1. We're gonna get rid of the "Glide" column since it's on OpenGlide's site, logically every game listed should support Glide, whether or not they support something else who knows. But no non-Glide games should be listed. A 3D API Compatibility List would not have this restriction.

2. As Colin says, it's still very beta. I'm moving this thread out of Deep Thought.

All the search stuff at the top right of the list looks kinda jacked in my browser of choice (Opera). I don't expect you to fix that (particularly when Snover is a Mozilla whore) but it would be nice.

Another thing: I get this error:

Warning: Supplied argument is not a valid MySQL result resource in /home/sites/site2/ web/dev/oli/compat.php on line 151

when searching for a game in the list. I'm trying to figure out if FreeSpace 2 is in the list or not since it has Glide support although IIRC, it's Direct3D support was better (would it still qualify then?) and was going to add it if it wasn't.

, all reports I've ever read is that Opera's PHP support surpasses MS IE as well, and so it should display that page properly. Oh, well... I know Colin means well, but I wish he wasn't such a browser nazi. Yes, it's the problem with the browser, not Colin's problem. Yes, it's compliant with whatever. But MS IE still has dominance in the browser wars. Design for the common denominator, Colin, even if that means breaking your vaunted compliance. And who's to say that there isn't a workaround of these issues that maintains compliance?

The Opera issue should be fixed, anyhow. That's a fatal bug. But I'd still like to add/edit games using IE. *sigh*

To answer your question, I can at least display the list in IE, even if I cannot make alterations. And Freespace 2 is listed as "Descent: Freespace 2" with Glide and Direct3D support both checked, Software questioned, OpenGL X-ed, and OpenGlide questioned.

With the D3D being "better" or not, that's really not what this list is about. It's whether or not the game will work with OpenGlide, and what particular rendering options exist. Not "which is better".

I went into more detail here:
showthread.php?threadid=534

I realise that IE is the dominant browser and put up with it to a point, so long as a page looks reasonably good in Opera I don't particularly mind, it's when a person goes overboard with the browser-specific stuff making it look perfect in that browser but right mess in anything else I get pissed off. I even put up with the fact that the reply box is about a third its former size in Opera because it really doesn't affect the functioning of the board or my access to the content in any real way. I'd like to see it fixed but I don't see that happening any time soon.

Getting back to the original topic, when you can make alterations, you can cross out any software support for FS2 since I know for a fact that it doesn't support it, only hardware Glide and Direct3D.

Stiletto wrote:

1. We're gonna get rid of the "Glide" column since it's on OpenGlide's site, logically every game listed should support Glide,...

Could we possibly keep it in? Be nice to have a full 3D API listing. Besides, when Snover moved/recreated this out my thread, he added titles that I had removed due to their lack of WinGlide support.

Ah, that was not actually me. That was Fabio's SQL dump of a list of games from some site that he found that I just imported. Sorry about that.

Anyway, I need to check out that mySQL resource error. That's my fault.

Please, post screenshots of how it looks messed up in Opera.
No, I refuse to break W3C compliance. However, I just tried one thing that may fix the whole select boxes not appearing problem in IE.

Some jazz on compliance:

Opera (note the specific lack of ability for "text-align" in CSS2 which is something I employ heavily. Also notice that this browser isn't fully compliant with HTML 4.01. I'm not surprised that it doesn't work properly. Upgrade.)

I love this site. It rocks. Please view now.

Excerpt:

Which browser is The Best? Counting 'Yes' as 1 point and 'Buggy/Incorrect/whatever' as 1/2 point, I come to the following score […]
Show full quote

Which browser is The Best?
Counting 'Yes' as 1 point and 'Buggy/Incorrect/whatever' as 1/2 point, I come to the following score (out of a possible total of 45 points):

1. Mozilla: 38 points
2. Konqueror: 30 points
3. Opera 5 & 6: 29.5 points
4. Explorer 5 Mac: 28 points
5. Explorer 6: 21.5 points
6. Explorer 5.5 Windows: 20 points
Explorer 5 Windows: 20 points
8. Explorer 4 Windows: 16.5 points
9. Explorer 4 Mac: 12.5 points
10. iCab: 6 points
Netscape 4: 6 points
Omniweb: 6 points

So figure it out, people, heh. See how Mozilla is on top? Yeah, that's right.

For the record, here are the things that DON'T work in Mozilla:

display : inline-block (some versions support this, like the latest 1.2b) display : run-in (for the record, only OPERA supports […]
Show full quote

display : inline-block (some versions support this, like the latest 1.2b)
display : run-in (for the record, only OPERA supports this)
display : compact (for the record, NONE of the browsers support this)
display : inline-table (for the record, only OPERA supports this properly; Mozilla has partial support -- treats this as a display : table)
box-sizing, outline (uses a propietary syntax, but does display; for the record, only IE5 FOR MAC works supports this)
background-attachment: fixed [in layers] (the standard is wrong, heh)
background-repeat: no-repeat [in layers] (again, the standard is wrong)

And as far as Javascript goes (this is an older list using pre-1.0 mozilla):

cloneNode - almost perfect in Mozilla, totally compliant in Konqueror 2.2 and IE5 Windows contains - "unclear" createAttribute - […]
Show full quote

cloneNode - almost perfect in Mozilla, totally compliant in Konqueror 2.2 and IE5 Windows
contains - "unclear"
createAttribute - only basic support in all browsers
createCSSStyleSheet - supported ONLY in Konqueror 2.2
createDocument and createDocumentFragment - supported ONLY in Mozilla
createHTMLDocument - not supported by ANY browsers
getOverrideStyle - supported ONLY in Konqueror 2.2
.href - supported fully ONLY in IE5 Windows, read-only by all others (I know this data is wrong, as I've used .href as writable before in Moz and it works)
removeProperty - not supported by ANY browsers
setAttributeNode - only basic support in all browsers
setPropery - "vague" in Mozilla, supported in IE5 Mac ONLY

I didn't list any MS-propietary Javascript extensions above because, well, they're propietary MS extensions that aren't actually part of the W3C standard, so they aren't supposed to be supported. At least, not 'till DOM 3 (I have to admit that some of the MS-propietary crap is pretty useful.)

Anyway, 'nuff said.

Snover wrote:

Upgrade.)

No.

edit: And a screenshot:

http://www.westnet.com.au/gweber/APICompat.jpg

Wow, that's fucked up. That's a TABLE, not a layer, so whatever funky rendering they're using to figure out where it is is just terribly, terribly wrong. I've attached a picture of what it SHOULD look like. Read the code if you don't believe me, BTW 😉

The picture is big -- 1280x960 -- because I wanted to get everything in. Apologies for my crappy theme -- Pinball hasn't been updated to 1.2b yet. 😒

No fix, Colin... 🙁

MS IE 6.0.2600.0000 - Q321232, Q313829

Oh well. *sigh*

What's this "Phoenix" thing you were talking about in another thread - something like a "small Mozilla"?

Take Mozilla, add in a few more features ripped from Opera (inbuilt pop-up blocker, quick search boxes) and you have Phoenix.

Mozilla already had a "pop-up" blocker. The programmers have stated that while they are using Mozilla as a base for their browser, it's not intended to be a clone of Mozilla and will appear and work more differently as time goes by.

I tried 0.3 a while back and it sucked. All the same problems afflicting regualr Moz were alive and well in Phoenix. Hopefully this divergance you speak of will eventually correct these (and the gecko rendering engine will finally have a decent browser around it...).

LSD, you are so extremely ignorant! Wow! You enrage me.

Sure, maybe Opera had a pop-up blocker first, but I bet you that it wasn't (and isn't) nearly as advanced as the one in Mozilla. (Moz's doesn't unilaterally block pop-ups. It also prevents forms from being submitted to pop-up windows.) Quick search has also been in Mozilla for A LONG TIME, so I don't know why you're spouting your mouth off about that. It also has "Type Ahead Find" as of 1.2b, which you allows you to simply type in letters and then it'll find what you've typed in the document and hilight it.

You're basing all your facts on old versions of Mozilla and it's really pissing me off. The Mozilla GUI is 100% customizable through the W3C recommended XUL (eXtensible User-interface Language) specification. You can't say that about ANY other browser. They all use cheap hacks, if at all. It's also open-source -- can't say that about the rest. It's also fully W3C-compliant as of 1.0 -- again, not something you can say about any other browser. Get some themes for fuck's sake if you don't like how it looks by default. I used Pinball 'till they changed the implementation of XUL in 1.2b, now I use GrayModern (until Pinball is updated, which should be soon, since it's extremely popular).

Quit making uninformed decisions. I've used IE6, Opera 5, and Mozilla 0.9.6-1.2b, and Mozilla has continuously and unilaterally defeated them in every test (except for load time, which can't be helped since IE is built into fucking Windows). I can't say I've used Konqueror, because I haven't, but it seems pretty decent as well. (That said, I don't think there's a Windows version, whereas Mozilla has premade binaries for almost every conceivable platform -- Windows, Linux, BSD, Solaris, BeOS, Sparc Sun, MacOS Classic, MacOS X, even OS/2, and the source for everyone else.)

So, stop making such stupidly ludicrous comments. Phoenix is a bare-bones version of Mozilla -- less features, smaller filesize. None of your other stupid claims.

Uhh, Snover... I current have v1.1 (the latest stable build as of a couple of months ago when I reinstalled XP) of Moz installed and it still sucks compared with Opera.

I was referring to version 0.3 of Phoenix not Moz.

Aww... you boys get along so well.

Question for Colin: Would it insult your sensibilities to ask you to add code that detects the browser-ID for the viewer of the compatibility list, and loads appropriate browser-appropriate front-ends to the compatibility list? It would be challenging, maybe even an interesting project, and would not "cripple" the database for Mozilla - overall, it would be an "enhancement."

The list is still beta, so why not? 😀

This is odd... Snover, you ever hear of Moz's Quick Launch causing PCs to "stutter"? I'm positive its only started happening with 1.1 since I don't recall any other version I've used having this problem. Still, 1.2b is on download queue, hopefully that'll fix it.

Quick Launch causes studder? Only if you've only got, like, 8MB of RAM. (Which in your case is quite possible. 😜)

I'm not gonna debate with you the superiority of Mozilla over Opera because EVERY TIME I give you reasons, and EVERY TIME you just state "Opera's better, just coz."

Snover wrote:

Quick Launch causes studder? Only if you've only got, like, 8MB of RAM. (Which in your case is quite possible. 😜)

heh, did they even make 8Mb SDRAM DIMMs? They may have once but most certainly not in the PC100 flavour I need at the absolute minimum :p

I'm not gonna debate with you the superiority of Mozilla over Opera because EVERY TIME I give you reasons, and EVERY TIME you just state "Opera's better, just coz."

Despite what other strengths it may have (many of which have been ripped from other browsers anyway. The "Type ahead find" you were crowing about earlier is an example. Operas had that since version 6 too only here it's called a "Find in page search") Mozilla is still a pig. It's big, fat and slow. When they bring it up to Opera's speed levels then I might consider it but not before.

edit: They have to reduce the filesize too. I mean even smaller than Phoenix and without cutting it down. I download something like 3.5-4Mb when I update my Opera, the best Moz can manage is about 7 (Phoenix 0.4).

I'm not sure what the whole big deal about taking features from other things is. I mean, if it's a good feature, why the hell shouldn't it be integrated? In any case, the REASON that Mozilla is large is because it is TOTALLY W3C-COMPLIANT. Before you knock me off at the knees for saying that, I should clarify that I mean that it renders all properly-coded pages as they should be in any markup language thrown at it. It still needs to work on things like XUL, but that's a user interface thing, not a website thing (at the moment). Anyway, it takes a lot of work (and a lot of space) to get that kind of rendering ability. Internet Explorer is an even bigger hog, and it doesn't have full W3C-standards compliancy. Opera is small for a reason: it doesn't have a lot of functions implemented. Certainly there's always room for improvement, and a lot of the testing facilities in Mozilla are left in (which contain lots of images and other stuff to bulk up the size). I like that. You, it seems, don't. Some of the tests have become redundant, like image support, and should probably be eliminated, but a lot of others (like XUL tests) are still important because they aren't totally operational yet. But I digress. You can play the 'size' card as much as you want, but the fact is that size is nothing when you want to be fully compatible with W3C standards. It's going to be big, period. That's the raw truth. If it's not big, it's because it's probably missing something (and I'm not talking useless features).