|
|
Posted by BBM on 09/24/06 02:33
wmanzo@yahoo.com wrote:
> Hey, got you fellas all in a tuss! My philosphy is that at this point
> all
> browsers should be standardized
Your'e right, they should.
> and if they ain't, I'm not going to
> code for "cross" platform portability.
Reasonable, though coding to the standards should give you portability
anyways...
> I like the way MS js works
> and it works for me.
I'm impressed by two statements: MS JS works, and MS JS works for you.
Both cases seem impossible.
> Also, did you note that I don't code using
> java or c+++++ concepts. I code for humans because I am a human.
So your visitors get to sift though your code to form an image of your
webpage in their mind?
> Imagine all those people who buy all those books on website design
> and jscript and still cannot figure out how to move layers or
> change background colors.
Or, imagine all those people who look up free resources on website
design and jscript and manage to produce valid, portable, and effective
websites, while getting annoyed at people who haven't read anything and
are still using outdated and proprietary code.
> How many of you pro coders actually tried to get the mouse coords to
> readout when the iframe is visible? It works perfectly when the iframe
> is hidden. Sounds like a major bug but maybe not.
What are you even using mouse coordinates for? I looked at your
homepage and your index_1.html in both FFX and IE, and noticed nothing
different depending on mouse position.
> Anyway, my site is the most profession looking jscript movie site on
> the
> net which isn't saying much since the "net" as we know is quite fake.
If your site is the most professional looking, does that mean you've
cornered the market for 'jscript movie sites'? Because the only way I
could see it being the most professional looking was if it were the
only one in existence.
> Anyway, thank you for your responses who-ever you are and by the
> lack of any real responses it is another indication that the net is
> quite fake.
The 'net is quite real. Lack of response just means other either A)
don't know the answer, B) haven't seen the question, or C) don't think
the question is worth answering.
Since your question was emailed to large numbers of people, (B) is
right out. Since this is a mailing list full of informed people on the
subject of webmasters ing creating webpages, I seriously doubt (A) is
true. By process of elimination, we come to (C) as the reason for
little response.
PS: neither page looked good in Internet Explorer, and much much MUCH
less so in Firefox.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|