference - no difference between this:

<body>
<h3>HELLO<h3>
</body>

and this

<body>
<%
response.write "<h3>HELLO<h3>"
%>
</body>

Do you see?

*sigh* Keeping calm. Keeping calm.

I never said there was a difference. In fact, IIS/PWS sends the former even if you have the latter in your server. This is what I've been saying and you keep trying to ignore. Why? Because you think I'm taking a swipe at your precious ASP? Whatever.

Now, can OTHER ASP be sent as HTML that is "broken" on Mac IE 4.5? Yes.

View www.heraldstore.com/backissues.asp in Win IE 5.5. No problems right? Right because the page is ok.

Now view the same page in Mac IE 4.5. The frame text is subimposed by the photographs.

Is this the code's problem? No. It's the BROWSER.  Code, I might add, I posted and that had no discernable errors(that any of you found anyways).

This is just one of  many examples exhibiting Mac IE's ability to break a variety of "compliant" pages.

M.

Sat Jun 8 17:39:03 2002

That just means ASP-originated HTML code.

Stop reading into my posts, like a fucking fortuneteller.

God, you're a jackass. Most ASP generated comes across perfectly on Win IE 5.5. But it breaks in Mac IE 4.5. The ASP's been checked to work and be compliant.

If we have two browsers doing different things, the problem isn't the coder, it's the browser. Stop being such a sanctimonious little prick, for ONCE in your life and grow up.

You're right, this isn't *just* an ASP problem.

This is a problem for the entire MS dev. community, that has to be resolved by the Mac browser team.

Congratulations folks! You just saw Peter, in one of his classic: "I'm not going to read what you say" posts.

ASP is sent as HTML.

ASPs generate whatever you tell them to generate.  It may be HTML.  It certainly doesn't have to be.

No, the browser receives not a drop of ASP code. I never said this, so reread that comment. It receives transmorged HTML(that was sent by IIS/PWS).

SOMETHING is sent to the browser. HTML is sent to the browser.

Because what you posted agreed with me. I said that one of the large concepts of XHTML was the use of CSS, which previous posts by others challenged.

I didn't say that!

I said the significant feature of *strict* is the use of CSS.  I don't care if it's valid XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01.  The issue is whether it's the *strict* version of those specifications.  If it is, that's OK.  If it's merely transitional, it's not.

YOU indicated that you thought CSS was important to XHTML and I was simply seconding that to the others.

But in your zeal to jump down my throat, you must have missed it. :rolleyes:

But if to put things succinctly for the knowitall assclowns like you, if ASP works on Win IE perfectly but doesn't work on Mac IE near as well, then either ASP is at fault or Mac IE is at fault.

If ASP works with Win IE then it probably isn't ASP and must be Mac IE.

Idiot.

Sat Jun 8 17:48:16 2002

READ my posts, man. What the fuck is wrong with you?

THAT IS WHAT I SAID. I said HTML is sent to the browser. DID I SAY ASP WAS SENT TO THE BROWSER? NO. I said HTML WAS SENT TO THE BROWSER.

I never said there was a difference.

In fact, IIS/PWS sends the former even if you have the latter in your server. This is what I've been saying and you keep trying to ignore. Why? Because you think I'm taking a swipe at your precious ASP?

Now, can OTHER ASP be sent as HTML that is "broken" on Mac IE 4.5? Yes.

View www.heraldstore.com/backissues.asp in Win IE 5.5. No problems right? Right because the page is ok.

Now view the same page in Mac IE 4.5. The frame text is subimposed by the photographs.

Is this the code's problem? No.

Having a conformant page isn't sufficient to have a page render how you want.  I mean, if you were to say <font color="#ff0000">blahblah</font>, whilst that is conformant, it's never going to do the right thing if what you wanted was green text.  The page being well-formed doesn't mean that it's going to render how you want.  You have to make sure that you've *said the right thing*.  This task is considerably more difficult than merely ensuring that the page is compliant, BTW.

It's the BROWSER.  Code, I might add, I posted and that had no discernable errors(that any of you found anyways).

This is just one of  many examples exhibiting Mac IE's ability to break a variety of "compliant" pages.

Sat Jun 8 20:50:41 2002

Quote: That just means ASP-originated HTML code.
English 101, Madan.  An apostrophe followed by an 's' is indicative of *possession*.  What you wrote means "the HTML belonging to ASP".  Not "the HTML 'generated' by ASP" or whatever it is you're trying ot make it read.

Semantics.

Quote: God, you're a jackass. Most ASP generated comes across perfectly on Win IE 5.5. But it breaks in Mac IE 4.5. The ASP's been checked to work and be compliant.
Well, the page you link to later isn't compliant, so I don't put much value in your claim.  In any case, the issue has nothing to do with ASP at all.

The page isn't ASP compliant? And how would you know?

Quote: If we have two browsers doing different things, the problem isn't the coder, it's the browser. Stop being such a sanctimonious little prick, for ONCE in your life and grow up.
Browsers are allowed to do "different things".

:rolleyes: ANYTHING to jump at me. You're such a little bitch. You whine about how much "Netscape or Java or anything else sucks" and extol MS' consistency but you'll even turn on the former ideologies just to have a go at it with me.

Quote: You're right, this isn't *just* an ASP problem.
It isn't an ASP problem at all.

English lesson: The noun "problem" is addressing ASP through an, meaning a problem ASP has.

As opposed to your faulty assumption that I indicated:

"You're right, ASP is a problem."

They each mean different things.

Quote: This is a problem for the entire MS dev. community, that has to be resolved by the Mac browser team.
It isn't a problem for "the MS dev community", either.  It's perhaps a problem for "the web dev community", but that's another thing entirely.

Agreed. A problem for the web dev community then.

Quote: ASP is sent as HTML.
This is entirely optional.  I have ASPs that generate XML, ASPs that send binary files, ASPs that do all sorts of things.

And 5/10 it's going to break on Mac IE 4.5/5. Say, XHTML? Or XML, both of which break copiously on said browser. Again, I have an image of such an occurance. I'll post it but not now.

Again, semantics.

Quote: No, the browser receives not a drop of ASP code. I never said this, so reread that comment. It receives transmorged HTML(that was sent by IIS/PWS).
WTF is "transmorged" supposed to mean?  Transmogrified?

ASP is sent as HTML. PWS/IIS sends the HTML equivalent of ASP. Transmorgified means "altered" in English, btw.

Quote: SOMETHING is sent to the browser. HTML is sent to the browser.
Indeed.  And the "something" that is sent to the browser is entirely your own doing.  One can't tell that it was generated by (say) ASP, or CFML, or JSP, or static HTML, or anything else.  Thus, your insistence on bringing ASP into the argument is unfathomable.

Despite your desperate attempt to obfuscate what I'm saying by using exacting semantics, I never said you can tell the difference between the originating technology. I just said that the technology is changed from its native language into HTML and sent to the browser. Again, you're overcomplicating anything.

Its amazing HOW many times we seem to go in circles with this.
I'll say:

"The sun is yellow."
And you'll correct: "cheddar or lightning yellow" etc. etc.

In circles we go. You telling me "wrong" and then repeating what I say in different words. I'm getting tired of it.

Quote: But in your zeal to jump down my throat, you must have missed it.
It's not surprising, given your inability to express yourself clearly.  Given that everyone around you "misinterprets" what you say, haven't you stopped to ponder for a moment that perhaps you're just not saying things as clearly as you think you are?

No, it's just incredibly obvious that you're a sanctimonious little shit who has nothing better to do than engage me in verbal fisticuffs. I didn't even start bashing the ASP thread but I do oppose your verbal lambasting of other individuals, which is why I jumped in. I don't agree with jd's supposition but you are an abusive little prick, which is why I opened my mouth and mentioned the problem about the browser.

To this point in the thread, you haven't addressed that. That's because you think that if you are semantic enough and abusive enough, you can hide anything.

The fact remains that browsers are misrepresenting ASP-originated HTML. I don't want to hear how it "doesn't matter xxx technology creates HTML" or that "originated" isn't appropriate jargon. Because you're not addressing the point. You're side stepping.

Quote: But if to put things succinctly for the knowitall assclowns like you, if ASP works on Win IE perfectly but doesn't work on Mac IE near as well, then either ASP is at fault or Mac IE is at fault.
Er, no.  The most common answer is that the HTML you are generating is at fault.

The HTML I'm using is working on IE for Win. So IE for Win <> IE for Mac. Use logic or go take a class.

Quote: If ASP works with Win IE then it probably isn't ASP and must be Mac IE.
Again, you are attributing things to ASP that you should be attributing to HTML.  The ASP "works" either way.  Which is to say, it runs its scripts and generates its output.  That's where ASP's responsbility ends.

The HTML is just telling what ASP told it to. In this case, the ASP I put together places the image and "bite" in each table cell. The table cell code is perfect because it passed the strictest level of W3C(and don't give me this crap about W3C not being compliant because they're as close as it gets). The browser is interpreting the HTML generated by the server(in place of ASP) and do so improperly.

It's spacing the items improperly by interpreting the HTML improperly. You can whine and tell me how little I know but it's not going to work.

So given that admission, what has ASP to do with anything?  ASP's job ends once a script has finished processing.  What a User Agent decides to do with the output of that script is nothing to do with ASP.

ASP can generate HTML that is not actually coded in.  I know because I've done it for several sites. If the code gen. by ASP is broken on IE(even if compliant..which it is), then the browser will hiccup.

Quote: I never said there was a difference.
Then why are you talking about ASP, when the issue isn't anything to do with ASP, but with HTML.

Because I'm not just talking about HTML. I'm talking about HTML, ASP, XHTML and even XML(although I didn't mention XML).

They all are broken on Mac IE 4.5/5.

Quote: In fact, IIS/PWS sends the former even if you have the latter in your server. This is what I've been saying and you keep trying to ignore. Why? Because you think I'm taking a swipe at your precious ASP?
Yes, you've been saying that.  You've also been saying that ASP has problems.

No, I've said it has a problEM. That problem being that it sends HTML that is broken on Mac IE which renders various markup/coding languages incorrectly. I never said plural. There you go adding words and hidden connotations into my comments again.

Quote: Now, can OTHER ASP be sent as HTML that is "broken" on Mac IE 4.5? Yes.

That's what I've been saying. Thank you.

Quote: View http://www.heraldstore.com/backissues.asp in Win IE 5.5. No problems right? Right because the page is ok.
No it isn't.

It isn't ok? You're LYING. It is ok because I've personally checked it on Win IE versions 2 and up PERSONALLY.

Quote: Now view the same page in Mac IE 4.5. The frame text is subimposed by the photographs.
What "frame text"?  There are neither frames nor iframes, so I assume you mean something else, but I don't know.

..oo(ass)oo..

I didn't say "text in frames" which is text in a frame, I said "framed text". Text that has been framed. Placed in a box. A TABLE in this case, for semantic asses like you.

Quote: Is this the code's problem? No.
It could be.

Then Win IE is borked because it functions.

Quote: It's the BROWSER.  Code, I might add, I posted and that had no discernable errors(that any of you found anyways).
The page you've linked to has a number of obvious errors, actually.

I love it. You're going to tell me I'm missing a meta tag alt tag or something. Lovely.

I'll post the code later. Not now. Just keep in mind that your big mouth couldn't decipher the problem last time. That seems to be your cover. Side step, insult the person and then say "didn't give enough information".  That was your same cover with my SQL question in the other thread too. In the end I asked someone on /. and THEY knew immediately without the semantic bullshit.

I'm outta here.

M.

Sat Jun 8 22:32:34 2002

We went thru this before. It's clearly a browser problem. ASP has absoultely nothing to do with it.

IE for Windows and IE for Mac are two different products that use different codebases.

Humor me for a moment. Go to that page your posted and save the content as HTML on your drive. Now open that HTML file, locally, with IE for Mac (whatever version).

If it's still broken, how could this be ASP's fault?

ASP can generate HTML that is not actually coded in.  I know because I've done it for several sites. If the code gen. by ASP is broken on IE(even if compliant..which it is), then the browser will hiccup.

Are you using COM objects to do the HTML generation on your site? Can you give me an example of code generated by ASP autonomously?

Sat Jun 8 23:00:06 2002

Sun Jun 9 00:30:39 2002

Semantics.

You bitch all day long about how we "misinterpret" what you say.  But as soon as any of us try to explain why what you wrote means what we interpreted it as, you cry "semantics".

YOu can't have it both ways.  

The page isn't ASP compliant? And how would you know?

:rolleyes: ANYTHING to jump at me. You're such a little bitch. You whine about how much "Netscape or Java or anything else sucks" and extol MS' consistency but you'll even turn on the former ideologies just to have a go at it with me.

The problems I have with Netscape 4 is the number of pathological cases.  Things like [url=http://www.anti-flash.co.uk/downloads/nstest.html]this[/url].  The browser doesn't simply botch the rendering slightly.  It crashes completely.

HTML (and CSS) are sufficiently lenient that some variability in presentation is permitted.  Web design isn't DTP.  It's not pixel-perfect, and it never will be.  The problem with Netscape 4.x isn't within-spec variances in presesntation, it's complete inability to present.  Issues like making text in certain situations completely disappear, or having the browser crash.

These two situations are completely different.

English lesson: The noun "problem" is addressing ASP through an, meaning a problem ASP has.

As opposed to your faulty assumption that I indicated:

"You're right, ASP is a problem."

They each mean different things.

I meant what I said.  This issue is not "a problem ASP has".

And 5/10 it's going to break on Mac IE 4.5/5.

Say, XHTML? Or XML, both of which break copiously on said browser. Again, I have an image of such an occurance. I'll post it but not now.

Again, semantics.

ASP is sent as HTML. PWS/IIS sends the HTML equivalent of ASP. Transmorgified means "altered" in English, btw.

Despite your desperate attempt to obfuscate what I'm saying by using exacting semantics, I never said you can tell the difference between the originating technology.

I just said that the technology is changed from its native language into HTML and sent to the browser. Again, you're overcomplicating anything.

Its amazing HOW many times we seem to go in circles with this.
I'll say:

"The sun is yellow."
And you'll correct: "cheddar or lightning yellow" etc. etc.

In circles we go. You telling me "wrong" and then repeating what I say in different words. I'm getting tired of it.

Quote: But in your zeal to jump down my throat, you must have missed it.
It's not surprising, given your inability to express yourself clearly.  Given that everyone around you "misinterprets" what you say, haven't you stopped to ponder for a moment that perhaps you're just not saying things as clearly as you think you are?

No, it's just incredibly obvious that you're a sanctimonious little shit who has nothing better to do than engage me in verbal fisticuffs.

I didn't even start bashing the ASP thread but I do oppose your verbal lambasting of other individuals, which is why I jumped in. I don't agree with jd's supposition but you are an abusive little prick, which is why I opened my mouth and mentioned the problem about the browser.

To this point in the thread, you haven't addressed that. That's because you think that if you are semantic enough and abusive enough, you can hide anything.

You later stated "I said that that ASP's HTML is *NOT* supported by Mac IE 4.5.".  Suggesting (falsely) that ASP possessed some kind of HTML.  It doesn't.  And then "ASP's problems, on Mac anyways, stem FROM THE BROWSER. ".  Again, you're claiming that ASP has some kind of a problem.  Again, "If ASP has rendering problems because of shitty browsers then there is a problem with ASP.".  Claiming, quite absurdly, that ASP is rendered by the browser.  And here, "Since MS ASP HTML can render properly in Win browsers".  Suggesting that the ASP makes some quantifiable difference to the HTML produced (when, of course, it doesn't).

The fact remains that browsers are misrepresenting ASP-originated HTML. I don't want to hear how it "doesn't matter xxx technology creates HTML" or that "originated" isn't appropriate jargon. Because you're not addressing the point. You're side stepping.

The HTML I'm using is working on IE for Win. So IE for Win <> IE for Mac. Use logic or go take a class.

The HTML is just telling what ASP told it to.  In this case, the ASP I put together places the image and "bite" in each table cell. The table cell code is perfect because it passed the strictest level of W3C(and don't give me this crap about W3C not being compliant because they're as close as it gets).

The browser is interpreting the HTML generated by the server(in place of ASP) and do so improperly.

And are you sure it's "improper"?  It might not be *what you intended*, but have you crosschecked the specification to see what's actually permitted?

It's spacing the items improperly by interpreting the HTML improperly. You can whine and tell me how little I know but it's not going to work.

ASP can generate HTML that is not actually coded in.

It can?

I know ASP.NET can automagically generate HTML, but I've never seen ASP do it.  Which of the ASP objects generates HTML?

I know because I've done it for several sites. If the code gen. by ASP is broken on IE(even if compliant..which it is), then the browser will hiccup.

Because I'm not just talking about HTML. I'm talking about HTML, ASP, XHTML and even XML(although I didn't mention XML).

They all are broken on Mac IE 4.5/5.

ASP is not broken on Mac IE.  Any version.  Why not?  Because it doens't RUN on Mac IE.

No, I've said it has a problEM. That problem being that it sends HTML that is broken on Mac IE which renders various markup/coding languages incorrectly. I never said plural. There you go adding words and hidden connotations into my comments again.

So what is ASP supposed to do?  Not send the HTML you tell it to send?  Say "no, I'm not going to send this, it's going to render in a manner other than that which you intended"?  Don't be absurd.

Quote: Now, can OTHER ASP be sent as HTML that is "broken" on Mac IE 4.5? Yes.

That's what I've been saying. Thank you.

It isn't ok?

You're LYING.

It is ok because I've personally checked it on Win IE versions 2 and up PERSONALLY.

Just because it renders in a particular manner in a particular browser does not make it "OK".  Do you not understand the concept of a specification?  It's only "OK" when it conforms to the requirements of the specification.

I didn't say "text in frames" which is text in a frame, I said "framed text".

Text that has been framed. Placed in a box. A TABLE in this case, for semantic asses like you.

Then Win IE is borked because it functions.

I love it. You're going to tell me I'm missing a meta tag alt tag or something. Lovely.

I'll post the code later. Not now. Just keep in mind that your big mouth couldn't decipher the problem last time.

That seems to be your cover. Side step, insult the person and then say "didn't give enough information".  That was your same cover with my SQL question in the other thread too.

In the end I asked someone on /. and THEY knew immediately without the semantic bullshit.

Sun Jun 9 04:51:38 2002

Madan, please.

We went thru this before. It's clearly a browser problem. ASP has absoultely nothing to do with it.

Paolo, I never said it was ASP's fault. Please,  I'm asking you to just READ my posts. I never said HTML/XHTML/ASP was at fault. But I said it was a problem.  

IE for Windows and IE for Mac are two different products that use different codebases.

Obviously.

The question is:
"Should this absolve MS of fixing the Mac IE problem?"

I don't think so.

Humor me for a moment. Go to that page your posted and save the content as HTML on your drive. Now open that HTML file, locally, with IE for Mac (whatever version).

If it's still broken, how could this be ASP's fault?

See above. Post a quote from this thread with me saying "ASP is at fault" or "ASP's fault" as opposed to "ASP's problem".

Quote: Semantics.
You're unreal.

You bitch all day long about how we "misinterpret" what you say.  But as soon as any of us try to explain why what you wrote means what we interpreted it as, you cry "semantics".

Peter, that's not it at all. You try and beat people down with the interpretations you have.  I don't need a daddy, Pete. If you said " I thought you meant xxxx", I'd have no problem. Heck, I'd probably beg pardon but you belabor the issue by trying to make the poster feel small for imagined errors.

Sorry.

Quote: The page isn't ASP compliant? And how would you know?
It isn't conformat HTML, jackass.  I know this because I can look at the HTML in my browser.

:rolleyes:

The HTML that's missing, would it affect the misalignment in Mac IE? Did you even look in Mac IE? Of course not.

Quote:  ANYTHING to jump at me. You're such a little bitch. You whine about how much "Netscape or Java or anything else sucks" and extol MS' consistency but you'll even turn on the former ideologies just to have a go at it with me.
What the hell are you talking about?

"iTard Slayer".

What am I saying? I'm not the one that started the issue with ASP. I've basically been saying what you've been saying, you retard. ASP, HTML, XTHML are all innocent but they have a problem. The problem is that some browsers choke on them.  The only real point of contention is that YOU think there is no problem because you don't cater to non-IE browsers. I do. But technically, we're saying the same things.

The problems I have with Netscape 4 is the number of pathological cases.  Things like this.  The browser doesn't simply botch the rendering slightly.  It crashes completely.

PEBCAK because I've never seen it happen. Crash with what? Doing what?

HTML (and CSS) are sufficiently lenient that some variability in presentation is permitted.  Web design isn't DTP.  It's not pixel-perfect, and it never will be.

Web design is getting the design as cross-platform/cross-browser/cross-resolution/cross-bandwidth consistent as possible. That's lesson number one. You want to cater to MS? That's fine. I have no problem with that. I've posted several links of what happened to Inkvine on a Mac browser. On certain Netscapes. Bad things happened to the DESIGN.

Ultimately, web design isn't web development. Is it operable? That's web development. Ok, now that it's operable, is it attractive and consistent? That's web design. You may or may not think it's important but many people do. I am one of those people.

The problem with Netscape 4.x isn't within-spec variances in presesntation, it's complete inability to present.  Issues like making text in certain situations completely disappear, or having the browser crash.

Again, I've never had crashing on any NS(more than IE, that is).  What can I say? It seems like you can't give any non-MS entity a break. I'll tell you this. I have a screen and it hurts to know you'll never see it. I'm leaving today. Still, just get a copy of Mac IE 4.5 and view W3C's site on Classic and you'll see what I mean. The site doesn't just break, it collapses. You view the code(XHTML), not the site.

An MS product. Everyone fucks up.

Even MS.

A problem which you incorrectly attributed to ASP.

I NEVER said it was ASP's fault. I said it was the browser's fault. Again, you misquote me.

 You replied "The result was actually inconclusive.".  That is to say, in your opinion, there still might be a problem with ASP -- the testing didn't reveal one way or the other.  So, what is this problem?

I'm simply stating a fact. I never said ASP was guilty. I simply said after posting page after page of ASP, noone ever found an error, and not for lack of trying, but the responses and suggestions I got made the page unreadable(which forced me to go back to default). I'm not lying. Look it up.

You later stated "I said that that ASP's HTML is *NOT* supported by Mac IE 4.5.".  Suggesting (falsely)

It isn't. XHTML isn't supported by Mac IE 4.5 either. Nor is XML.

I never disputed this.

that ASP possessed some kind of HTML.  It doesn't.  And then

I never said that. I explained that I meant that HTML which originated from ASP. Not that ASP contained HTML(although ASP pages do contain HTML but that's not what you meant).

"ASP's problems, on Mac anyways, stem FROM THE BROWSER. ".  Again, you're claiming that ASP has some kind of a problem.

Absolutely, it has a problem. BTW, Paolo, you'll notice that the posts point to me saying it's the browsers' fault again and again.

Peter, all technologies, I mentioned, you omitted, have a problem if the browser renders incorrectly.

My point was that jd's contention with ASP was because of the browser, since he was using a Mac..

Again, "If ASP has rendering problems because of shitty browsers then there is a problem with ASP.".  Claiming, quite absurdly, that ASP is rendered by the browser.

ASP is rendered by the browser. As HTML. I explained this and you knew what I meant but you want to be an asshole. To maintain your rep. That's fine. Everyone can see what I mean. I'm not going in circles. I've posted half a dozen times in various posts that ASP is sent as HTML. You conveniently forgot to post them, that's fine too.

Am I ultimate ASP l334? No.

Do I have good knowledge of ASP, despite my self-derision? Yes. I've coded moderately sophisticated ASP apps and they work. So you want to "expose" me as a knownothing? You'll fail. But whatever.

And here, "Since MS ASP HTML can render properly in Win browsers".  Suggesting that the ASP makes some quantifiable difference to the HTML produced (when, of course, it doesn't).

Uh, no. I said that the HTML originated from ASP is the same. The browser is different.

Quote: The HTML is just telling what ASP told it to.  In this case, the ASP I put together places the image and "bite" in each table cell. The table cell code is perfect because it passed the strictest level of W3C(and don't give me this crap about W3C not being compliant because they're as close as it gets).
I'm not.  I'm saying that the page you linked to is not conformant with W3C's specification.

None of the compliance breaks are related to the problem.  So complaining that the "car's emergency break is broken, when the discussion is about the transmission" is futile. But again, you're good at smoke and mirrors.

Quote: The browser is interpreting the HTML generated by the server(in place of ASP) and do so improperly.
Again, why are you bringing up the generation issue?  Why are you continually trying to bring irrelevancies into the discussion?

I've explained this over and over again. JD indicated that it was ASP's fault that it doesn't generate on Mac. I say it's the browser.

So what is ASP supposed to do?  Not send the HTML you tell it to send?  Say "no, I'm not going to send this, it's going to render in a manner other than that which you intended"?  Don't be absurd.

No, I'm suggesting that the browser should WORK.

I know that goes against MS, your God, but hell, I'm in an unforgiving mood.

Quote:  
Quote: Now, can OTHER ASP be sent as HTML that is "broken" on Mac IE 4.5? Yes.

That's what I've been saying. Thank you.

Peter, we've been saying the same thing for awhile now but I haven't been conforming to your semantics and you can't really go into Ars and act like an ass and you like screwing with me here so you've been carrying on this charade.

A. ASP processes on a browser(sent as html from the server) as HTML. I've said this five times.
B. ASP runs fine on Win. Said this six times.
C. ASP originated HTML, straight HTML(yes, yes, there would be no difference but i'm making a point), XHTML and XML don't work on Mac, often times.
D. Browsers' at fault. Said this ten times.

But again and again, you'll say that "i don't understand you" or that "you're wrong". And even though you'll see posts that explain what I mean, you'll take some of my posts out of context, purposefully to fuel the argument of ambiguity.

Here's one of your replies:

"yes".

Gee, Peter. That was awfully ambiguous. :rolleyes:

In any event. You win.

I'm gone so you can reply all you want.

M.

Sun Jun 9 18:42:53 2002

Madan, I have to ask you one thing. Drop it. Either you do not understand the technology or you are purposefully misrepresenting the situation.

I worked with ASP since 1.0 beta and I even wrote articles about it on an italian magazine (paper, not worthless web stuff). I fucking KNOW what I'm talking about. And I ask you to believe me what I'm going to quote, terminology is important:

A. ASP processes on a browser(sent as html from the server) as HTML. I've said this five times.

B. ASP runs fine on Win. Said this six times.

C. ASP originated HTML, straight HTML(yes, yes, there would be no difference but i'm making a point), XHTML and XML don't work on Mac, often times.

Make sure you understand the purpose of these technologies before claiming something that is not correct.

D. Browsers' at fault. Said this ten times.

As an aside, can I see that code I asked for? The ASP fragment that generates different HTML depending on the target user agent?