homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.173.250
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

HTML Forum

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 89 ( 1 [2] 3 > >     
"Browsers Still Matter"
move away from IE, IT depts are urged
tedster




msg:593299
 11:33 pm on Jun 20, 2003 (gmt 0)

The widely distributed E-Week magazine just ran a commentary
urging businesses to move away from IE.

Ironically, Microsoft achieved this dominance for Internet
Explorer at a time when it has let its browser stagnate to the
point where it is probably the least-capable browser on the
market today.

...a great deal of innovation and useful features in open-source
browsers such as Mozilla and commercial products such as the
Opera browser. In comparison, IE 6 has basically the same code
base as IE 5, which was released in 1999.

E-Week Story [eweek.com]

Good to see this kind of coverage. Change may still happen.

 

cyril kearney




msg:593329
 7:58 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I thought that HTML, CSS, XML and Javascripts were in the hands of stndards groups. Browsers just render these scripting languages.

If the standards groups are not innovative enough for eWeek, they should be taken to task. Do we WANT Microsoft to abandon standards and begin innovating within the scripting languages again?

The article is just 'slow news day' pap as far as I can see. It is beyond me why a trite article like this would get number 1 placement on the home page of Webmasterworld. Is Microsoft bashing suddenly newsworthy?

hutcheson




msg:593330
 8:00 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

>You can only read one page at a time, can't you?

You're serious. You're really serious, aren't you? You really can't imagine someone opening two web pages at a time?

That helps explain why you _don't_ find the Infernal Exploder intolerably clunky.

I never browse without at least three windows open, more often four or five. (If I try to get by with only two, I find myself waiting on almost every single page load.)

Now, if you ever try to use as many as two IE windows concurrently, you'll find that they obstinately and repeatedly bounce to the foreground at exasperatingly inconvenient times -- like in the middle of typing a password or URL in a different window -- for no reason at all other than brain-dead coding. Mozilla doesn't have that problem: its separate windows work well independently. And some people may not be able to read or type fast enough to keep even two windows busy, and for them IE may be sufficient. In fact, it will be necessary if they want to be sure they get all the latest viruses.

Now, my mind works well enough for two windows. But my eyes are a different story. And the idea of some arrogant young twit of a graphically-oriented half-brained so-called "web designer" deeming to determine what size fonts I shall be allowed to use on his site, and which text fields I shall be allowed to view without eyestrain, makes my blood boil. You really do not want to spend eternity paying for that kind of callous contempt for people with disabilities. Get over it, OK?

vincevincevince




msg:593331
 8:05 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I have a nice reversal for all the folks that cap on MS and IE. If you want to make a statement, sniff for IE and send all your IE traffic to the Opera download page. C'mon, all those IE users must be dolts, I mean, damn, they don't know that Opera is superior...

Done. But with Mozilla. (See profile for URL). I challenge everyone else to do the same.

futureX




msg:593332
 8:20 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Done. But with Mozilla. (See profile for URL). I challenge everyone else to do the same.

I thought you were bluffing, but then realised I was using Opera :o

ThatAdamGuy




msg:593333
 9:38 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Oh goodness, Vince :¦

I thought you were kidding, and I went to your page. Do you really think this is going to do anything other than peeve your users?

The Mozilla homepage isn't exactly a very convincing or even well-designed landing page. Even as a total geek myself, I glanced at that page for, oh, about 10 seconds and found no compelling reasons why I should bother with either Mozilla or your originating page.

gmiller




msg:593334
 9:38 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

Do we really need to encourage users to dump IE and switch to another browser? I just looked at the stats for one of my sites over the last few years, and nearly every month shows Mozilla-based browsers with more marketshare than the month before. IE kept growing at the same time while NN4 declined, but now that it's almost completely gone, IE's share is being eroded as well. The stats for my other sites look more or less the same.

Anyone else seeing similar trends? Maybe this is inevitable whether we encourage it or not. If IE can't maintain marketshare while being given away free and bundled with the OS, maybe MS shouldn't waste money enhancing it. Maintaining a near-monopoly has its value, but it's not infinitely valuable. That could be the reasoning behind the decision to drop Mac IE and the rumors of standalone IE's death.

dingman




msg:593335
 9:38 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

sniff for IE and send all your IE traffic to the Opera download page.

Can I make it a pop-up that only IE folks will see, anyway? Pretty please? And yeah, I'd do Moz or a page full of Gecko-based browsers.

Browsers just render these scripting languages.

Except for IE, which uses it's own twist on the DOM so my standard JS doesn't work, it's own twist on the box model so my CSS doesn't work, doesn't support half of CSS so my site gets rendered wrong, etc.

<edit>OK, that was weird. Don't close an un-opened quote in a post!</edit>

HyperGeek




msg:593336
 10:56 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I like the fact that IE was the first to fully-utilize CSS.

I like Mozilla because there are no legacy issues when it comes to supporting current design standards.

I don't see much use for Opera outside of their multi-windows and even though it was the first browser I ever used, Netscape might as well not exist. Mozilla is better and NS still seems to think that they can change trends that have already been set in stone.

Mozilla wins my favor, with IE close behind.

It's all about what's best for the client, so of course, personal preferences aside, I try to code for all browsers...like a good little web designer. ;)

grahamstewart




msg:593337
 10:59 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

I thought that HTML, CSS, XML and Javascripts were in the hands of stndards groups.

Correct - and the W3C [w3.org] to a fantastic job of forwarding these standards.

If the standards groups are not innovative enough for eWeek, they should be taken to task.

Eh? No one at eWeek is criticising the standards. Did you even read the article?

They are criticising Microsofts lack of support for the standards - "making it hard for businesses to create standards-based content" - and they are praising the alternative browsers for their "excellent standards support".

Do we WANT Microsoft to abandon standards and begin innovating within the scripting languages again?

*shiver* No definitely not... we are only just beginning to recover from their previous 'innovations' in scripting.

We would just like Microsoft to follow the standards in the first place.

g1smd




msg:593338
 11:46 pm on Jun 24, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> You won't see even a blip of productivity increase from tabbed windows. You can only read one page at a time, can't you? <<

I could never use a computer without right click and open in new tab (or window). On a message board such as this I will visit the forum list, right click and open the several forums that I am interested in (each in a new tab). When the first is loaded I will go down the message list and open every message I am interested in (each one of those in a new tab as well). I will then look in the next forum and do the same, and so on. When I have set everything in motion I will go back to the very first tab or window opened, and read that message while the others are still downloading. This speeds things up a lot, and I can have up to 50 windows open sometimes. I use the "back" button perhaps about once per week for something.

europeforvisitors




msg:593339
 1:01 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

...lack of features found in Opera and Mozilla such as tabbed windows and pop-up blockers...

The same people who object to a browser's being part of the operating system might scream "Unfair!" if Microsoft put makers of anti-popup software out of business. :-)

cminblues




msg:593340
 1:52 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

About security, if M$ really, now, is giving more effort to this area,
instead of innovating/developing/etc, then:

- why Microsoft still need at least 2 months to fix fullaccess, public bugs, when Opera need some days?
That really seems a nonsense.

But maybe not, if we think at how IE and the other wdoze stuff is developed/maintained.
The only thing, in M$ POV, is market dominance.

So, what to do for us webmasters bored by impossibility to use standards?
Setting up trap-pages with goal of hack IE's user PCs, and, then, stole credit card #,
and after that uninstall IE, so 1 unhetical + 1 ethical? :)
BTW this _is_ possible.

webdevsf




msg:593341
 2:10 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

All threads must devolve into people who hate Microsoft against those who feel obligated to defend them. It's like a law of nature.

Here's an example of this conversation from 13 years ago "Does everybody hate Windows? [groups.google.com]"

[edited by: tedster at 4:27 pm (utc) on June 25, 2003]
[edit reason] fix side scroll [/edit]

cyril kearney




msg:593342
 2:47 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

webdevsf says:
"All threads must devolve into people who hate Microsoft against those who feel obligated to defend them. It's like a law of nature."

That was exactly my point when I wrote.
"The article is just 'slow news day' pap as far as I can see. It is beyond me why a trite article like this would get number 1 placement on the home page of Webmasterworld. Is Microsoft bashing suddenly newsworthy?"

It was just another zing against Microsoft by an author who felt it important to give his opinion but not his name.

If anyone wants to read another zing against Microsoft in the same Editorial section read this one. "SCO: Following the Money", Microsoft is the boogey-man behind the SCO-IBM intellectual property rights dispute.
[eweek.com...]

Then read the startling discovery "Spam: Public Enemy No. 1"
[eweek.com...]

C'mon guys save something for August when there really is nothing to write about.

grahamstewart




msg:593343
 2:56 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

True, it might not be headline news that Microsoft is holding back the wider adoption of web standards, but it is still a valid point.

I don't see it as Microsoft bashing at all. If history were different and Netscape owned 90% of the browser market, but they then effectively ignored much of the agreed public standards and stopped developing their browser then there would be a similar article about them.

Its not Microsoft bashing - its complacency bashing.

ricfink




msg:593344
 5:40 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Wow.
This thread started out as a minor fender-bender and ended up as a forty car pile-up.
Good thing insurance is mandatory!

I've always felt that a license should be required to practice Information Technology - whatever it may be: programming, web development, network administration, whatever.

The first test I would require is to make everybody work in a retail computer store for a month. A Gateway store or compUSA or some such place. THEN they would find out what people really are looking to do with their computers. Not what you think they wantto do. You find out what people really value their computers for.

The second test would be to teach a group of older people - absolute newbies - how to use computers. Then they would find out just how difficult many, many people find it to use a computer. Highly intelligent people, too.

And then we wouldn't see as many wrong-headed statements as we've seen here!

Hey hutch:
Opening more than one page at a time I do all the time. Reading more than one page at a time I'd like to see. What do you do - read a paragraph on one page and then a paragraph on the other?

g1smd:
My hat is off to you, you're a browsin' maniac, you are! But you have no idea how much of an anomaly you are, either.
You and everybody else with your proficiency all put together would not equal a blip of a blip of productivity statistically. Can't prove it - but that's what I think having watched a lot of users over the years.

hutch again:
You said:
"the idea of some arrogant young twit of a graphically-oriented half-brained so-called "web designer" deeming to determine what size fonts I shall be allowed to use on his site, and which text fields I shall be allowed to view without eyestrain, makes my blood boil. You really do not want to spend eternity paying for that kind of callous contempt for people with disabilities. Get over it, OK?"

Every day I read the front page of the New York Times on the web. These arrogant bastards actually think they know what news is important for me to know! Can you imagine?
They actually have the temerity to edit the facts and place them in a certain order - moving from the general to the specific - those twits! And don't get me started on the layout. In the paper edition everything is scrunched into columns and you have to actually turn to another page to read a complete story! And the front page has nothing but news! No advertisements - they put the ads on the inside of the paper. Makes my blood boil, it does.
Why I subject myself to such an insult every day, I dunno.
Maybe it's because I trust them to do their job as journalists ethically and competently. Maybe it's because I trust them to tell me which things are more important than others. Maybe it's because I want to get the gist of the story in the first paragraph so I don't have to spend all day reading the thing to get to the point.
Betcha they've got ****les, too.

One last thing: What makes the people at the W3C smarter than the people at Microsoft? Not everything in the W3C standards are gems, you know. There are many in the web community who feel that lately the W3C has lost it's way in a lot of areas.
A responsible company SHOULD be selective about what it chooses to implement. Especially when a standards body like the W3C goes beyond it's primary responsibility to codify what's already been implemented and proven to work, and moves into the business of advocating standards that just "sound like a good idea" and have not been tested or proven in any real way.

Hester




msg:593345
 8:52 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

FutureX:IE is not exactly scraping the barrel, it has everything users need to browse the web, what new advancements would require Microsoft to upgrade?

A lot of it is under the bonnet. The average user simply isn't aware that IE is getting things wrong or missing code it simply cannot render. Only yesterday I emailed Eric Meyer (CSS guru) because he'd set the fonts on an old page to use ems. The result in IE is a ridiculous variation in font size depending on the Text Size set by the user. The default when IE is installed is "Smaller", making Eric's page unreadable.

I suggested the solution published in another thread here but he came up with another simpler solution.

His conclusion was this:

"The flaws in IE6 continue to amaze me, and now we're stuck with it for another three years, minimum. Great, just great."

To the designer, IE is slowly becoming a nightmare. How long will it be before IE7 (as part of Longhorn) has a majority of the market? Will it even? So we will be faced with having to code for dozens of differing browsers, with IE being the bottom of the list, fed the simplest code, while the more advanced code goes to the others.

Then there are major problems like images and styles missing from pages for no reason. (This only happens with IE and has been documented on these forums many times.)

I'm not Microsoft bashing. I love XP. I just wish IE would be upgraded. It's nearly there. So why abandon it now?

ricfink: A responsible company SHOULD be selective about what it chooses to implement. Especially when a standards body like the W3C goes beyond it's primary responsibility to codify what's already been implemented and proven to work, and moves into the business of advocating standards that just "sound like a good idea" and have not been tested or proven in any real way.

XHTML 2? :-)

You and everybody else with your proficiency all put together would not equal a blip of a blip of productivity statistically. Can't prove it - but that's what I think having watched a lot of users over the years.

I would do some watching with people using browsers with tabbed windows. I would guess your research occured long before tabs were introduced. Trust us on this one: although you may choose to dislike them having tried them, which is of course your choice, I believe strongly that they do speed up browsing. It becomes totally natural to use them once you start. Then you wonder why no-one thought of it before. I dislike going back to IE now because it misses what I consider to be an essential feature in my browser.

There's a lot more hidden in Mozilla and Opera too. They have a wide range of tools for designing and testing pages. Mouse gestures in Opera enable you to surf even faster by moving back and forward and opening new pages without clicking on any browser buttons. To list all the non-IE features would take forever.

Of course IE has some features these browsers don't have. Each browser has it's own feature set. The Accessibility options are not bad at all. But like I said before, the others have just so much more.

The reason is simple: they're constantly being upgraded. You can file bug reports and get direct feedback from the programmers as they fix them. You know it's not too long before a new improved version is due. Can the same be said for Microsoft and IE?

DrOliver




msg:593346
 10:44 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

My popups are legit and filled with useful information.

There are no legit popups. If there is useful information in your popups, you're on the wrong track.

I'm sure Jakob Nielsen has a thing or two to say about pop ups not being user-friendly or accessible. Don't use them. Nobody wants them.

Not only Nielsen. I might be wrong, but my guess is that disabled users will miss the informations in the popups.

However, in cases where you can control which browser is being used, you'd have to be nuts to choose anything but IE on Windows.
I'm currently in the middle of a project where I'm using IE-only code extensively. Doing so, I'm saving my employer a lot of money by replacing expensive third party software (...).

I don't think relying on a proprietary "solution" is the right way. Guess what happens when this company decides to upgrade or change OS?

To the designer, IE is slowly becoming a nightmare.

IE is the new Netscape 4. One down, three (IE 5, 5.5, 6) to go. Oh boy.

I keep telling my friends and neighbours to stop using IE and try Mozilla, Netscape 7 or Opera 7. I do what I can. A titzy tiny little stone can start an avalanche, and a journey of a thousand miles begins with the first step.

Stepp-eh-dee-stepp, stepp-eh-dee-stepp, stepp-eh-dee-stepp, stepp-eh-dee-stepp...

Josk




msg:593347
 10:48 am on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

ricfink:
> My hat is off to you, you're a browsin' maniac, you are! But you have no idea how much of an anomaly you are, either.
> You and everybody else with your proficiency all put together would not equal a blip of a blip of productivity statistically. Can't prove it - but that's what I think having watched a lot of users over the years.

So...then at least have the option of tabbed browsing so that us geniuses can use them. And from my experience once people realise they don't have to hunt through fifteen windows, some opened by pop-ups. they work much faster.

I do realise, though, that Windows XP to some extent implements this through grouping Internet Explorer windows through the task bar

> Every day I read the front page of the New York Times on the web. These arrogant bastards actually think they know what news is important for me to know! Can you imagine?

Yes. Thats because its their job. The job of the web designer to write html. And to write good html they should be following standads. Problem is there are so many cowboys who jumped on the dot-com boom and don't realise this.

Pricey




msg:593348
 1:14 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Just read the article...

Damn there goes my dirty coding!
NS and Moz hate it.

TheWhippinpost




msg:593349
 1:40 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Seems this thread has gone the same way all M$-bashing threads go; everyone ignores each sides valid points, denial if you will!

I will try to depart from this thread by saying that there are features/capabilities within IE that I would love to see "standardised" by the w3c but for some reason they either ignore or haven't got round to it yet. So meanwhile, to remain "compliant" across minority browsers I have to impose their limitations on the wider audience.

How many years has HTML 4 been out? How many years CSS1?...and it's still only very recently that ANY of the browsers are getting close to finally getting it right! Maybe there's a message to the w3c in there, ie... that what they set out is hard to understand or difficult to implement.

Tabbed browsers are great BTW, though I'm not sure that has anything to do with a particular browser engine per se - MyIE2 is multi-tabbed and on the IE engine.

Josk




msg:593350
 2:20 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

TheWhippinpost:
I will try to depart from this thread by saying that there are features/capabilities within IE that I would love to see "standardised" by the w3c but for some reason they either ignore or haven't got round to it yet. So meanwhile, to remain "compliant" across minority browsers I have to impose their limitations on the wider audience.

Can you name these?

wootlebug




msg:593351
 3:00 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

>> I have a bad feeling about M$ and Longhorn... I know M$ is not happy about 3rd party browsers (that's a given). I anticipate some 'propriety' coding that may make it difficult to use anything but "intergrated IE" in future Windows releases. <<

Without wishing to change the topic of this thread, I'm also interested in the new MSN bot....what chance of Longhorn having an "integrated" Goolglesque search toolbar?

TheWhippinpost




msg:593352
 3:43 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Can you name these?

Josk; No, i'm not going to specifically name each, or for that matter any of them individually 'cos it'll just split the debate into yet further strands, plus I don't wanna open myself up for ridicule ;)

Suffice to say if you know IE in any depth, you'll know there is stuff available that isn't supported by the w3c.

Hester




msg:593353
 3:53 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Filters and DHTML tables? I have to admit they rock.

tedster




msg:593354
 4:44 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

I've long wished for a standardized filter that would flip any image horizontally or vertically. In symmetrical graphic layouts that would consistently save bandwidth and download times.

vincevincevince




msg:593355
 6:34 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

ok, to demonstrate i see both sides of the war...

Why people use IE:
1 - it comes with their system, no download needed (cf mozilla's rather large download (& netscape))
2 - it loads very fast from clicking the icon to being onscreen (cf. mozilla's spalsh screen and wait, ns's wait wait wait wait)
3 - it's a web browser (cf zilla/scape trying to be newsgroup readers, email clients, etc..)
4- it looks clean and professional (cf default zilla being 100% garish and totally not professional, or ns being very very bloated)
4 - It supports the Google toolbar

Why people use Mozilla:
1 - It's not microsoft
2 - It tries to be stnadards complient
3 - It has a few tools to play with that are useful
4 - Get to mock webmasters when you see their sites look bad bad bad in mozilla

Yoeri




msg:593356
 7:55 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

A few reactions ...

1 - it comes with their system, no download needed (cf mozilla's rather large download (& netscape))

Agree with this, Mozilla has a lack of marketing and is therefore not known by the big masses... MS got away with leaving the browser in the OS

2 - it loads very fast from clicking the icon to being onscreen (cf. mozilla's spalsh screen and wait, ns's wait wait wait wait)

It loads when Windows starts ... ever looked with bootvis how long it takes to load explorer.exe when starting windows? Did you try FireBird ... really fast, even in an alpha stage

3 - it's a web browser (cf zilla/scape trying to be newsgroup readers, email clients, etc..)

There comes FireBird again ... You can also install the Browser-only with Mozilla ... What is Outlook Express?

4- it looks clean and professional (cf default zilla being 100% garish and totally not professional, or ns being very very bloated)

And again ... FireBird. The less features the cleaner it looks ... IE is indeed very clean. Get the IE skin for Mozilla :-p

4 - It supports the Google toolbar

I am not sure, but I think you can get it for Mozilla also ... not nessecary for the 'normal' user

1 - It's not microsoft

Yep, that's right, it is the software that counts (open source), not the money we can make of it (M$) ...

2 - It tries to be stnadards complient

It succeeds in being standards compliant better than IE

3 - It has a few tools to play with that are useful

I agree, the tools are all developer oriented ... and I must say that the DOM inspector helped me a lot of times ...

4 - Get to mock webmasters when you see their sites look bad bad bad in mozilla

Bad webmasters can be mocked :-)

dingman




msg:593357
 8:45 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

4 - Get to mock webmasters when you see their sites look bad bad bad in mozilla

I'll more likely cuss at 'em and move on. Mocking takes too much energy to be bothered with since it won't get me the information you've hidden, and IE takes too long to load. (Wine + ancient copy of Windows in a loopback-mounted Bochs partition. Your average linux user is going to have to wait even longer while they reboot into Windows, since setting this up to work is not trivial.)

4 - It supports the Google toolbar

I am not sure, but I think you can get it for Mozilla also ... not nessecary for the 'normal' user

I don't think you can get the one that shows page rank and other fancy stuff, but there's a pretty standard bookmarklet that lets you type a search in your personal toolbar and run it on Google by hitting <enter>. I've got that in Galeon (Gecko-based browser-only fast-loading professional-looking Gnome browser.) and Google in the Moz search sidebar. How many people need anything more than that if they *aren't* doing SEO?

re standards:
If IE could reliably render simple, valid, standards-compliant HTML and CSS correctly, I probably wouldn't have gone to the trouble of making it possible to run it on my computer. I have it at all because valid code isn't enough to guarantee that IE won't make a pig's breakfast of your page. It's a guarantee that Opera and Moz do seem to provide.

vincevincevince




msg:593358
 11:48 pm on Jun 25, 2003 (gmt 0)

Yoeri - I've got firebird - and I must say it's cute :-)

Now how to get this bundled with longhorn... :-)

futureX




msg:593359
 2:12 am on Jun 26, 2003 (gmt 0)

FutureX:IE is not exactly scraping the barrel, it has everything users need to browse the web, what new advancements would require Microsoft to upgrade?

A lot of it is under the bonnet. The average user simply isn't aware that IE is getting things wrong or missing code it simply cannot render. Only yesterday I emailed Eric Meyer (CSS guru) because he'd set the fonts on an old page to use ems. The result in IE is a ridiculous variation in font size depending on the Text Size set by the user. The default when IE is installed is "Smaller", making Eric's page unreadable.

My point is though, that something like 98% of web users use IE, and so people optimize for that. Why would normal users pay the price of "lazy webmasters" coding mistakes, a normal user would think "hey this looks crap, i'm going back to IE".

Another thing I noticed was raised above was the obvious points about w3c and pages rendering different in browsers, people always seem to link this together, they seem to think that automatically if something isnt w3c compliant then its going to look crap in at least one of the browsers, which simply isnt true, I personally dont put too much stock in validation. But I wont say anymore on that subject.

This 89 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 89 ( 1 [2] 3 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved