• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Why firefox sucks

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I can't really address all the replies, I didnt expect 2 pages so quick.

I just don't like it when people who are very un-tech savvy talk about browser differences

Actually I have a degree in computer science, but thanks for the blind assumption!



2. In your http://www.messedup.net/firefox-demo.htm link, I see no code that is supposed to center the table. The only thing I see is IE is automatically centering the table, whereas FireFox displays it as the code is written (firefox-demo2.htm - is centered in FF because it's specified to be centered).


actually, it's specified in a CSS class:

body {
background-color: #999999;
text-align: center;
}

Which is the proper way to do it, according to W3C. As far as the spyware arguments, I cant deny that, however, with a growing marketshare, you can bank on spyware authors targeting FF next.

Oh, and messedup.net is a NSFW page. All pages linked here are not. I didnt link the frontpage of MU for that reason, didnt want to spring any surprises on anyone.

I swear that wasn't in there the first time I checked 😛
 
Originally posted by: dwell
.

Um, that's the second demo where he explains that he had to add proprietary ( 😕 ) code to make it look right in firefox. He had to add the <center> and </center> tags.,
 
First off, the whole point of CSS is to do away with table formatting. Secondly you centered your
body text and then put your main text in a table that has no text formatting. dolt.
 
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
I can't really address all the replies, I didnt expect 2 pages so quick.

I just don't like it when people who are very un-tech savvy talk about browser differences

Actually I have a degree in computer science, but thanks for the blind assumption!



2. In your http://www.messedup.net/firefox-demo.htm link, I see no code that is supposed to center the table. The only thing I see is IE is automatically centering the table, whereas FireFox displays it as the code is written (firefox-demo2.htm - is centered in FF because it's specified to be centered).


actually, it's specified in a CSS class:

body {
background-color: #999999;
text-align: center;
}

Which is the proper way to do it, according to W3C. As far as the spyware arguments, I cant deny that, however, with a growing marketshare, you can bank on spyware authors targeting FF next.

Oh, and messedup.net is a NSFW page. All pages linked here are not. I didnt link the frontpage of MU for that reason, didnt want to spring any surprises on anyone.
No, the table alignment is _not_ specified in a CSS class, only the text alignment is. And you'll notice that the text at the top of the page is indeed centered as the CSS class defines.

If you want the table to be centered, you should add a CSS class such that the _table_ is centered, not just the text. A table is not text.

And yes, both are valid because both pages are coded properly. The first is coded properly for a page with centered text and left-aligned tables. The second is coded properly for centered text and centered tables, well, kinda, you really should have put a CSS class for the table in the second one.

ZV
 
First off, the whole point of CSS is to do away with table formatting. Secondly you centered your
body text and then put your main text in a table that has no text formatting. dolt.

I'm the dolt? Perhaps nobody has explained W3C html standards to you before, so I almost feel bad about insulting you. Go about your blissfully ignorant ways.

 
Originally posted by: JetBlack69
Also, why doesn't IE show the 69 icon in the addressbar and firefox does? 😕

Anyone? I'm confused because if they are both W3C compliant, why does firefox show it and not IE?
 
Anyone? I'm confused because if they are both W3C compliant, why does firefox show it and not IE?

I never said IE was perfect. Far from it, that's a whole other article in itself. But I dont see anybody touting IE as the best thing ever either.
 
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
Anyone? I'm confused because if they are both W3C compliant, why does firefox show it and not IE?

I never said IE was perfect. Far from it, that's a whole other article in itself. But I dont see anybody touting IE as the best thing ever either.

Where in the code do you tell it to use that image? I'm honestly curious because it's been awhile since I've coded html. I didn't see it on either page.
 
Where in the code do you tell it to use that image? I'm honestly curious because it's been awhile since I've coded html. I didn't see it on either page

I honestly dont. I have favicon.ico or something like that in the public_html a couple years ago, I think FF looks for the file, but I can't be 100% sure of that one. I think you are supposed to code it into the html to make it work, so it could be my mistake thats causing it to not show in IE.
 
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
Where in the code do you tell it to use that image? I'm honestly curious because it's been awhile since I've coded html. I didn't see it on either page

I honestly dont. I have favicon.ico or something like that in the public_html a couple years ago, I think FF looks for the file, but I can't be 100% sure of that one. I think you are supposed to code it into the html to make it work, so it could be my mistake thats causing it to not show in IE.

Interesting, thanks for the info.
 
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
Where in the code do you tell it to use that image? I'm honestly curious because it's been awhile since I've coded html. I didn't see it on either page

I honestly dont. I have favicon.ico or something like that in the public_html a couple years ago, I think FF looks for the file, but I can't be 100% sure of that one. I think you are supposed to code it into the html to make it work, so it could be my mistake thats causing it to not show in IE.

IE will pick it up if you bookmark the page sometimes
 
Originally posted by: JetBlack69
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
Where in the code do you tell it to use that image? I'm honestly curious because it's been awhile since I've coded html. I didn't see it on either page

I honestly dont. I have favicon.ico or something like that in the public_html a couple years ago, I think FF looks for the file, but I can't be 100% sure of that one. I think you are supposed to code it into the html to make it work, so it could be my mistake thats causing it to not show in IE.

Interesting, thanks for the info.

Yea, I think you have to tell IE that the site has one in the HTML. Firefox just looks to see if a favicon is present.
 
Originally posted by: Stefan
I'm not sure what you were trying to show with this article.

1. When people say FireFox is faster I've always assumed it to means the program is faster/more responsive, not the downloading of content.

2. In your http://www.messedup.net/firefox-demo.htm link, I see no code that is supposed to center the table. The only thing I see is IE is automatically centering the table, whereas FireFox displays it as the code is written (firefox-demo2.htm - is centered in FF because it's specified to be centered).

3. Fark.com looked fine to me in Firefox.

pwned.

Originally posted by: SupaDupaPan
Originally posted by: anxi80
for those people on the fence who like the 'feel' of ie but want firefox-like features... maxthon 😀

I used to love maxthon / myie2 ... that is until my brother's comp got killed by spyware ... so I quickly switched my comp's browser over to Firefox 🙂

MyIE2 is just a skin for IE.
 
Unixfreak, you are centering your body text in css, that's great. However there is no body text, only table text. Of course it's w3c valid. You could include all kinds of nonsense css tags that wouldn't do anything and it would still be valid.
 
Because that's how tables are treated. The code is compliant. You don't have to like that fact, but it's still a fact.
 
Back
Top