Zoom script

[Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn]

But I do not need to be too much experienced and educated
to understand that script works, and works not bad.

Unfortunately, you don't understand anything.

Let me test your famous script?

Sure. How much are we talking about?


PointedEars

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

That about says it all.

That is about good enough for the source code of the HTML 4
specification itself, but obviously not for you (surprise .

 

[rf]

That is about good enough for the source code of the HTML 4
specification itself, but obviously not for you (surprise .

Or anybody else who is concerned about *not* running browsers in quirks
mode, where they carefully reproduce legacy bugs.

The HTML 4 specification *is* using legacy code, having been written some
time last century.

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Or anybody else who is concerned about *not* running browsers in quirks
mode, where they carefully reproduce legacy bugs.

I for one can guarantee to *do* “run browsers†(make that Internet
Explorer) not in quirks mode only on my own system. Thanks to IE’s
doctype sniffing heuristics you never really know what’s about to happen
at the other end of the wire. Quirks mode is your safest bet, by the
way. And that wasn’t even what I was thinking about.

The HTML 4 specification *is* using legacy code, having been written some
time last century.

FWIW, the HTML 4 specification *introduced* features that it deprecated,
but that’s probably not the pun you’ve missed.

 

[rf]

I for one can guarantee to *do* "run browsers" (make that Internet
Explorer) not in quirks mode only on my own system. Thanks to IE's
doctype sniffing heuristics you never really know what's about to
happen at the other end of the wire.

Yes you do. It is quite well documented by Microsoft what their browsers
will do with different doctypes.

Quirks mode is your safest bet,
by the way.

I just hope I never have to go anywhere any web site you have created.

 

[David Mark]

That is about good enough for the source code of the HTML 4
specification itself, but obviously not for you (surprise .

Nice of you to drop in and shoot yourself in the foot. That doctype
is obviously no good. Are you that ignorant or perhaps you just
wanted to see your name in print?

 

[David Mark]

I for one can guarantee to *do* “run browsers” (make that Internet
Explorer) not in quirks mode only on my own system. Thanks to IE’s

Can't make heads or tails of that.

doctype sniffing heuristics you never really know what’s about to happen
at the other end of the wire. Quirks mode is your safest bet, by the

Wrong and wrong.

way. And that wasn’t even what I was thinking about.

I don't think you were thinking at all.

FWIW, the HTML 4 specification *introduced* features that it deprecated,
but that’s probably not the pun you’ve missed.

Well, that was a complete waste. Not a coherent sentence to be found
in the entire post.

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Nice of you to drop in and shoot yourself in the foot.

I love you too.

That doctype
is obviously no good.

Ah. In what way?

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Santander meinte:

As to "big" size, I think this not an issue, nowadays most people on
broadband, so scripts loads instantly. Again, it works very well, tested on
Firefox2,3; MSIE6.

What's that "discussion" about? You are told, that the script is worse
than lousy, but you insist that is "compatible for your needs". Ok,
stick to it. But don't come whining later.

Did you know some better professional thumbnail viewer script for
osCommerce, that works the same way(visually)?

I just find this:
http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/

Same crap, at least.

[fullquote snipped]

And could you please stop top-posting and fullquoting. This is *usenet*,
not some idiotic "web forum" - even OLE can handle that.

Gregor

 

[Gregor Kofler]

Eric B. Bednarz meinte:

Thanks to IE’s
doctype sniffing heuristics you never really know what’s about to happen
at the other end of the wire. Quirks mode is your safest bet, by the
way.

Bullshit.

Gregor

 

[Eric B. Bednarz]

Yes you do. It is quite well documented by Microsoft what their browsers
will do with different doctypes.

What document type declaration you use becomes completely irrelevant
when the source is modified after it leaves your server (e.g. by a proxy
that sticks a comment declaration on top of the document; nothing wrong
with that in itself).

 

[David Mark]

What document type declaration you use becomes completely irrelevant
when the source is modified after it leaves your server (e.g. by a proxy
that sticks a comment declaration on top of the document; nothing wrong
with that in itself).

You are dreaming. Go ahead and keep forcing quirks mode. You have
lots of incompetent company on the Web.

 

[David Mark]

As to "big" size, I think this not an issue, nowadays most people on
broadband, so scripts loads instantly. Again, it works very well, tested on
Firefox2,3; MSIE6.

"Most" people on broadband? In what country?

Does a 200K script download more or less "instantly" than a 2K
script? And what of the evaluation? Do you see that as a freebie
too?

And tested "well" in three browsers that are explicitly sniffed for in
the script. Do you not see how stupid that point is?

You could have saved time by not writing this.

 

[David Mark]

But I do not need to be too much experienced and educated to understand that
script works, and works not bad.


Let me test your famous script?

So if Thomas' script is less "famous" than this other pile of refuse,
then the pile of refuse wins out in your mind.

I blame television.

 

[rf]

What document type declaration you use becomes completely irrelevant
when the source is modified after it leaves your server (e.g. by a
proxy that sticks a comment declaration on top of the document;
nothing wrong with that in itself).

Yeah, right.

Please provide one documented example of this happening.

You will not be able to. Any proxy server (or anything else between server
and client for that matter) that caused IE to switch from standards mode to
quirks mode would break so many otherwise valid and conforming sites it
would be summarily dismissed as being broken.

Still waiting for that example...