All Things Microsoft > Microsoft as a Company
US copyright office thinking of going partially IE only
davidnix71:
You can spoof your user-agent easily enough. Opera can do it and Firefox has an extension for it. To refuse to support only IE would have to be willful. That is to say, using some form of Java or Windows authentication that another browser couldn't spoof.
I've been to Yahoo's streaming music site in Firefox and they let me in if I pretend to be a PC running XP and IE6 (when it's actually an eMac/Panther/Firefox. But, the music won't play because the popup window's Java is slightly different than a real pc's with IE, so some of the controls aren't there.
worker201:
How to fuck with IE: the right way.
Make a website in graphical form
Save it as a png
add a layer above the sitegraphic
fill that layer with white
adjust the transparency of that layer until you can see through it well
save and upload
IE will just see a blue screen
Refalm:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---How to fuck with IE: the right way.
Make a website in graphical form
Save it as a png
add a layer above the sitegraphic
fill that layer with white
adjust the transparency of that layer until you can see through it well
save and upload
IE will just see a blue screen
--- End quote ---
I have tweaked that on my new website.
I have a script which detects by PHP which browser you're using (the user won't even notice one thing, because it's all in the background).
If you use a real browser, you get feeded the css file, plus a seperate one, created for real browsers. It got this:
#logo { width: 225px; height: 55px; background: url("images/refalm.png") }
However, if you use IE, you get the CSS file, plus this:
#logo { width: 225px; height: 55px; filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale src="images/refalm.png") }
Finally, I use this to insert the PNG into my website:
This clearly shows that Microsoft slows down progress of building websites and new web technologies.
Using a gif isn't usually an option, because it's outdated, and doesn't match the superb quality of PNG.
worker201:
--- Quote from: Refalm ---Using a gif isn't usually an option, because it's outdated, and doesn't match the superb quality of PNG.
--- End quote ---
Not to mention the fact that Compuserve requires anyone who produces a gif to have a license. Adobe bought a license, which transfers to you when you buy Photoshop. But the Gimp, being free and open source, cannot create gif images. Nor can any other open source program. That's the main reason the W3C created and pimped png in the first place.
Conspiracy theory:
Apparently, supporting png transparency is a trivial matter. The png specification is available for anyone who wants to read it, along with guides for implementation. Yet Microsoft is somehow unable to do this. Why? One possible answer is that they are dumb (but just like George W, their dumbness is a front designed to draw your attention away from their real intentions). Another possible answer is that they don't want to appear weak by "caving in" to web standards - if Microsoft supports one standard, customers will demand that they start supporting more. But I think that a secret deal with Compuserve is the real reason. Think about it: Compuserve gets into a little deal with Microsoft, Compuserve gets a few bucks and strong backing (which it must need since it pretty much died), while Microsoft has exclusive rights to extremely outdated gif technology. They continue to support gif - if they didn't, gif would be completely supplanted by the far superior png within a year, causing Compuserve to belly flop.
Just an idea - I can't prove any of it.
skyman8081:
--- Quote from: worker201 ---Not to mention the fact that Compuserve requires anyone who produces a gif to have a license. Adobe bought a license, which transfers to you when you buy Photoshop. But the Gimp, being free and open source, cannot create gif images. Nor can any other open source program. That's the main reason the W3C created and pimped png in the first place.
Conspiracy theory:
Apparently, supporting png transparency is a trivial matter. The png specification is available for anyone who wants to read it, along with guides for implementation. Yet Microsoft is somehow unable to do this. Why? One possible answer is that they are dumb (but just like George W, their dumbness is a front designed to draw your attention away from their real intentions). Another possible answer is that they don't want to appear weak by "caving in" to web standards - if Microsoft supports one standard, customers will demand that they start supporting more. But I think that a secret deal with Compuserve is the real reason. Think about it: Compuserve gets into a little deal with Microsoft, Compuserve gets a few bucks and strong backing (which it must need since it pretty much died), while Microsoft has exclusive rights to extremely outdated gif technology. They continue to support gif - if they didn't, gif would be completely supplanted by the far superior png within a year, causing Compuserve to belly flop.
Just an idea - I can't prove any of it.
--- End quote ---
Um.... the GIF patent expired 2 years ago in the US, and a year ago everywhere else. And compuserve sold the patent to Unisys, who then cracked down on it's use.
http://www.unisys.com/about__unisys/lzw
I use GIF because Adobe's PNG implementation is utter crap. If I use less than 256 colors (anything that isn't a photo, just about) Then I will use gif.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version