| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
All browser code not created equal | |
|
||
| Time: 11:06 EST/16:06 GMT | News Source: E-Mail | Posted By: Byron Hinson | ||
|
Thanks Bill (again): All Web browsers are not created equal, and that means headaches for people who develop Web sites. "The developer runs into a situation where there is very little code that works across all browsers," says Owen Briggs, a member of the steering committee of the Web Standards Project and co-author of Cascading Style Sheets: Separating Content from Presentation.The World Wide Web Consortium, widely known as W3C, publishes standards for the hypertext markup language (HTML) and cascading style sheets (CSS) used to create Web pages. Like many other technology standards, though, these are inconsistently observed. Same goes for the JavaScript language used to create special effects on sites. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:37:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 12/13/2002 2:13:57 PM |
|
Beefs I have with Mozilla/Netscape...
Upwards of 90% of people use IE -It makes sense to use the browser that your audience will use -It costs extra development time to make your web page look good in all browsers -Mozilla still has less market share than Netscape 4.x (This is sad) Multiple Browser Windows can authenticate as different users to websites (Open In New Process) -With Mozilla I haven't found a way to log in to the same website with multiple windows. -NO NTLM authentication for Windows based servers (This is a real biggie) Native Application Widget Support -IE uses standard windows controls that animate and work faster -Mozilla uses its XUL standard which in my opinion blows. I have yet to see a good skin for mozilla other than the IE skin. And even then you are making a copy! File Upload to SSL based sites -Mozilla has some serious problems uploading to ssl protected websites. Netscape 4.x even gets this right. This is just what I could rattle off here real quick... But Mozilla still has some serious issues that need to get worked out. IE is still the best browser around. The features that Mozilla has added aren't innovative, and to be honest with you I don't use them. All I want is a browser that opens fast and renders the vast majority of websites out there correctly. In that its not even close. IE blows everyone away. |
| #2 By 116 (129.116.86.41) at 12/13/2002 5:22:36 PM |
|
Sorry clarification about uploading files with ssl.
Try doing that on Mac OS X with any gecko based browser... It works fine on Windows and Mac OS 9. |
| #3 By 135 (209.180.28.6) at 12/13/2002 5:55:12 PM |
| Interesting that they are talking about supporting NTLM. Surprising it also hasn't received higher priority, as it is the #1 feature that has prevented Netscape from being used in corporate environments. |
| #4 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/14/2002 1:05:29 AM |
|
bas - You've just identified the problem with standards.
NTLM authentication was one of the best things to ever hit the intranet. Microsoft delivered to customers what they wanted... Netscape and others sat around whining that it didn't meet a standard, ignoring the fact that the standard didn't meet customer needs. You know what? NTLM is an example of innovation. |
| #5 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/14/2002 1:37:54 AM |
| The NTLM issue is kind of a moot point... you can authenticate with Windows 2000 servers just fine (and securely) with Kerberos these days... which is why Microsoft is moving away from NTLM (which is pretty old school, but was excellent in its day) to the open standard of Kerberos authentication off Active Directory. (Active Directory is really just a very fancy LDAP implementation with lots of awesome management tools and a few special rules when it's referenced via WINNT:// instead of LDAP://) |
| #6 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/14/2002 1:09:26 PM |
|
NTLM is great because it doesn't require a secure connection to the server to authenticate a user.
The reason for this is because it never actually sends the password over the net. It uses a system called challenge/response where the client says "Hey, log me in" and the server responds "Oh ya? You say you're Jimmy? Then respond to this message in the correct way." The only way the client can respond to the message correctly is if it has the correct password. Basic authentication requires the use of SSL, which means it requires an SSL cert, which costs money. Also, sometimes it's not easy to get an SSL cert in a hosted environment... many times you are forced to use the hosting company's SSL, which results in confusing errors for the user. Without SSL, basic authentication is a security hole, not a security measure... as all information is sent PLAIN TEXT. THAT is why NTLM is better than basic authentication. The fact that is "misuses" headers is only because no W3C standard has been created for NTLM. Part of the reason for this is because it wasn't really meant for Internet use... although it works well there. Again, THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT... Kerberos is a standard that Microsoft is/has adopted... NTLM is really only in Windows 2000 Server for backwards happiness with NT clients. |
| #7 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/14/2002 1:48:35 PM |
|
The Linux zealots here appear to be missing the point.
When the Intranet first came out at most companies, IE and Netscape were popular browsers. With IE you could configure it to automatically authenticate you to the IIS web server using the existing domain credentials. With Netscape the user had to type in their username/password again. From the user's perspective the Netscape situation was bloody annoying. Trying to paint NTLM is nothing more than an attempt to avoid the issue. We're back into the old whining position of "Why would you ever want to do that?" whenever the linux zealots find something that Windows does well that Linux does not. Like I said, I think it's nice that Netscape is finally deciding to support this, they should have done it 5 years ago. NTLM was an example of innovation, and it's also great that the concept has carried forward in a better manner through Digest authentication and so forth. |
| #8 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/14/2002 1:50:46 PM |
|
RMD - "Again, THIS IS ALL A MOOT POINT... Kerberos is a standard that Microsoft is/has adopted... NTLM is really only in Windows 2000 Server for backwards happiness with NT clients. "
Well actually NT domains. Even if you have a Win2k web server and Win2k clients, if your users are authenticating to a NT4 domain they don't have a kerberos identity to pass on using Digest. |
| #9 By 2332 (65.221.182.3) at 12/14/2002 1:58:43 PM |
|
Soda - I was talking about a situation where clients are authenticating against Active Directory... the only reason NTLM still exists in that situation is so that the NT4 clients can authenticate... Win2k/XP clients will always use Kerberos when possible. This post was edited by RMD on Saturday, December 14, 2002 at 13:59. |
| #10 By 135 (208.50.206.187) at 12/15/2002 5:03:18 PM |
|
I used to buy LANtastic to use for our work LAN back in the early 1990's... Win95 bundled such networking with it, and yet nobody lamented the demise of LANtastic.
Whatever happened to QEMM? 4DOS? The list of utilities that we used to have to buy to make our computers useful that have since been replaced by OS functionality is endless. They filled a niche at the time. As others have pointed out, Netscape did not have to go this way, they could have remained competitive if they had offered value with their product. |
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 154 Last | Next |
The time now is
4:37:22 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
