Owen's Hack for ie

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 01:50 AM

Look how many hacks I have... 3. They are only for ie 5 and 6. Split it into multible files and run another script? That would waste more bandiwidth and be more stuff to keep track of. Keeping 9 extra lines of code in a css file is more efficient I think. I posted a working solution the the ie6 - 5 css deficiency, but you keep saying it is inefficient. These hacks are very widely used, I am not alone, I am not the one who came up with this. They are well documented. I will post you several links if you would like. You detect script would also have to be fired on every page, even if you set a session variable because you have to get that data on every page and what if the user does not go to that page. The css only needs to be downloaded one time, and the server does not do a thing with it after that.

Skywing · December 22, 2003, 01:53 AM

Quote from: peofeoknight on December 22, 2003, 01:50 AM
Look how many hacks I have... 3. They are only for ie 5 and 6. Split it into multible files and run another script? That would waste more bandiwidth and be more stuff to keep track of. Keeping 9 extra lines of code in a css file is more efficient I think. I posted a working solution the the ie6 - 5 css deficiency, but you keep saying it is inefficient. These hacks are very widely used, I am not alone, I am not the one who came up with this. They are well documented. I will post you several links if you would like.

I did not say it was inefficient. I said it was undocumented, unreliable, and subject to change without notice. A website should have future compatibility as well as backwards compatibility.

The CSS wouldn't necessarily have to be downloaded more than once with a browser-detection mechanism; consider a server-side detection mechanism that sent a Not-Modified reply when the client's cache was current.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 01:56 AM

the only change would help me because the next version or ie is said to have a complient box model. It is very well documented, I have told you time and again that these are widely used and very well tested. I have tested it on ie 5.5 5 and 6 myself. I run all three from this comp. (you have to delete a dll to do that, I know you cant do that normally). I did not say css would need to be download mroe then one time. The detect script would have to be executed on page load of every page, strain on the server. When its on every page, well it would not be that big of a deal genorally right? It gets to be noticable on high traffic sites.

dxoigmn · December 22, 2003, 01:57 AM

Quote from: peofeoknight on December 22, 2003, 01:50 AM
Look how many hacks I have... 3. They are only for ie 5 and 6. Split it into multible files and run another script? That would waste more bandiwidth and be more stuff to keep track of. Keeping 9 extra lines of code in a css file is more efficient I think. I posted a working solution the the ie6 - 5 css deficiency, but you keep saying it is inefficient. These hacks are very widely used, I am not alone, I am not the one who came up with this. They are well documented. I will post you several links if you would like.

Actually it would probably save bandwidth if you implement it correctly server-side. As a side note, modularization is a good thing, even the W3C recommends it; and in general it is good practice.

Skywing · December 22, 2003, 01:58 AM

Quote from: peofeoknight on December 22, 2003, 01:56 AM
the only change would help me because the next version or ie is said to have a complient box model. It is very well documented, I have told you time and again that these are widely used and very well tested. I have tested it on ie 5.5 5 and 6 myself. I run all three from this comp. (you have to delete a dll to do that, I know you cant do that normally)

So, you can provided me a reference to vendor-supplied documentation that describes this behavior and explains exactly which versions support it? Third-party documentation hardly provides a guarantee as to whether a behavior will be supported by future versions.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:00 AM

lol. Yea ms is going to say that their browser sucks. Download ie6 v2 if you want proof that they are trying to change their box model.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:01 AM

Quote from: kamakazie on December 22, 2003, 01:57 AM

Actually it would probably save bandwidth if you implement it correctly server-side. As a side note, modularization is a good thing, even the W3C recommends it; and in general it is good practice.

But it still strains the server to run this on every page, if I had more values to change, like say all of them, yes I would not use a hack. But for a few different values due to a crappy box model then a hack is a better solution in my eyes.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:04 AM

http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;825057
did not think they would have anything like this online lol. They go on to talk about http and encryption but that seems to have nothing to do with the style sheet, it would not read the thing anyway the chances are.

Skywing · December 22, 2003, 02:06 AM

Quote from: peofeoknight on December 22, 2003, 02:04 AM
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;825057
did not think they would have anything like this online lol.

That only applies if you're compressing the .css and using HTTPS - which does not seem to be the case for your site.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:08 AM

ie6 doesnt read it properly anyway though. The work arounds are so that the site will load.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:10 AM

Ok, IE handles css like crap. Do you understand that or do you need proof of that? These hacks work, Infact I can take them out and provide an alternate page for you if you do not believe me. MS is not going to put a bunch of stuff saying, "our browser sucks, here is how to work around it", on their website. Honestly. So what do you need proof about? There is loads of data on these hacks and their reliability. I posted it thinking others here might get some use out of it but you guys must all be stuck in a table based mind set

Skywing · December 22, 2003, 02:14 AM

Quote from: peofeoknight on December 22, 2003, 02:10 AM
Ok, IE handles css like crap. Do you understand that or do you need proof of that? These hacks work, Infact I can take them out and provide an alternate page for you if you do not believe me. MS is not going to put a bunch of stuff saying, "our browser sucks, here is how to work around it", on their website. Honestly. So what do you need proof about? There is loads of data on these hacks and their reliability. I posted it thinking others here might get some use out of it but you guys must all be stuck in a table based mind set

You're missing the point - I'm trying to say that it's probably not wise to rely on specific browsers incorrectly parsing things if you want to remain compatible with future versions - especially if the vendor doesn't even document the problem.

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:20 AM

Let me explain the flow of this hack and the other hacks. They filter incomplaint browsers, it is not specific to one but rather all that do not comply. The first value is sent. Then the hack is sent with a second behind it. The incompliant browser will see nothing after the hack while the compliant will and the first is overwritten by the new one on the complaint browsers. if ie becomes compliant then it is reading my code right then it seeing the second part and over writing the first is of no loss. This is not something I or anyone else just came up with, and though it is not on the ms website, besides ie6 v2 and the docs with it, ms is going to change the way they handle objects css and xhtml, because they are making steps to it in this vers of ie, v2. It is not going to get any worse then it is not so it no big deal
http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/author/dhtml/overview/compat.asp
ie 5.5 is still widely used.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dndude/html/dude03262001.asp
that has info about future standards

quasi-modo · December 22, 2003, 02:31 AM

I think this thread is about done. I aggree with you if your layout needs to be radically different for another brower then do it server side but I have been uing hacks for a while, I have a list of sites I go to to read up on them and the browser specs, I have support charts. This is the most efficient way to do thing for minor adjustments In my opinion. Even if something did not work properly, some hideous monster escaped from the zoo and made the next version of ie into lynx, my site would still work, and the content is still acessable (I have tested my site on an actualy copy of lynx I have on this comp) I posted all the stuff I care to at this time. Have a nice night.

j0k3r · December 22, 2003, 06:47 AM

Quote from: Skywing on December 22, 2003, 01:47 AM
Quote from: peofeoknight on December 22, 2003, 01:43 AM
because thats the wrong url. Thats the little page http://quasi-ke.servebeer.com that I made in 5 minuits as a default file for my root dir. Look at the links I posted, they are to http://quasi-le.servebeer.com/layout/index.html
Do not count on me running a server side detection. I have mentioned already I chose this method, and I think doing it server side is the improper way to do it in this case because you have to take into account many more browsers then just the big 2 or 3, and why have 2 css files, when you only have 2 values to change and run an extra script.
If you have only one or two things to change between different browser versions, it would probably be more maintainable to split it into two files - a general one that is compatible with all of your target browsers, and then browser-specific stylesheets that provide whatever fixups are necessary to address specific problems with certain target browsers.

Skywing is right on this, if you're only working with 2 situations then it would probably be better to have 2 different pages, especially when approximately 90% of internet users are using IE (about 90% of those using 6.0+).

http://www.dreamink.com/design5.shtml
Shows that last year, 91% of the world used IE 5.xx or above, I'd wager most of those people are running 6.0 by now. Instead of using a hack for one situation which accounts for 90% of the net, loading one specific page might be better.

Details from: http://www.google.ca/search?q=internet+explorer+vs+netscape+browser+statistic&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&btnG=Google+Search&meta=