Re: Bero goes bye bye

Sorry for the delay.

John wrote:
> On Friday 27 September 2002 22:54, Thomas Dodd wrote:
> 
>>>browser of the three able to handle it correctly.
>>
>>
>>
>>Which one? Is it a public site? Have you reported the problem to the 
>>webmaster and the mozilla developers? What's the bugzilla number for the 
>>mozilla bug?
> We're talking about what works now.

I thought you complaining that Mozilla doesn't work.
>>If you don't report bugs and complain to webmasters, it won't ever get 
>>fixed. Webmasters need to learn that M$ IE is not the only browser out 
>>there.
> 
> 
> The webmaster knows, and it will probably be fixed.
> 
> First, they have to install Linux;-)

Why? I run mozilla in Linux, Solaris, HP-UX, and Windoze(work machines I 
occasionaly use. I can install mozilla on them, but not replace the OS).

Why would they need to install linux?

>>What in the javascript is wrong? Mozilla also has a Netscape 
>>"compatibility" mode. It allows some nostandard javascript stuff to work 
>>but it's not recommended for use. The site should be fixed.
> 
> 
> if (ie) {
> } else if (ne)
> {
> }

That's worse than broken.
That's just stupid coding.

Still, depending on how the browser is detected, you might be able to 
fake Netscape or IE and use the results of you tests to get mozilla or
the newer versions of Netscape in the list. I know a lot of sites 
misdetect NS-6.0 and newer, because the major version in the UA string 
is >4. M$ has not updated the major version, so IE 4+ all reporte a 
major version of 4 in the UA string, so that sites that incorrectly 
coded the test for =4 instead of >=4 continue to work. Their web tools 
are probably one of the tool that create this poor code.


	-Thomas