Talk:Comparison of web browsers/Archive 1

message: Just had another thought. Find as you type (FAYT) is a specialized feature found in all Mozilla browsers, Netscape 7.2, and I believe has also been implemented in Konqueror as well. Perhaps this should be added to the list.--Will2k 17:33, Jan 6, 2005 (UTC)
: Go ahead and add it for the browsers you know about, that's the only way anything gets done.--Ctachme 21:19, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Indeed, btw Opera has it. -Iopq 15:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Find as you Type

message: Has anyone any knowledge of a What's Related feature that may have been implemented early (or even current) versions of Netscape Navigator and Microsoft Internet Explorer.  Some searching has reported that it would show you a list of web sites that people who have looked at the same web site have also looked at.  It seems now for a browser to do this, it would have to report what web sites you are hitting to a central place and that would either be taboo in today's anti-spyware or similiar to Googles pagerank thus acceptable.
Internet Explorer's help file has a What's Related entry but it points you to the ability to hit search engines from the address bar.
MozillaZine has this to say: “What’s Related” was a browsing feature first introduced in Netscape Communicator 4.06, allowing users to retrieve a listing of websites similar to the one currently being viewed. This preference actually dates back from that browser—it never did anything in Mozilla, despite having checkbox in the browser preferences.
Mozilla’s implementation of “What’s Related” is dependent upon the appropriate sidebar being open. It’s not implemented at all in Firefox, Minimo, or Camino. See: http://kb.mozillazine.org/Browser.related.enabled --Bill Hamilton 18:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What's Related 

message: The table "Accessibility features (cont.)" lists Opera as having native text-to-speech capability. I don't see this feature mentioned in Opera's online documentation (help files). Can anybody provide a reference for this? Thanks. -- Writtenonsand 19:13, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Look here: http://my.opera.com/community/dev/voice/ ale5000 12:43, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera: Text-to-Speech? 

message: someone might want to add some of these details to the article :  porges 03:45, Apr 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Any cached page? Can't access the page. Anyway, those should be added to comparison of layout engines. --minghong 09:05, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additional Protocal support details 

message: Could we combine the tables Images and Protocols and  the CSS, JavaScript etc... "Features" from the features section into a "Standards Support" table. I feel like there are a tad too many tables right now, and those respective tables only have a few members each. I also would add RSS and Atom columns (but I don't really want to take the effort to until it's decided if this is the definitive # of tables). --Ctachme 22:18, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Combining tables

message: I'd like to add a column specifying if a browser supports Unicode in it's URLs or just Punycode. For example: Safari supports both formats for it's URLs (specific sections of unicode can even be turned off for security purposes). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:07, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unicode URLs 

message: Any plans for a similar comparison page for mobile browsers? Right now there doesn't appear to be a central source of their requirements and compatabilities.
:Well, you're kind of right; this series lacks a comparison of mobile browsers. If you are in apparent need of info try these two links. If you read all the comments and see all the screenshots (link #2) you can find out quite a bit of information. If you're up to developing your site for devices I would also recommend reading the full page found at link #1 (for a quick overview scroll down a bit to the browser listing). Be sure not to miss the phone emulators linked to further down in #1. Grey 00:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comparison of mobile browsers? 

message: There has got to be a way to clarify the difference between Netscape, Netscape Navigator, and Netscape Browser.  I can figure it out since I've been following browser development since 1995, but even I had to think about it when looking at some of the tables.  I do realize that the dates are described in the General table, but given that the average user only knows all three as "Netscape" (and NS4 was referred to, in full suite form, as Netscape Communicator) it seems confusing to list them only with the current names.  Unfortunately, the best I can come up with is to add "1-4" "6-7" and "8+" to the labels, and that just seems too cluttered. --Kelson 00:28, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
:Yes, there can be only one = Netscape Browser. All other is old obsolete versions not supported anymore. Another core, name change? So what?
:They're three different browsers which have the same name. There are still people using the old Netscapes (just look at browser stat sites), and especially the new Netscape Browser with its Unholy Alliance of Gecko and Trident cannot and should not be compared with other variants of Netscape. I hope the note and version numbers I added clarifies the matter some. Jordi·✆ 19:28, 7 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple Netscapes 

message: There is a huge disparity between the vulnerbility count in this list and the one in the actual pages.  For example, the SecurityFocus for IE6SP1 lists 179 vulnerbilities while Wikipedia lists 92.  With such a large disparity, and because Wikipedia's count hasn't changed much lately, I thought it likely that there must be some subtlety in the count.  Could someone with more knowledge double check to make sure this is correct, and then change if appropriate (I changed all the other browsers already).  Telso 22:39, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe could we have the percent market share or number of users of each browser? I think that might be informational alongside the number of voulnerabilities. Whatcha think? -Mysekurity [m!] 06:17, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "There is a huge disparity between the vulnerbility count in this list and the one in the actual pages. ... I changed all the other browsers already" The problem with your statement is that you don't know what are you writing about. The table of vulnerabilities should not count fixed vulberabilities, but only those known and unpatched. --Ptomes 09:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vulnerbilities in IE

message: Why do all the (very many) features available only with extensions/plugins get "no" in the main box and then a footnote mentioning it?  It would seem more sensible to color the box yellow or orange and have the word "plugin" or "extension" plus a link to the item in question.  After all, part of browser functionality is moddability.  (Or maybe I'm just a Firefox fanboy.  ;)) —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If some way can be found to do that, I'm in support of it.  A yellow/maybe/sorta is clearer, IMO, than a green/yes or red/no with a footnote. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:34, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Layout suggestion 

message: In order for the vulnerability data to be considered strong from an argument standpoint, the data should be normalized such that readers can perform an apples to apples comparison. Each vulnerability category should be adjusted to reflect the number of users using the given browser for a "Vulnerabilities per User" statistic. After all, it is the open source mantra that "Many eyes make all bugs shallow" and I would venture to say that having many users is the equivalent of many eyes seeing the surface of the app, so it would also be fair to assume that there is a marked increase in vulnerability discovery capability, quickly inflating figures for more popular browsers.
:Rubbish. I thought it was long ago settled that "vulnerabilities per user" is reducible a mere appeal to popularity fallacy. Sometime back when it was cool to trash MS, I think. We're meant to be comparing the software itself, not who uses it or how many there are of them. Wayne Hardman 22:16, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normalizing Vulnerability Data 

message: http://my.opera.com/userjs/forums/topic.dml?id=124033 -Iopq 12:55, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, this is noted in the table. It still doesn't mean Opera supports MathML. In other places in the tables where you need a plugin or extension to enable a feature, a No is used to indicate that the browser does not natively support the feature. -- Schapel 13:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but it usually has a footnote noting that it is possible with an extension. Someoneinmyheadbutit'snotme 17:57, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: True, but the entry for Opera's support for MathML already has such a footnote, so there is nothing to change. -- Schapel 01:11, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opera userJS MathML support 

message: Please do not manually change the link to SecurityFocus data. For example, some editors try to type in the latest version of a browser directly into the URL, and when they follow the link they see the message "No matching vulnerabilities found". This does not mean that there are no known vulnerabilities in that version of the browser. If the text "Select Version" appears in the Version pull-down menu, that means that there is no information on that version of the browser. Select the latest stable release version of the browser from the pull-down menu, which is the most up-to-date information SecurityFocus has on record, and use that link and the information provided through the link. -- Schapel 13:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  SecurityFocus links in Vulnerabilities section 

message: Under See Also is:
"- List of web browsers  /  
- Comparison of layout engines  /  
- Criticisms of Opera".  
Two links to lists/comparison pages that apply to all the browsers here, and one to a criticism of one particular browser?  Rather biased, isn't it?  If you're going to have links to criticisms of the browsers, have one for each of the browsers (or at least, all the main ones); if not, I say delete it. Simxp 23:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Criticisms of Opera" in See Also 

message: Just a small detail, but I couldn't help but notice that Microsoft Internet Explorer is listed simply as "Internet Explorer," while other browsers (i.e. "Mozilla Firefox" and "Netscape Navigator") are listed under their full names.  Should "Internet Explorer" be renamed to "Microsoft Internet Explorer" in this article, or should "Mozilla Firefox" be listed as "Firefox" and so on? Rob T Firefly 06:33, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is to be renamed Windows Internet Explorer in version 7. bruce89 20:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As if simply having "Explorer" in the name didn't confuse it with Windows Explorer already... ☹ That said, I agree with the point being made.  If we are going to list the "make" and "model" of some, let's do it for all. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:28, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Microsoft Internet Explorer" vs "Internet Explorer" 

message: Throughout the document alot of the tables are marked with a little cross, and further details are shown underneath the table. Is there no way different symbols can be used for each mark? At the moment it is often impossible to tell which note corresponds to each mark!
86.3.170.69 17:59, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear referencing