SillyDog701

[Antony]

According to the W3 validator, the page checks out as valid code. So, if the problem is still there, it's a problem with Opera.

Err. Not necessary.

SillyDog701 webpages do not pass any W3C validations, but works well for most browsers, and actually enhanced for a number of browsers.


Note added by DJGM:
To avoid hijacking the Donzilla thread with an off topic debate about Web Standards vs browser specific
tags, I'm going to split off-topic posts over to a new thread in the Web Design and Page Coding forum.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[DJGM]

According to the W3 validator, the page checks out as valid code.
So, if the problem is still there, it's a problem with Opera.

Errr, Not necessary.

If a webpage is only to be seen as the built in startup page of a browser, and to be stored locally on the HDD
of whoever installs that browser, then W3C recommended standards don't necessarily have to be adhered
to. On the other hand, if a webpage is to be published as part of a publicly available website, then W3C
recommended standards should always be adhered to wherever possible.

It is simply unacceptable, especially these days, for any publicly available website, to be optimized for specific
browsers. That's something that harks back to the dark days, when there were lots of websites out there
bearing the lame "Best Viewed with (name of browser)" notice on their homepages. I'll admit, even I
used to do it, when I didn't know any better! Mind you, I was using GeoCities to host my website at
the time, and I hadn't yet decided whether I preferred Netscape Navigator or Internet Explorer!

Browser specific (non-standard) webpage coding is wrong and unethical, and needs to be discouraged.

For the sake of the web . . . let's not go back to those bad old days . . .

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050910 SeaMonkey/1.0a

[Antony]

It is simply unacceptable, especially these days, for any publicly available website, to be optimized for specific browsers. That's something that harks back to the dark days,

...

Browser specific (non-standard) webpage coding is wrong and unethical, and needs to be discouraged.

There are two issues...
Designing webpages using some browser specified tags or extensions is encouraged. The feature is there, as long as visitors of other browsers do not get blocked or unable to display the content at all.
e.g.

SillyDog701 is "enhanced" for some browsers (Gecko-based and Safari), visitors do not need to use those browsers. Same content (information) presented users of all modern browsers.

SillyDog701's design principle is to for real human to read, not robots to validate.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[DJGM]

Designing webpages using some browser specified tags or extensions is
encouraged. The feature is there, as long as visitors of other browsers
do not get blocked or unable to display the content at all.

e.g.

No. The use of any non-standard code that is designed to work only in specific browsers and is
non-compliant to W3C recommendations must be strongly discouraged, in favour of
recommended standard code that works well in ALL browsers.

Using browser specific code can cause websites to appear broken in other browsers, and is an
unwelcome kickback to around 1995-1999, when Netscape and Microsoft were both as bad
as each other, for coming up with non-standard tags that would only work in their own
browsers, and appear broken (if they appeared at all) in the rival product.

And your screengrab seems only to demonstrate how certain types of webpage coding
affect browsers made for Mac OS X. Since that's only a small percentage overall, it
makes that screengrab a rather inconclusive part of the argument.

Websites should comply with W3C guidelines, not Apple Human Interface Guidelines!
And we don't want to create websites to be viewed on Apple Macs only, now do we?

And while I'm currently only able to use a Mac at moment, any webpages I create
with it, will adhere to the recommended web standards as close as possible, so
that I can be sure they'll be displayed with little or no inconsistencies, on
any current or recent browser . . . and that even includes IE . . . !

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050910 SeaMonkey/1.0a

[Antony]

Using browser specific code can cause websites to appear broken in other browsers, and is an unwelcome kickback to around 1995-1999, when Netscape and Microsoft were both as bad as each other, for coming up with non-standard tags that would only work in their own browsers, and appear broken (if they appeared at all) in the rival product.

Not necessary. Using standard tags may not display well in all modern browsers either.

And your screengrab seems only to demonstrate how certain types of webpage coding affect browsers made for Mac OS X. Since that's only a small percentage overall, it makes that screengrab a rather inconclusive part of the argument.

No, my screenshot demonstrated a good example of additional "enhancement" that's available in certain browsers, and was used carefully to take the advantage of certain browser's capabilities while no degrades in other browsers. For example, search box (requires Safari) and single rounded corner design (Gecko-base browsers).

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5

[DJGM]

Not necessary. Using standard tags may not display well in all modern browsers either.

No browser is yet 100% compliant to all web standards. But out of all the modern browsers, the Mozilla/Gecko
are usually the ones that come the closest. You may well find relatively minor inconsistencies, in a very small
number of cases, when using proper recommended W3C standard code and displayed in modern browsers.

In any case, most end users (the actual website visitors) are unlikely to even notice the inconsistenicies.
Since the inconsistencies are likely to be very minor indeed, most end users unlikely to even care!

Even so, whether you use choose to use proper standard code or not, you're always going to test your
pages first in the browser you have access to before publishing them. That way, any inconsistencies
are kept to a very low minimum, if not totally eradicated where possible.

And your screengrab seems only to demonstrate how certain types of webpage coding
affect browsers made for Mac OS X. Since that's only a small percentage overall, it
makes that screengrab a rather inconclusive part of the argument.

No, my screenshot demonstrated a good example of additional "enhancement" that's available in
certain browsers, and was used carefully to take the advantage of certain browser's capabilities
while no degrades in other browsers. For example, search box (requires Safari) and single
rounded corner design (Gecko-base browsers).

None of the makers of any Mozilla based and/or KHTML based browsers, create their own proprietary code
designed to work only in the browsers they develops. So, the only thing I can ascertain from what you're
saying there is that you have actually created your own proprietary, non-standard webpage coding.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X Mach-O; en-US; rv:1.8b4) Gecko/20050910 SeaMonkey/1.0a

[Antony]

Even so, whether you use choose to use proper standard code or not, you're always going to test your pages first in the browser you have access to before publishing them.

I always do.

None of the makers of any Mozilla based and/or KHTML based browsers, create their own proprietary code designed to work only in the browsers they develops. So, the only thing I can ascertain from what you're saying there is that you have actually created your own proprietary, non-standard webpage coding.

I created my own proprietary?
I would take that as a compliment.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/412.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/412.5