Can I use it freely or do you want to copyright it, LOL?

edit: how do you quote someone to include their quotation?

Just do a nested quote:

[quote=some member]
some text
[quote]some quoted text[/quote]
[/quote]

Yields:

Things generally work better if you write your BBCode markup by hand, IMO.

Go ahead, I don't care, really. I was just giving that as a possible suggestion.

well MrCode i must sincerely thank you for your wonderful semantic contribution !
i'm gonna admit that i shamelessly used it on my site as the new notice to IE users , i presumed reading your exchanging with sycamorex that you don't mind me using it too

to be honest , i first was reluctant to use it since it is a little bit long compared to my original notice , but after reading it a couple of times i said "what the heck , if you gonna redirect users to another site(s) to download a new browser then better take "lengthy worded" liberties to explain why! ..lol"

as for your advice to include a "continue anyway" button , well the problem is that IE users can NOT continue for purely technical reasons regardless whether i keep flashing the notice or not !

you see the current state of affairs in IE is absolutely abominable , in other words the situation in IE is really really really bad !
my site relies heavily on ajax and javascript and given the horrid implementation of those standards (but not limited to them but also including css ..etc) , vital functionalities are broken in IE not to mention of course that the site looks like a mess given the buggy box model implementation.

to put a long story short , I'm NOT discriminating against IE users it's IE that is discriminating against the entire web and causing grief both to users and developers alike!
i wish if thinks were different but apparently you can't take the bug out of IE ..lol
and as i already explained in detail earlier on , browser hacks for IE are out of the question.

btw , i've noticed that you've deliberately dropped safari from the recommendation list , is it because safari is mostly proprietary and not offered on linux?
if so then i second your attitude indeed if apple continues to be negative towards linux and doesn't offer safari as open source on all platforms then by law of reciprocation safari can go play catch and bait with the crocodiles in botswana ! (pun intended) lol

well i meant it will become obvious to any user after somebody points it out!
because at the beginning most users get their boxes pre-installed with windoze which comes with IE but as soon as they learn the fact that they Do in fact have options , then they will realize how ecky IE is , and they will ditch it without regret or looking back.

NO way , there are people who ACTIVELY optimize for IE ???
i mean although i reject the principle of browser hacks myself , i still may relate to folks who would do them because they have to , but to go all your way to optimize specifically for IE ...

well that's just crazy , isn't it?!

anyways , i'd like to conclude this post by pointing out (if i haven't already) that this fight is not only my fight but more importantly it's also YOURS , it's our fight !

any deconversion or remedy of the M$ Monopoly or that of any corporation especially if abusive, is indeed a win for a democratic digital globe in which technology , wealth and eventually power are equally distributed , in that sense i'd like to paraphrase jeremy :

true words indeed

P.S make this IE notice viral among developers , bloggers ..etc

cheers

It's no problem. If it gets the message across, then it's fine with me. Glad you found a good use for it.

Mostly I just figured that most people stumbling upon your site on a Mac probably wouldn't be using IE. Also, while there apparently is a Safari for Windows (included deliberately in a recent iTunes update ), somehow I don't think that most people would be using it (or would even want to use it ).

(BTW, AFAIK there actually used to be an IE for Mac OS, but it's been discontinued for some time)

Konqueror isn't Safari. Actually, it would be more accurate to say that Safari is Konqueror!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KHTML

The KHTML engine was written for Konqueror. The WebKit engine, originally written for Safari, but now used in other browsers like Chrome and Midori, is a fork of KHTML!

aha okay

i new about KHTML being the layout engine for konqueror but it didn't occur to me to research the connection between KHTML and Webkit...

one a side note , this is what imagine as being a utopian state of affairs regarding software platforms (i.e Operating systems , Browsers, language interpreters ..etc) in which all or at least the major platforms (both open source and proprietary) share a common code base that is being shared among all , plus advancements and updates being sent back and forth...etc

i'd say diversity is the key

cheers

Personally I don't see why it is such a PITA to get a webkit browser running. I can never compile any webkit-based browers, tons of dependency issues, and then the compile fails with an error. What a bunch of s***.

Dependency issues? Probably because it's in Slackware

WebKit works great here.

I agree with you. And to be as user-friendly as possible, put a link to the Firefox (or Chrome) website on there. Instead of explaining details, though, when talking to someone in person, just a simple, short:

"Internet Explorer doesn't follow standards, so what works in most browsers doesn't always work in Explorer..." (don't rant, though) "...Why don't you try Firefox? It's better anyway."

Actually, MS is losing mainly because of Firefox and Chrome...thank God!

I *do* find I may have to do 1 or 2 things different with CSS or whatever, no matter how hard I try. I don't care if my site just "doesn't look great" in IE, but it's another thing if the layout is totally screwed up or if text overlaps links. I minimize it...I ask myself if it's really necessary.

And since I intend to sell my design services to businesses, I had *better* be prepared to show a site that can work! (My personal websites are another matter.)

Tell someone the page looks wrong because *they're* doing something that is a "bad idea", so "read my essay"...that's the worst suggestion I've heard!

How about:
Point to a page with links to several popular browsers, such as Firefox and Chrome. Maybe a brief paragraph about each. And if you like to put an essay here as well, go ahead!

Everyone pays the price for it. More development time means higher cost. But the problem is education. Non-techies don't need to know the nitty-gritty details...at least not *all* of them...but they need to know the problems this causes. Because the technical decisions are often made after someone has *already* decided what content should be on the site (e.g., "Flash") just because they think it's "hip" and without concern for the end-user. It's kind of hard to tell someone they shouldn't fill their homepage with Flash (or any high-bandwidth media, which Flash is not always), when they've already created it. More to this thread's topic, though, is JavaScript (because of security concerns); also layout decisions have to accomodate those "hacks," too! And XML doesn't work in IE browsers when you follow standards exactly (and sometimes vice-versa).

How can you do one thing, but do it 2 different ways at the same time???

What you said is exactly what end-users and business people need to understand, or things will never change.

FYI, "I care," too. I haven't even started commercial projects, yet, and I can see the mountain ahead of me!

Yeah, I use CSS to separate my style from code, supposedly to make my pages easier to maintain...

...then I have to make all these stupid, ugly, confusing "nested <div> tags," with 1-pixel borders 1-pixel high, to fake the corners, making my code messy, unreadable, and unmaintainable again, and bloating my code by 20 lines for 1 box!!!


My "workaround" (where appropriate) is, instead, making a 1-pixel background image for the page. Then give my box a contrasting color. Then make 4 "reverse corner" images (really images that cover up the corners, with a 2nd transparent color "inside" the curve)...these cover up each corner of the box. The non-transparent color matches the page background. The transparent color lets the box color show through.

However, this requires tables and so won't work if tables are stripped out. Otherwise, it requires nested divs, like the popular hack. Granted, it uses less divs! But the page background *must* be a solid color for the "reverse corners" to appear to be part of the page.

Excellent point, Mr. Code!

Mr. Code, I LOVE your sig. I had to eat a sandwich today...blah...one homemade thing I don't like! Linux probably would have made a better sandwich!

HI Shellcat ,

regarding why IE is not improving is because IMO of M$ all known dirty tactic called vendor lock-in , for instance one reason why IE doesn't have an "inspect element" features just like all of firefox , chrome and opera have is because they simply can't and won't.

they can't because doing so means they would reveal their inconsistent box model formatting and they won't because that means giving something for free and M$ don't feel like something for the benefit for everybody and even worse they try to deny everybody the grace of FOSS , so IE has to go....

btw , are you gonna put a switch notice to IE users on the sites that you're making ? if you do intend plz consider Mrcodes's recommendation for a notice in case you haven't already , i guess it's the shortest , most explanatory and non-judgemental notice that anyone could put out there

another thing , have you seen how badly my site looks and works in IE?

cheers buddy