US Gov looking for input about IE ONLY pre-patient web site...

All this would be nothing if only MSIE supported the official
specifications consistently. They never have, and they never will.

The problem comes from web developers who are unable to use the
official specification to produce their work, and are trapped by their
blindness to the common ground shared by MSIE and the browsers that do
support the standards.

There is simply no reason whatsoever for a modern website _not_ to
adhere to the standards, thus allowing access to and successful
interaction with it.

Some folks here are confusing the way MSIE interprets pixel-based
measurements (by far the least desireable and least-stable measurement
system available to a competent developer) and the way it handles
interaction. Frankly, I don't care if the menus line up, as long as I
can submit my information and have the server-side app handle it
correctly. That's not browser-land.

Lastly, please read the proposal. It's for a new system of
pre-registering copyrights before the work to be copyrighted is
completed (published). This ain't banking or anything serious, and it's
not a critical system for the office requesting it ... it's a TEST. You
can always do it the old-fashioned way ... mail it in. In fact, that's
the best way to do anything with the government ... leave a paper
trail. Heck, in the proposal they even state quite clearly that their
email system is not to be trusted by requiring emailed comments to the
proposal to also be delivered (Original comment plus 5 copies, please)
to the office by mail or hand delivery. Now THAT's progress!

"StupidScript" <stupidscript@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1124308737.694056.320160@g49g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> All this would be nothing if only MSIE supported the official
> specifications consistently. They never have, and they never will.
>
> The problem comes from web developers who are unable to use the
> official specification to produce their work, and are trapped by their
> blindness to the common ground shared by MSIE and the browsers that do
> support the standards.
>
> There is simply no reason whatsoever for a modern website _not_ to
> adhere to the standards, thus allowing access to and successful
> interaction with it.
>
> Some folks here are confusing the way MSIE interprets pixel-based
> measurements (by far the least desireable and least-stable measurement
> system available to a competent developer) and the way it handles
> interaction. Frankly, I don't care if the menus line up, as long as I
> can submit my information and have the server-side app handle it
> correctly. That's not browser-land.
>
> Lastly, please read the proposal. It's for a new system of
> pre-registering copyrights before the work to be copyrighted is
> completed (published). This ain't banking or anything serious, and it's
> not a critical system for the office requesting it ... it's a TEST. You
> can always do it the old-fashioned way ... mail it in. In fact, that's
> the best way to do anything with the government ... leave a paper
> trail. Heck, in the proposal they even state quite clearly that their
> email system is not to be trusted by requiring emailed comments to the
> proposal to also be delivered (Original comment plus 5 copies, please)
> to the office by mail or hand delivery. Now THAT's progress!

You're getting there :o).. almost made perfect sense (the last bit certainly
did!)

Fully agree that the end-justifies-means when it comes to web sites for the
most part, *but* as the "confused folks" around here, I get rather annoyed
that I spend hours tweaking a site, only to be told that Firefox supports
standards perfectly, while IE doesn't.

Oh, and by that damned pixel thing. A pixel is a "picture element". Always
has been. Always should be. Face it, it's a dot on the screen (or paper).

Although I can only claim pixel-plotting graphical experience since the
ZX-81 (not quite a quarter century ago), that's always been the case. For
*every* device with a digital graphical display, that's *always* been the
case, in my experience. Even Christmas lights have a defined pixel size. As
do 1970s LED watches. That's sort-of the definition betwixt digital and
analogue.

But not Nutscrape. Or things based upon its rendering engine.

So.

As discovered today, while beating my head against the SOAP implementation
in Delphi 6 (yeah, I know. My copy of D2005 is *still* in the hands of Royal
Mail, and I have one day to save the world/build a web app): FF CSS doesn't
properly support margins at either top or right. Body/span hierarchy is
broken. Font inheritance is broken (two identical pages with an identical
CSS class table /really/ shouldn't look utterly different in their
respective frames). EM spacing is still inconsistent. Font size is still
inconsistent - but in a different way to 1.04; still trying to work out
where it loaded that particular font size from, as it doesn't appear
/anywhere/ in the hierarchy.

I got that in an hour, just fiddling with one solitary HTML page.

Oh, and centring of containers is *still* broken. After, what? A couple of
years? I could talk about the HR tag, but no point really - it's never,
ever, worked and is now deprecated by the W3C.

Face it - if *anyone* can find that many basic flaws in a product in a mere
hour, on a product that's been released for (current 1.06 version /only/)
weeks, then it simply ain't been tested. Except maybe unit-tested by the
people that wrote the code. Which *never* works.

Or are we setting a challenge, here? I'm too busy at present (see above!)to
see where in the Mozilla engine someone has started an array with 1 instead
of zero.. but (experience says) that'll be the case. Feel free, Netizens, to
put personal time where the mouth is... ;o)

H1K

P.S. Hands-up who sizes their images in non-pixel units..?

Imhotep wrote:
> Casper wrote:
>
>
>>Smiling Wickedly, Jim Watt answered:
>>
>>>On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:14 GMT, Matt Silberstein
>>><RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Yes, people using IE5 have moved to IE6 people who used
>>>>>netscape have migrated to Firefox.
>>>>
>>>>That and that IE has lost market share.
>>>
>>>
>>>True, but it still has 10x the share of its nearest competitor
>>>and is the dominant browser.
>>>
>>>lets look again next year.
>>>--
>>>Jim Watt
>>>http://www.gibnet.com
>>
>>Unfortunately your stats are flawed, as it is now OFFICIAL that Firefox
>>has close to 20% NOT what you listed. Still NOT what IE has , but IE is
>>done for.
>
>
> ...that is what I have heard as well...

A lot depends on the audience visiting the website. For example: One
might find Mozilla flavors much more at a Linux site versus a free
windows program download site.

I always liked The statistics at w3 schools (good free training site for
those inclined).

http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

The stats are skewed due to their visitors. I would consider their
19.8% Firefox measurement high. I found the indicative downturn with
Firefox coincides with several quick upgrades to fix critical issues,
and a number of Microsoft press heads clamoring how Firefox is no more
secure, which in some ways, has some truth to the issue.

That said I am still a Firefox user as I don't have sites hounding me to
turn on activeX before the let me peruse their site. If you turn off
ActiveX and all the other vulnerabilities, IE can be relatively safe,
but the bad guys don't cooperate. I have only been prompted for ActiveX
at Microsoft, with Firefox I don't get nagged elsewhere and I just like
it better.

Firefox usually fixes quickly, unlike IE which may take months or even
years to fix known holes. But Avant, for example, is a much more secure
overlay for IE interface and even has tabbed browsing, however because
it is built on top of IE has "some" of the same vulnerabilities, but it
stops a number of other holes in IE..shrugs.

In the same vein for testing IE communications MS has a free tool called
fiddler that can enlighten on on server client communications and even
can be used to probe a site for various specific vulnerabilities. I
have found the tool useful for looking at various http communications.

http://www.fiddlertool.com/fiddler/


Back on the original subject:

The following is an article that Linux acceptance is gaining ground in
US Government.

http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/36624-1.html

It seems, as always, various agencies policies vary by the person
driving at the moment, usually without a steering wheel.

A FINAL SIDE NOTE

I was perusing NIST and came across this list of NIST security
checklists for various computer OS's and products. I have just started
looking at some of these documents specifically XP, but there is a lot
of information in these lock down guides. It took a bit for me to drill
down to the actual guides but there is a treasure trove of information
on locking down and securing various systems. Thought I'd pass it along.

http://csrc.nist.gov/checklists/repository/vendor.html

Winged

StupidScript wrote:
> All this would be nothing if only MSIE supported the official
> specifications consistently. They never have, and they never will.
>
> The problem comes from web developers who are unable to use the
> official specification to produce their work, and are trapped by their
> blindness to the common ground shared by MSIE and the browsers that do
> support the standards.
>
> There is simply no reason whatsoever for a modern website _not_ to
> adhere to the standards, thus allowing access to and successful
> interaction with it.
>
> Some folks here are confusing the way MSIE interprets pixel-based
> measurements (by far the least desireable and least-stable measurement
> system available to a competent developer) and the way it handles
> interaction. Frankly, I don't care if the menus line up, as long as I
> can submit my information and have the server-side app handle it
> correctly. That's not browser-land.
>
> Lastly, please read the proposal. It's for a new system of
> pre-registering copyrights before the work to be copyrighted is
> completed (published). This ain't banking or anything serious, and it's
> not a critical system for the office requesting it ... it's a TEST. You
> can always do it the old-fashioned way ... mail it in. In fact, that's
> the best way to do anything with the government ... leave a paper
> trail. Heck, in the proposal they even state quite clearly that their
> email system is not to be trusted by requiring emailed comments to the
> proposal to also be delivered (Original comment plus 5 copies, please)
> to the office by mail or hand delivery. Now THAT's progress!
>

Well to some there are advantages, for example .NET applications. Not
saying I concur totally, but there are some business applications that
are more robust, faster to production, and allow improved security
features using .NET. .NET allows one to use more code more language
types even more insecurely :-)

Yes, we have used Java to build applications, but this induces a number
of developmental issues, and there are a number of things Javascript
doesn't do easily, for example: run a text editor with dictionaries etc
from the Web application. We have done this in JAVA, but there are
security issues induced in the JAVA application environment that relate
to application layer communications.

I do not know if .NET is the driver in this case, but I suspect it may be.

Winged

<snip>
> Or are we setting a challenge, here? I'm too busy at present (see
> above!)to see where in the Mozilla engine someone has started an array
> with 1 instead of zero.. but (experience says) that'll be the case. Feel
> free, Netizens, to put personal time where the mouth is... ;o)
>
> H1K
>
> P.S. Hands-up who sizes their images in non-pixel units..?

Say what you want about netscape. opera, etc. However, MS INTENTIONALLY
makes there crapware browser non compliant because it fitsthere business
plan. It will get worse...

http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1

Imhotep

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:55:50 GMT, Matt Silberstein
> <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>Similarly I would not consider producing software for the Mac as
>>>there are no potential clients.
>>
>>Now that is kind of silly. There are millions of potential clients.
>
> Locally there are hardly any Macs, what few there are are
> used by graphics designers who don't buy any other software
> anyway all mac users are kinda wierd.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Jim, come on....

"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:w9SMe.36312$dJ5.16455@tornado.tampabay.rr.com ...
> <snip>
> > Or are we setting a challenge, here? I'm too busy at present (see
> > above!)to see where in the Mozilla engine someone has started an array
> > with 1 instead of zero.. but (experience says) that'll be the case. Feel
> > free, Netizens, to put personal time where the mouth is... ;o)
> >
> > H1K
> >
> > P.S. Hands-up who sizes their images in non-pixel units..?
>
> Say what you want about netscape. opera, etc. However, MS INTENTIONALLY
> makes there crapware browser non compliant because it fitsthere business
> plan. It will get worse...
>
> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1

Ah. So what you're saying is that a theoretical, unreleased, version on IE
will be worse that the whole series of errors that I posted for the current
FireFox release?

Nice to see that blather is s-o-o-o-o-o much more important than what has
already been reliably tested to fail years-old tests. Not.

Hell, given the gauntlet I threw down in the other thread, perhaps you'd be
willing to pay me real money to find at least one of these Mozilla/Firefox
bugs/shortcomings..? Very much Dutch courage, in my case, as I haven't even
looked at the code. Gotta be better than "Ravi Patel", though. You really,
really /don't/ want to know! (Even assuming that someone still teaches
FORTRAN IV) ;o)

H1K

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Wed, 17 Aug 2005 19:55:03 -0500, Winged <Winged@nofollow.com>
> wrote:
>
>>A lot depends on the audience visiting the website.
>
> True, however mine is a good example as its of general
> interest and has a high volume. The pages are of a wide
> age and should be browser neutral. The earlier ones were
> designed for netscape 3 in mind at 480 x 640.
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

....Honestly, I think the best source for this kind of statistics would be a
site like google...it is neutral and used by everyone. Furthermore
searching for data is such a common task that the data would probably be
closes to the truth...

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Thu, 18 Aug 2005 23:37:21 GMT, "Hairy One Kenobi"
> <abuse@[127.0.0.1]> wrote:
>
>>> http://www.windowsitpro.com/Article/...7208.html?Ad=1
>>
>>Ah. So what you're saying is that a theoretical, unreleased, version on IE
>>will be worse that the whole series of errors that I posted for the
>>current FireFox release?
>>
>>Nice to see that blather is s-o-o-o-o-o much more important than what has
>>already been reliably tested to fail years-old tests. Not.
>
> its a religious crusade and the only thing he 'knows for
> sure' are that me and Mr Gates are 'bad people' take care
> otherwise you will be added to the list :)
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

That is the thing you confuse Jim. People like me do not care about Mr.
Gates. I am neither for nor against him. We do not like the business
practices of Microsoft as a company. We do not like how they have forgot
the general rule of business "The best product at the best price wins."

Instead they lie, they practice illegal business practices so as to keep
their rivals at bay. That is NOT a fair free market by any definition. They
will have more legals battles with more governments in the near future,
mark my words.

Im

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Sat, 20 Aug 2005 05:19:51 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>...Honestly, I think the best source for this kind of statistics would be
>>a site like google...it is neutral and used by everyone.
>
> Nonsense, it would be skewed against AOL and MSN users
> for a start. But when you have a website with some reasonable
> traffic come back with the stats. You could start one with your
> views on computer security, or life in general, and see how it
> goes.
>
> heres some figures for www.maryceleste.net
>
> Browser % of Total Visitors
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 1 Internet Explorer 6.x 68.27%
> 2 Netscape 6.x 11.91%
> 3 Internet Explorer 5.x 8.43%
> 4 Others 4.00%
> 5 Netscape 4.x 2.14%
> 6 Opera 98 0.94%
> 7 Netscape 7. 0.94%
> 8 Netscape 5.x 0.80%
> ...
> 19 Netscape 2.x 0.13%
>
> Yes there are still people using Netscape 2 not sure
> how they manage with other sites.
>
> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com


I see your point but, don't agree with 100% of it. My point is that google
has become more than a search engine. In fact the other day my mother, of
all people, actually said "Google it" when someone asked her for a name of
a web site. Now she is a AOL user. Google has become so popular that all
users are aware and seem to be using it. This is why I would trust their
data. 1) All users use it 2) it is a search engine and as such the content
is universal and not tied to any genre.

Nothing personal I am sure your data is probably "in the ball park" but, I
would bet Google's data is pretty damn close to the real numbers.

Again, the browser stats are well off topic as I posted this to alert people
that the Music Industry and Microsoft is trying everything it can to rid
the World of Linux/BSD....

Im

"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:pyRNe.27749$Oy2.3685@tornado.tampabay.rr.com. ..
> I see your point but, don't agree with 100% of it. My point is that google
> has become more than a search engine. In fact the other day my mother, of
> all people, actually said "Google it" when someone asked her for a name of
> a web site. Now she is a AOL user

Nope - they're a search engine seeking to become a universal source of
"information by searching".

The verb "to Google" entered even respectable UK dictionaries a fair few
years ago.

Now, was there a point to all this? Regarding typical browser utility (and,
hopefully, with some form of ultimately tenuous reasons as to why this might
be of interest to this particular froup?), this looks to be more of a
religious argument - "my POV" vs. someone else's "my POV".

H1K

P.S. Still waiting for the HTML link to that particular fix... ;o)

Hairy One Kenobi wrote:

> "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:pyRNe.27749$Oy2.3685@tornado.tampabay.rr.com. ..
>> I see your point but, don't agree with 100% of it. My point is that
>> google has become more than a search engine. In fact the other day my
>> mother, of all people, actually said "Google it" when someone asked her
>> for a name of a web site. Now she is a AOL user

> Nope - they're a search engine seeking to become a universal source of
> "information by searching".

Nope? Nope to what Google is not very popular?

> The verb "to Google" entered even respectable UK dictionaries a fair few
> years ago.

That illustrates my point. When a search engine has become so popular as to
be included in a dictionary, you can bet that all sorts of people are using
it.

> Now, was there a point to all this?

It was a side discussion about browser stats. I simply made the comment that
getting the browsers stats from a popular search engine would probably be
more accurate than a small specialized web site.

> Regarding typical browser utility
> (and, hopefully, with some form of ultimately tenuous reasons as to why
> this might be of interest to this particular froup?),

...again, please read the previous posts. This was a side discussion...

> this looks to be
> more of a religious argument - "my POV" vs. someone else's "my POV".

Not everything has to do with religion....neither is this...simply a talk
about getting accurate browsers stats...

> H1K
>
> P.S. Still waiting for the HTML link to that particular fix... ;o)


Google it
:-)

Im

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Sun, 21 Aug 2005 02:21:09 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>I see your point but, don't agree with 100% of it. My point is that google
>>has become more than a search engine. In fact the other day my mother, of
>>all people, actually said "Google it" when someone asked her for a name of
>>a web site. Now she is a AOL user. Google has become so popular that all
>>users are aware and seem to be using it. This is why I would trust their
>>data. 1) All users use it 2) it is a search engine and as such the content
>>is universal and not tied to any genre.
>>
>>Nothing personal I am sure your data is probably "in the ball park" but, I
>>would bet Google's data is pretty damn close to the real numbers.
>>
>>Again, the browser stats are well off topic as I posted this to alert
>>people that the Music Industry and Microsoft is trying everything it can
>>to rid the World of Linux/BSD....
>
> Even if they were representative, which they are not we do not have
> access to Google's logs and which google ? google.de is going to be
> different to google.es

Good point. It would be nice to compile the stats for all of there sites. I
have no idea what they would tell us but, I would trust that data over
other sources again because they are popular and 2) everyone does searches
pretty regularly...

> Companies are interested in making a profit and addressing the largest
> markets, one of the things MS have done is defragment to market in the
> same way that IBM did in introducing a 'standard' PC

If you are truly interested in the largest market for your product then I
would thing you would want your site to be neutral...why setting for only
80% of browsers able to view your sites when you can get 100%. Now, there
are many web based building applications that allow you to choose which
browsers you want to be compatible with (Macromedia Dreamweaver, etc). So,
I am sorry but again I see your point but do not agree with 100% of it...

> It takes less time to design for IE only and time is money.

Not true. Look at Macromedia's Dreamweaver. At the start of building a site,
I click the browsers I want to be compatible with and go. It takes 10
seconds and the app builds the code....Time is money and that costs about
10 cents but, the benefit of having 100% of people able to view my sites is
the real money...

> Having
> said that my pages are browser neutral and tested with firefox - quite
> how they look in opera and some of the wierd minority products is
> another thing.

Now, I will give you credit for that. I too do not want to rule anyone out
when viewing my sites...

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com


Im

"Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iQ9Oe.39690$Yx1.19727@tornado.tampabay.rr.com ...
> Hairy One Kenobi wrote:
>
> > "Imhotep" <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:pyRNe.27749$Oy2.3685@tornado.tampabay.rr.com. ..
> >> I see your point but, don't agree with 100% of it. My point is that
> >> google has become more than a search engine. In fact the other day my
> >> mother, of all people, actually said "Google it" when someone asked her
> >> for a name of a web site. Now she is a AOL user
>
> > Nope - they're a search engine seeking to become a universal source of
> > "information by searching".
>
> Nope? Nope to what Google is not very popular?

(Sign) Re-read.. we appear to have a language problem here, because..

> It was a side discussion about browser stats. I simply made the comment
that
> getting the browsers stats from a popular search engine would probably be
> more accurate than a small specialized web site.

..../that's/ actually a pretty good idea. You didn't actually /say/ it,
though (hence my response).

Good luck on getting hold of 'em, though - commercially sensitive data.

H1K

Jim Watt wrote:

> On Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:25:34 GMT, Imhotep <Imhotep@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>That illustrates my point. When a search engine has become so popular as
>>to be included in a dictionary, you can bet that all sorts of people are
>>using it.
>
> The word Google was in the dictionary before the search engine.
>
> Search Engine Searches
> ---------------------------------------
> 1 Google 1,164
> 2 Yahoo 172
> 3 MSN 66
> 4 AskJeeves 59
> 5 Altavista 12
> 6 AOL Search 7
>
> Indeed they dominate the search engine market as much as
> MS do the desktop software and browser marketplace.

They sure do domainate and they do not force you to buy crapware either! Now
that is domination I can live with...

> is there a Linux version of Macromedia's Dreamweaver :)

Soon. They are reportedly looking into a linux version. Man that would be
sweet....that is the only application that I need winblows for....

Im

> --
> Jim Watt
> http://www.gibnet.com

Management wrote:

> Jim Watt wrote:
>
>> Many electronic banking packages are restricted to IE because
>> of its security features.
>> --
>> Jim Watt
>> http://www.gibnet.com
>
> Now that just is not true, it comes down being lazy and cheap. In
> fact at least one US government security agency has advised people
> to use 'alternative browsers', meaning Firefox, Opera, etc.
>
> My wife & I have a number of US & UK bank accounts between us that
> are very happy to accept accept Firefox. Not forgetting Amazon,
> eBay, paypal and every site that I've bought from.
>
> With IE's position being gradually eaten away we will see all sites
> having be able to deal with Firefox, etc.
>
> Quite simply a sensible website designer will design his/her site to
> be compliant with web standards - that is not use any IE specific
> coding (no ActiveX) and not use Frontpage to create it. That way the
> designer can be sure that the site will render correctly in all
> graphical browsers.
>
>
> Charlie.
>
>
> PS: this is my last response to you Jim lad as it seems to me that
> you just like to argue blindly. Hope the sun is shining on you in
> Gibraltar :)
>
>
>
This is a government web site, so it must meet the requirements of Section
508 of the Americans with Disabilities Act. If the site it coded to accept
only Internet Explorer, it simply cannot meet Section 508. There are blind
and mobility impared users that need text interfaces rather than a
graphical interface. So, if you see a site that doesn't render with Lynx
(lynx.browser.org), you can be pretty suer that the site will not meet the
requirements of Section 508.

Hey web developers! Don't be lazy. Code to the following standards.
1) all content in VALID (x)html
2) all graphics need 'alt' descriptions
3) formatting in CSS

In the Parable of the Sheep and the Goats, Christ tells us to care for the
handicapped. Anthropologists trace the beginnings of civiliation to
evidence that people helped handicapped tribe members (e.g., evidence that
people were fed while bones mended). No matter what your world view,
addressing the needs of all citizens is the mark of civility. So code for
everyone, not just users of the 'majority browser'.

"Robert Folkerts" <Robert.Folkerts@no_spam_mchsi.com> wrote in message
news:Yi9Pe.304274$xm3.22889@attbi_s21...
> Management wrote:

<big breath, big snip>

> Hey web developers! Don't be lazy. Code to the following standards.
> 1) all content in VALID (x)html
> 2) all graphics need 'alt' descriptions
> 3) formatting in CSS

It's a lot harder than it sounds (although, according to El Reg, in this
particular case [copyright applications] the W3C is wading in)

1. Valid is good. Valid is easier than invalid. The problem comes when
certain browsers don't function with certain standard functions. I leave a
long-obsolete CENTER tag specifically for this (Mozilla/Firefox)

2. We'll probably agree to disagree on this one - all *meaningful* graphics
should have an ALT, but - speaking from practical experience - an utterly
pointless description is merely a distraction to someone with vision
problems. My father is partially-sighted, so this isn't some theoretical
comment ;o)

3. Like valid HTML, valid CSS is wonderful. But browser dependant. Nutscrape
4.7 was particularly annoying in this respect, as one could set something
/in/visible, but couldn't rely on it ever becoming /visible/ again. Very
bl**dy welcome, when you've spent simply /ages/ building an entirely
CSS-based menu system :o\

Oh, and all of these take at least 190% longer than you thought they would.
I'm generalising, but comments such as "it'll only take five minutes"
usually come from people who not only have no clue how long something would
take, but also no clue on even what's involved.

Certainly not pointing fingers on that last one - just making a general
comment. Well, if you know the floggie I have to work with... :o)

H1K