[thelist] MSN locks out non IE browsers

[.jeff]

dan,

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> From: Daniel J. Cody
>
> > that doesn't answer my question though.  sure, you
> > can give them shit, but why do they have to answer to
> > you?
>
> they don't answer to me. they answer to the community
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

ah, but if the community sees the site as the authority on the matter, then
what (msn vs. granny, case in point)?

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> > not shut out, but highly annoyed by an "upgrade to
> > netscape" popup window with every page view.  that's
> > the one that comes immediately to mind.
>
> exactly. shut out and seeing content with a popup is
> different than no content. common...
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

it's different, but not *that* much different because they popup is targeted
at me because i'm using a competitor's browser.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> MSN.com validates and is viewable.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

it's close, but it actually doesn't validate.  fwiw, it looks like crap in
nn6.1.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> its not that they're making it easier for themsevles.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

sure they are.  remove a handful of browsers that are bugridden from the
list you have to support and your development time has suddenly gotten *way*
shorter.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> if they were, why not serve up the msn.com site from a
> week ago?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

perhaps because they're pushing forward with a new design -- one perhaps
which causes problems in the browsers they're denying access to.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> (i'd assume MS has presentation and style divided)
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

probably a very safe assumption.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> they're simply shutting out browsers they don't want.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

i still fail to see why this is such a big deal.  it's *their* site.  they
can do with it what they want.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> what intranet shuts out - *completely* - different
> browsers? no intranet gives a message saying ' upgrade
> as of today to X'.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

on the flip-side, plenty of intranets are governed by IT policy which
dictates that the user *will* use a certain browser and browser version.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> yes its easy. they're not choosing to include browsers
> into their site.  they're choosing to exclude browsers.
> its more difficult to exclude than to include.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

other way around methinks.

including involves testing layouts in all the browsers you're supporting.
including involves fixing bugs found in the layout when viewed in browser x,
y, or z.

excluding is as simple as saying this list of browsers can get in and no one
else.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> seriously. if you want, i can give you at least 15
> examples of this in the real world. 'cliches' become
> cliches for a reason.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

so do stereotypes, right?

an anti-ms media spinster used it in a highly publicized article one time
and all of a sudden every anti-ms argument comes around to finding a way to
use that phrase.  ugh.  boring

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> come on! point me to a major computer company that I
> can *CHOOSE* to not have windows installed.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

to name two off the top of my head that i know for sure.

dell
compaq

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> so if you have a hotmail account, you're willing to pay
> three cents an email from accounts outside of hotmail?
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

no, the sender outside of hotmail pays to send to a hotmail account holder.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><
> altering a strategy to stay profitable profits no one
> eXcePt the company. it doesn't profit consumers jeff.
><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><

that's stark raving bullshit for the very reasons i just mentioned.  lack of
profitability will *always* hurt the end consumer.  profitability, at least,
has the potential for helping the end consumer.

<tip type="Cross Platform ColdFusion">
upgrading your linux cf4.5 boxes to cf5.0?  might wanna take a peek at your
apps afterwards if they use regular expressions.  regular expressions which
worked in cf4.5 may not work in cf5.0.

for example, this:

REFindNoCase("MSIE 6.[[:print:]]*win", cgi.http_user_agent

now must be changed to this:

REFindNoCase("MSIE 6.[[[:alnum:]]|[[:print:]]]*win", cgi.http_user_agent

to continue working the same way.

</tip>

.jeff

http://evolt.org/
jeff at members.evolt.org
http://members.evolt.org/jeff/