Re: e.layerX problem on Macintosh browsers
On Oct 28, 9:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:
Other than those sorts of things, apps cross over to Mac pretty well
in FF. I spent years without a Mac and now that I have one, I am
pleased to see that most of my stuff runs perfectly on FF Mac, as well
as Safari. I will never buy a PC again, that is for sure. I hate
that guy.
Yes, yes, yes.
LOL. Would you care to place a wager on it?
Are you incapable of expressing yourself in prose? :(
And BTW, you reversed yourself on the whole "user action" argument
here. Leave it alone.
On Oct 28, 9:21 pm, Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedE...@we b.de>
wrote:
David Mark wrote:
>
>
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn wrote:
David Mark wrote:
>On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <mathieu.m...@g mail.comwrote:
>>behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
>>far as I know).
>There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
>FF Mac has more bugs as well.
Care to elaborate on that?
>On Oct 28, 4:02 am, Mathieu Maes <mathieu.m...@g mail.comwrote:
>>behavior between the PC version and the Mac version, even though (as
>>far as I know).
>There are lots of little differences between FF Mac and FF Windows.
>FF Mac has more bugs as well.
Care to elaborate on that?
On bugs in FF Mac? Start with the rendering woes. Scrollbars can
bleed through absolutely positioned elements for one. Flash movies
have similar problems. [...]
bleed through absolutely positioned elements for one. Flash movies
have similar problems. [...]
Thanks, I'll keep that in mind.
in FF. I spent years without a Mac and now that I have one, I am
pleased to see that most of my stuff runs perfectly on FF Mac, as well
as Safari. I will never buy a PC again, that is for sure. I hate
that guy.
>
>
>
Do you understand what "To be fair, ... But yes, ..." means? I guess
anybody else did.
>>I've also made the page valid XHTML. Can anyone check if this has made
>Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
>open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.
To be fair, it was something similar to XHTML in the first place, so the
>Why? Are you serving it as XHTML? If so, you do know that IE will
>open a "Save As" dialog in response to that.
To be fair, it was something similar to XHTML in the first place, so the
That doesn't make it right. Whenever I see this on the Web, I take it
as a sign that the developers' only proficiency is using the
clipboard.
as a sign that the developers' only proficiency is using the
clipboard.
Do you understand what "To be fair, ... But yes, ..." means? I guess
anybody else did.
>
>
>
That depends. And you don't know how it is being served in this case to
begin with.
emphasis would be on "valid" now, which is in itself a Good Thing.
Valid XHTML that will ultimately be error corrected to HTML is
useless.
useless.
That depends. And you don't know how it is being served in this case to
begin with.
>
>
>
Your smiley detector is borken.
But yes, XHTML should not be used unless required, even though IE/MSHTML
will only show that dialog (hmm, you got the general meaning now ;-)) if it
will only show that dialog (hmm, you got the general meaning now ;-)) if it
You are such a pinhead.
Your smiley detector is borken.
And BTW, you reversed yourself on the whole "user action" argument
here. Leave it alone.
Comment