Re: Object detecting (Was Re: Should UA string spoofing be treated as a trademark violation?)

VK said the following on 4/28/2006 4:04 AM:
> Randy Webb wrote:
>> VK said the following on 4/27/2006 4:19 AM:
>>> So you are just turning like a snake on the grill :-)
>>> One minute you are talking about ajaxoids and XML nodes
>>> updates, a minute later you're coming up with something
>>> like "Opera 6.x doesn't support that!". Take a damn decision
>>> first and spell it as clearly as I did. Then let's us argue
>>> if you want.
>> What in the name of Hades are you talking about?
>> Clarify it please as I am not even sure *you* know what you are
>> referring to.
>
> I thought it was rather clear: to talk about new features handling
> appeared in the last 2-3 years but pull out occasionally some
> ancient/underdone UA issue just to say "Your solution is not reliable,
> X (Y, Z) will fail on it". Maybe it is not *your* personal position and
> I'm just reflecting the common atmosphere floating by some threads -
> deeply sorry then.

The implication I got was that you were referring to me personally
displaying that behavior.

> Still you did not answer the question I posed earlier in this thread:
> do you OK or not to serve XSLT to clients (pure XML with XSL
> transformation attached). IE 6.0 and Firefox have no problem with it,
> but say Opera 8.x will display a raw text dump. Only Opera 9.0b
> *finally* learned to do it. So what is your position about it? Hold on
> XSLT for 5 -10 more years, sniff UA string and send some consolations
> to say Opera < 9, disregard said Opera and Co issue? Depending on your
> decision I may dismiss the case against you :-)

My personal opinion with regards to Opera8 users? Screw'em. Opera9 is
the same cost as Opera8 and is ad free for the free version. The only
reason not to upgrade it is stupidity, laziness, or lack of sense.

>> But, to answer your question of how many browsers I test in? Right now
>> it stands at 9. And IE<6 is not one of them.
>
> Congratulations! You are first person in c.l.j. (after me) who
> publically admitted that he's testing on a finit amount of UA's. Some
> people are pretending either to test on all UA's in the world or do not
> test at all but write universal work-or-degrade scripts right on the
> paper.

Typically, code I post to c.l.j gets tested in 4 browsers - Opera9, IE6,
Firefox and my cell phone (for the simplicity of no script testing when
needed).

> Can you tell what UA's are you testing on? Not to discuss, but for
> common consideration.

IE6.0 WinXP SP2
Firefox 1.5.02
Opera 9
Mozilla 1.7.8 (That is solely to make sure there are no differences in
Mozilla and Firefox)
My cellphone.

MAC:
Safari
Camino
(Although I admittedly do not know the difference in the two, a friend
does the MAC testing for me when I ask for it.)
IE5.1

>>> Feel free to be generous :-)
>>> Just remember that Level 3 Developer (1-3 months crash course diploma)
>>> gets $30/hr very min. With insurance and taxes one hour of him sitting
>>> on the computer will cost the employer ~$55/hr. Imagine *you* are
>>> pooling 55 bucks out of your pocket every hour while he's adjusting the
>>> script for Safari 1.0 (and IE 4.0 is on hold for tomorrow).
>> I have a meeting every Monday morning that last 2 hours. It is a
>> planning meeting. The dollar cost of that meeting every Monday exceeds 3
>> Thousand Dollars US.
>
> I'm impressed. That must take hell of a lot of coffee and doughnuts :-)

The dough-nut man has his own chair and stops by every Monday.

>> So rambling to me about spending 55 dollars to test
>> in a browser doesn't make the point, or have the impact, you wanted it
>
> That was not the point at all.

I hope not then.

> A bagger in a store gets $10/hr, but across the whole store these are
> thusands of dollars. Expences add up you know. And within a big project
> every additional platform/UA support cost you *a lot*. And asking to
> jump on it for a 0.1% - 0.4% - 1% UA is a bit *a lot*.

I am not so sure that every single additional costs a lot but adding a
work around for one browser is out of the question, totally. So I agree
with you on that one. And the irony is that the CEO I work for has a MAC
on his desk. It is the only one in the entire company and he knows good
and well not to call me and tell me something on the Intranet doesn't
work for him (It is totally, 100%, IE6 with that one exception).
Whenever something that is IE specific doesn't work, he turns around to
his PC, cusses me out loud, and starts up his PC to do what he wanted to
do. He has gotten too many "F**K you"s out of me in the past for it that
he doesn't call me about it anymore.

-- 
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/