Netscape and asp

If a site uses asp code in some of the pages it will require the user to have Windows 98 or above installed otherwise it is not viewable in Netscape. Would this be a reason for the site to be excluded from the ODP given that sites are tested in Netscape? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" alt="" />

Would this be a reason for the site to be excluded from the ODP given that sites are tested in Netscape?

Click to expand...

This is simply not true. Site contents are assessed with a variety of browsers, depending what the reviewing editor has at hand. I would be willing to bet that many, like myself, use IE for that most of the time.

If the reviewing editor found that the site was not functional with a given browser, it's customary to add [May not work with all browsers] in the description...

Erm, I don't know what ASP code you're using but from what I gather it should make no difference at the user end. It'll even work on a Mac or in Linux, for example.

From what I can tell, ODP editors tend to use browsers like Mozilla and Opera more often, as these are more tuned up for 'power browsing' with multiple windows/tabs than IE. But that's speaking from my own observations, and I know some editors still use Netscape 4.x, a browser series I hate with a passion, depsite being a Mozilla user.

Generally, if an editor can't review a site, he/she will leave it for another editor to take a look. It will take longer for it to be listed as such, so having a site that is interoperable may be advantageous.

What has been said already is true. ASP stands for Active SERVER Pages, not "Avoid Standard Protocols".

The SERVER bit means that whatever programs are executed CAN be done on the server. But if you are doing CLIENT-side Visual-Basic-Scribbling, then (since VB is undocumented and changes randomly from day to day) you may indeed have been trapped into using only certain versions of the INFERNAL EXPLODER -- say, the one SHIPPED with Wind-98. But that's an entirely different issue, and you should tell your VB programmer to check for that in his code.

If, on the other hand, you're doing something to the client's computer configuration, using VB (which is perfectly possible, since it's designed to avoid any security the computer's owner may have wished for), then the ODP probably shouldn't list the site at all, or should list it with a notice in bold capital letters: "[WARNING: THIS SITE TAMPERS WITH CLIENT REGISTRY AND SECRETLY INSTALLS SPYWARE PROGRAMS. USE AT YOUR OWN RISK, BACK UP ALL YOUR FILES BEFORE VISITING THIS SITE. THE OPEN DIRECTORY PROJECT CANNOT TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY LOSS OF TIME, DATA, TEMPER, OR DAMAGE TO COMPUTER HARDWARE OR NEARBY CERAMICS IF YOU VISIT THIS SITE. YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED, AND CLICKING ON THIS LINK REPRESENTS YOUR ACCEPTANCE OF ALL THE RISK, DAMAGE, PAIN, AND SUFFERING THAT WILL INEVITABLY ENSUE.]

i speak english very bad, but i try to say my know about that.

if you are using asp pages, asp works in the server side, and are browser independent, the end of the server side give to the user plain htm code.

if you want to use a client side code (who runs in the browser), you may use javascript, because vbscript is only for ms internet explorer. Javascript is more generic, but have some diferences in one browser or another. In some cases is better to take code from a scripts predefined page, who are tested in more browsers.

&gt;&gt; If a site uses asp code in some of the pages it will require the user to have Windows 98 or above installed otherwise it is not viewable in Netscape. &lt;&lt;


This simply is not true. Your ASP code should just be generating standard HTML code. If it is generating something else then it is what you are generating, not how you generate it that is the problem.

As stated above, editors use a very wide range of browsers (Mozilla, Konqueror, NN, Opera, IE, etc) and all sorts of versions from 3 to 7, and using Windows, Linux, Mac or whatever. They use whatever is to hand. If you want to get the widest possible audience I would also ensure you check both your HTML and CSS code in some sort of validator. However whether your code is valid or not is of no concern to the ODP.

Thank you for your replies and obviously I was mistaken about asp and Netscape but it is worth knowing that browser compatibility is not an issue with the ODP.

"not an issue" is not totally right.

If a site is only working on IE6+ and on nothing else, I for myself would simply have a problem reviewing it. And to be honest I would think that someone who does not want users to come to his site does not want me to review it either.

And please keep in mind, that there are other systems than PC/Windows out there. Quite a lot of editors use "non-standard" systems as macintosh, unix-systems, WebTV or something like that.

Even if we just add a note like "not working with xyz" and leave it in unreviewed, this may add months or even years to the time till the site is reviewed.

Since I've been an editor, I've converted completely from using IE to using Opera. Not only does this help me in my business (as a web developer), it allows me to be more effective as an editor, because surfing/editing can be done much more quickly.

When I'm on a mission to review every single unreviewed site in a category, I will open IE when I find a troublesome site. However, at that point, I'm aggravated. Using IE means I am subjected to pop-ups, poor web design, and Java that even my 13 year old would find abhorrable. It is my final concession to a site - if I find a page under construction, content of questionable value, or any other reason that would allow me to delete a site within the guidelines (most don't realize it, but editors are held to strict guidelines when deleting a site - we don't do it if we can avoid it) - I *will* delete the site, and take my chances.

I design web pages, day in and day out. All of our pages are validated through the w3 - there is absolutely no excuse for the garbage that is posted to the web to be non-compliant. The fastest way to get a site listed in the ODP is to create a site that has content that is of interest to the public, and that can be viewed by any standards compliant browser.

(While I'm ranting, please also consider accessibility - even if only 1% of people who surf the web are handicapped and require special browsers in order to see your site - you can gain a significant market share by making your site accessible).

Don't forget that there are plenty of editors who are not "computer savvy" and don't use or try a variety of different browsers. If your site doesn't work in the browser they are using, it is likely to get deleted for being incomplete or having no content.

"If your site doesn't work in the browser they are using, it is likely to get deleted for being incomplete or having no content."

Ouch. I can imagine some category out there with a Netscape 3-using editor just deleting everything that comes his/her way. And heck, there isn't a FULLY standard-compliant browser out there far as I know, and most likely there never will be. After all, if you had 98% of the market share, would you listen to some group telling you how your software should deal with code or would you implement whatever nifty things you wanted to in order to continue to separate yourself from the pack? I know what I would do, being a capitalist pig and all, even though it sucks to have to test on 2 platforms and 3 programs, not including differing versions.

As much as we may dislike it, Internet Explorer IS the standard.

Wouldn't it be nice for DMOZ to include or exclude web sites based on standards?

Just a thought...

&gt;&gt;If your site doesn't work in the browser they are using, it is likely to get deleted for being incomplete or having no content."

&gt;Ouch. I can imagine some category out there with a Netscape 3-using editor just deleting everything that comes his/her way.

Your imagination is limited. Think Lynx--text-only. Think visual problems. Think old, tired eyes. Think the Exploder, 5th Circle of Inferno when you tested from the 6th Circle--or vice versa. Think about what descent through the next Circle of idiotic product differentiation will do. Then think standard HTML without reference to the browser, and leave the cutesy spinning menu buttons and inane color-changing effects to the Boy Band Fan sites.

&gt;And heck, there isn't a FULLY standard-compliant browser out there far as I know, and most likely there never will be.
This is probably true.

&gt;After all, if you had 98% of the market share, would you listen to some group telling you how your software should deal with code or would you implement whatever nifty things you wanted to in order to continue to separate yourself from the pack?
This is also true. And it would be even more true if, being a fairly stupid capitalist pig, you really couldn't understand what people were wanting from you. [As a compiler writer, having taken several compilers through U.S. Department of Defense standards compliance testing, and as a user of Microsoft C/C++, I can assure you that sometimes the latter is true.]

But most importantly, as web developers our overriding economic interest is in NOT being economically enslaved to any one product vendor: and avoiding the weregild for the rest of our lives (or being reduced to being unpaid content-providers for the Great IP Thief himself.)

&gt;As much as we may dislike it, Internet Explorer IS the standard.
No, it's a series of industrial accidents. every single version is broken differently (with respect to every single other version.) There's no documentation for any of them. Since Microsoft has never written down what dialect the Infernal Exploder takes, or what it does with it, and since with every update it changes randomly, it is not and cannot possibly function in any sense as a standard.

&gt;Wouldn't it be nice for DMOZ to include or exclude web sites based on standards?

You wouldn't like it. Very few sites contain HTML that's valid according to any available standard. And "it looks OK on this week's patch of the Infernal Exploder" isn't a statement anything like "it's compliant."

That's like saying "why bother with a Underwriters Laboratories tested appliance, anything is fine as long as it hasn't yet burned your house down."

The point is, you need to think of the future. And we need to think of the future. And for both of us (although, I agree, not for Microsoft) the future is better with standards. Real standards, with specifications and testing and everything. Not some perjuring con man saying "trust us, we'll never broach your security...again...in the same way...this week...unless we need more money..."