why can't Opera be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

why can't Opera be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

for this thread, please don't discuss about browser discrimination, sniffing, etc. this thread is aside the point that some sites do block Opera. please don't discuss about Firefox add-ons or extensions. when I refer to Firefox, it's the stock install. this thread is about compatibility and not about features. and, I don't see the need to list sites because I'm certain that I'm not the only one who's encountered compatibility issues with Opera. this thread is related to "how to spread the word about Opera"; its not easy to spread the word about Opera, if Opera's not as compatible as Firefox & Safari.

what about sites that don't block Opera but aren't "standards complaint"; however, they work fine with Firefox and even Safari {which is based on open source technologies (Konqueror) but isn't an open source browser}

will using open source technologies compromise Opera's proprietary technology

I'd like to see Opera compatible with sites that work fine with both Firefox & Safari, regardless if they are "standards complaint" or not.

I'm not against the idea of being "standards complaint"; but, does Opera have to be a rigid stickler to it? it would be nice, if Opera was more flexible by supporting both standards and nonstandards technologies.

so, here's the question: why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

discussed over and over again. they are working hard on rendering non-standards compliant sites as intended (meaning: applying the right guesswork).

If you want to have all those sites rendered as intended, probably all of IE's bugs have to be implemented, too.

There are many sites that don't render right with Safari and Firefox. I don't know whether that's more or less than with Opera, and seriously, I for one don't care. It's the same problem for all browsers (even IE7, oh the irony...) and the only way to fix the problem on the long run is to not have to write browsers that can render the so and so many billion web pages out there, but to write web pages that render correctly in the 5 or 6 browsers out there.

The easiest way to get to this point is to actually write standards compliant code, because if something is not rendered right, you know exactly whom to blame: the browser vendor. That's actually the perfect (Web-) world.

Until then? Report sites that do not render as intended in Opera, and hope they will implement something that will make it show right for the next update. You can bet on Opera trying to make your browsing as little frustrating as possible.

I forgot to mention not to include bad coding or any version of IE. this has nothing to do about IE. I'm not interested in sites that don't render right with Firefox & Safari. what I'm interested in is having the same compatibility as Firefox & Safari.

Safari was the 1st browser to pass the Acid2, it can't be denied that its "standards complaint"; yet, its more compatible with other sites that use nonstandards technologies. so, why can't Opera be as compatible?

just because its nonstandard does not mean that its erroneous; and, being a standard does not make it perfect.

and, mistakes can be made on both standard & nonstandard coding.

so, why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

It's not a question of Opera being inflexible or incompatible. A large proportion of web browser<-->site compatibility is provided by the web site designer, not the browser developer. That's what Opera is mostly missing right now - the work put in by the web site designer to ensure their site looks OK.

Currently, IMHO, Opera the browser is no better or worse in terms of compatibility than any other browser out there. It's just that relatively fewer web designers care about Opera.

It's funny, my latest blog post touched on this very topic...

there's a tendency to defend Opera by pointing fingers to others; which is way easier than to own up (acknowledge) itself.

as an example, check out Aptana, it helps show what/which scripts/codes are supported by each major browser.

it seems that, Opera doesn't support other nonstandards technologies as much as Firefox or Safari. this is not to say that Opera doesn't support nonstandards technologies; it does, but not as much. so, why can't it support more?

where do "standards" come from? are they standards from the getgo?
and, are standards final? or are they also subject to revisions/updates?

Opera supports lots of non-standard things, just as it supports lots of standard things. However, Opera is different from every other browser out there, just as they themselves are different from each other.

Opera can support more non-standard things - did you have anything specific in mind? "Do whatever Firefox or Safari do" isn't specific enough!

BTW, Aptana is not the bible on browser capabilities. For example, in the first Aptana demo showing browser support, you'll notice that Opera doesn't support <acronym>, according to Aptana anyway. Personally, I've had no problem with <acronym>. I saw many other similar mistakes while I was trying Aptana out a few months ago.

As for what standards are, they are things published by the W3C. The ECMA script standard also applies to Javascript. The Mozilla organisation is also creating new versions of Javascript, which I believe are being picked up by the ECMA. The WHATWG group is creating new versions of HTML, which are slowly being picked up by the W3C.

If there's a tendency for people here to point fingers at website designers, that's because website designers have a tendency to ignore Opera. Cause -> effect.

If you look at the guts of any website, the odds are you'll find masses of hacks and workarounds all for the purpose of getting IE to "work". Other browsers tend to need fewer workarounds, but eventally, every browser needs something special from the website designer. Websites don't work by magic - lots of effort goes into them. As I said, all too often Opera gets zero effort, with inevitable results.

Taking the PhpGedView menu example from my blog post. The menu wasn't working correctly in Opera. Funny thing was, it wasn't working in IE7 either, but was working in IE6 and Firefox. As you can see, not even IE can take just any old crap and make it work. Getting the menu working in all (tested) browsers required changing the web code, not the browser.

There are two main types of problems with nonstandard code:

1. Code that is based on some proprietary extension. The issue in this case is simple: Opera can decide to implement it (like XMLHttpRequest) or decide not to implement it (like ActiveX).
   
2. Code that is broken, forcing browsers to second-guess the site authors. When the author only checks the code by loading the page in one or two browsers, they don't notice the errors where the browser happens to guess "right" -- and by "right," I mean "right for the author's intention," not "right for the code," because in this case, there is no "right for the code."
   

The second problem is the hardest one, because it's not just a matter of "handling bad code" -- it's a matter of handling it in exactly the same way as the dominant browser. And that's generally not documented. All that you can do is take some broken code, run it through the other browser, and see what it does. And there are a *lot* of ways you can break code.

When Microsoft first released IE, they tried very hard to match the way Netscape handled various types of code errors. Safari tried very hard to match the way IE handled them. There's a series of posts somewhere on the original Surfin Safari weblog about this problem that are worth reading, but I don't have time to look them up right now.

Can it be done? To some extent, yes. But it's a much more complex problem than many people think.

first and foremost, I'd like to keep this thread friendly
if I wrote anything that stirred negative feelings towards others, I apologize. however, please quote it and explain why, so that I may learn to prevent it. I'm not perfect, but I'll do my best to remain polite & cordial

second, just for this thread, let's imagine/pretend that IE doesn't exist.
so, no mentioning of it or sites exclusively designed for it.

Originally posted by nelsson:

The fact is that Opera has to be even more compatible, since fewer sites are tested in Opera than in Firefox or even Safari.

FWIW, Safari probably has more site compatibility problems than Opera, but it helps that it's an Apple browser, so it's improving.

just curious, I'd like to test a site that works better with Opera than Safari, can you please provide one? I would definitely enjoy seeing something that works better with Opera than with Safari.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

BTW, Aptana is not the bible on browser capabilities.

I never said it was.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

If there's a tendency for people here to point fingers at website designers, that's because website designers have a tendency to ignore Opera. Cause -> effect.

If you look at the guts of any website, the odds are you'll find masses of hacks and workarounds all for the purpose of getting IE to "work". Other browsers tend to need fewer workarounds, but eventally, every browser needs something special from the website designer. Websites don't work by magic - lots of effort goes into them. As I said, all too often Opera gets zero effort, with inevitable results.

maybe it's not a matter of webdesigners/webmasters ignoring Opera but perhaps because the web technologies they want to use isn't supported by Opera.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

As for what standards are…

I'm aware of both W3C & WHATWG. you've misinterpreted what I was asking. let me rephrase "are they standards from the getgo?"… is a 'standard' originally a 'standard' from its conception?

and, here's a new question: what word best describes "standard"? innovative or conforming

Originally posted by Kelson:

There are two main types of problems with nonstandard code…

as mentioned earlier 'bad coding' aside.
now, I'd like to specify, nonstandard web technologies that Opera (and other browsers) can legally use for free, regardless of being proprietary or open.

Originally posted by nelsson:

He's talking about "opening Opera", that is, problems with sites that he wants Opera to fix. That's something for the browser forum. This forum is here to talk about how you can get sites to support Opera or at least stop blocking it.

please don't speak for me. I don't want Opera to "fix" sites with problems (whether or not it could be due to bad coding), that is not my point. my point is having more support/compatibility with nonstandard web technologies that Opera (and other browsers) can legally use for free, regardless of being proprietary or open.
assuming that the sites are not using proprietary web technologies that can bill/charge other browsers for usage:
if you want to get sites to support Opera, which is what you say this forum's about, then Opera should try to support the nonstandard technologies that those sites are using.
I've been trying to spread the word about Opera, which is one of the topics of this forum, but I have a problem convincing others to switch, whenever they ran into compatibility issues.
not to go off-topic, but here's my experience:
I install both Firefox & Opera. the users have never tried both. at this point they are indifferent to both browsers.
I tell them to use Opera before trying Firefox; and, if it the site doesn't work with Opera, only then to try Firefox.
I tell them, no matter what, never use IE.
after a couple weeks or months, I follow-up on their progress with both browsers.
the results, so far, have always been the same, they've ended-up using Firefox.
and, when I ask why, it's because Opera didn't work well with some of the sites they were trying to use.

here's a rehash:
this thread should not be about:

• anything to do with IE
  
• browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.
  
• features, add-ons, or extensions
  
• bad coding
  
• using proprietary web technologies that can bill/charge other browsers for usage

why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

So... implementing things like XmlHTTPRequest (for AJAX), contenteditable (for richtext editing), document.all (for sites coded for IE instead of using the standard DOM methods), and so on don't count?

Abraxias: stop yelling! It does not help....

- and for those 'compatability' moaners, even IE7 is getting problems, due to new features and formatting... welcome to *our* world, MS!!

Originally posted by Kelson:

So... implementing things like XmlHTTPRequest (for AJAX), contenteditable (for richtext editing), document.all (for sites coded for IE instead of using the standard DOM methods), and so on don't count?

Kelson, I appreciate your comments. unfortunately, though you have a very good point, if XmlHTTPRequest is created exclusively for IE, then it shouldn't be included on this thread. to prevent this thread from getting on an endless IE debate, anything IE or exclusive to it shouldn't be discussed here.

Originally posted by illiad:

Abraxias: stop yelling! It does not help....

off-topic: I'm using small caps. where was I yelling? I'd like to follow forum etiquette. I'm trying to be as polite & cordial as possible. if it was using large fonts for my 1st sentence, its because I want others to notice it (but not as yelling) and thus hopefully keep a friendly tone here. if that was yelling in the forum correspondence form, I apologize.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Abraxias.. It's great how you simply ignored my comment about how Safari is Apple's browser, and Apple happens to be one of the biggest brands in the world.

for those reading this thread, I believe that its safe to assume that we know that Apple owns Safari. so, please show (quote) me where I've ignored you, regarding this matter, and I will try to give you the attention you need for it.

you've accused me of ignoring you; however, I previously made a direct request from you that remains unanswered.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

Originally posted by nelsson:

The fact is that Opera has to be even more compatible, since fewer sites are tested in Opera than in Firefox or even Safari.

FWIW, Safari probably has more site compatibility problems than Opera, but it helps that it's an Apple browser, so it's improving.

just curious, I'd like to test a site that works better with Opera than Safari, can you please provide one? I would definitely enjoy seeing something that works better with Opera than with Safari.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Consider this:
One of the biggest brands in the world contacts you because your site doesn't work. What do you do?
Someone you've never heard about contacts you because your site doesn't work. What do you do?

you definitely have to provide facts for these.


illiad…

Originally posted by Abraxias:

.. it's because Opera didn't work well with some of the sites they were trying to use.
here's a rehash:this thread should not be about:
anything to do with IE
browser blocking
discrimination
sniffing, etc.
features, add-ons, or extensions
bad coding
using proprietary web technologies that can bill/charge other browsers for usage

why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

The only example sites that I can think of to meet these criteria would be
a) http://www.opera.com
b) http://www.mozillazine.org
c) http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2

Can you clarify where Opera is "less compatible" on these sites?
Or do you have other examples?

Originally posted by Abraxias:

why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?

You're not listening to me! It's not as simple as Opera becoming "more flexible and compatible". You might like Opera Software to bear the entire burden of website compatibility because that makes the problem a whole lot simpler to solve. The fact is it's not that simple. It won't matter how flexible and compatible Opera is - there will always be sites that won't work with Opera, but will in Firefox and Safari. The reverse is true too - both now and in the future.

Speakly very broadly, here's what I think is happening:

Web sites are typically created by shops that deal in graphic design. These have a tendency to be Apple shops, rather than Windows. Therefore, the places where web sites are created are more likely to use Safari, and therefore they will have tested and debugged their sites to ensure everything is good in it.

Next they will test and debug their site using IE6 and now IE7, simply because that's the browser 80-90% of their site visitors will be using. The next browser off the rank will be Firefox, because that it now up to around 10-20% of site visitors.

After juggling their code for those three browser types, most designers will just stop. Lesser used browsers such as Opera, Konqueror, and even non-Firefox Gecko-based browsers like Seamonkey just don't get a look in. You should drop by the Seamonkey Mozillazine forums sometime and see how many folks are annoyed that their Seamonkey browser is blocked from sites simply because it isn't Firefox, even though they share an identical rendering engine!

I'll also point out the obvious - that IE is the default Windows browser, Safari the default Mac browser, and Firefox is frequently the default Linux browser in many distros. Opera is not bundled with any desktop OS.

IMO, the chances of a website working in any particular browser has got nothing to do with the quality of its code, its "flexibility" or "compatibility". It has everything to do with the amount of effort put into supporting that browser by the site designer.

I'll note that after all the volumes of discussion here, you haven't mentioned one single specific feature that Opera is missing compared to other browsers.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

this thread should not be about:
...snip...
browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.
...snip...
bad coding

Why not? These are the primary reason sites don't work in Opera! If web sites treated all browsers the same, gave them the same code, etc, then your argument for Opera becoming more flexible or compatible would have merit. The fact is, though, that web sites frequently sniff out browsers, and send different code to different browsers. Different code means different operation and rendering, and unless that gets tested, bugs are guaranteed to slip through. Out of IE, Firefox, Safari, and Opera, Opera is the browser that gets the least attention, and therefore tends to get the untested, buggy code.

IMO, the best way to improve Opera's web site compatibility, is to get more web site developers using Opera. Opera Software have already announced development of tools to assist web site development. The more sites developed with Opera.

See also:

My website: http://www.scss.com.au/family/andrew/opera/compatibility/
A blog post of mine: http://my.opera.com/Andrew%20Gregory/blog/show.dml/306408
Hallvord's blog: http://my.opera.com/hallvors/blog/ (lots of interesting reading there)

Originally posted by Abraxias:

off-topic: I'm using small caps

hmmm, yeah. dunno what 'forum ettiquette' would say about that... all I can guess, its like a guy with a voice that sounds loud, but has a very polite tone, even though you realise that is just his normal speach.... ????

but anyhow, a bit of a shock... and I dont really mind its use, if peeps arent paying attention!!

and if no-one has noticed it yet, have a look at how bad it could be!! the link inside was working last time I checked...

Originally posted by Abraxias:

Kelson, I appreciate your comments. unfortunately, though you have a very good point, if XmlHTTPRequest was created exclusively for IE, then it shouldn't be included on this thread. to prevent this thread from getting on an endless IE debate, anything IE or exclusive to it shouldn't be discussed here.

Will you stop moving the goal posts?

First you say you want Opera to work better with non-standard sites.
Then you say you don't want to discuss broken code.
Then you say you don't want to discuss browser blocking.
Then you say you don't want to discuss anything introduced by IE.

At this point you've narrowed the topic to the point where there basically isn't anything left to talk about. Really, how many proprietary technologies widely used on the web were introduced by Mozilla or Apple? Netscape had its share in the old days, but most of them have either been incorporated into the standards (frames, javascript) or discarded (layers).

The main issues affecting site compatibility are (in no particular order) broken code, browser blocking, differences in standards support, and proprietary tech (most of which was introduced in IE), all of which you have eliminated from the conversation.

first, my disclaimer: I am an end-user and not a programmer. and, I'm not omniscient. so, please politely correct my mistakes. I am open to learning.
second, please bear with me, as I try to properly tend to each of your replies. I'm doing my best to prevent any miscommunication on my part. if I miss anything, it's not my intention. I will reply chronologically, based from my previous post.

my point for this thread is to take the side of webdesigners/webmasters who'd like for their site(s) to be compatible with Opera but are having difficulties due to free nonstandard web technologies that are not supported by Opera.

Originally posted by TbGbe:

Can you clarify where Opera is "less compatible" on these sites?
Or do you have other examples?

browser sniffing, discrimination & blocking aside, Ajax13 (a.k.a. ajaxLaunch) AJAX for Everyone
"Ajax software requires Firefox 1.5, or newer. We are currently investigating extending the compatibility to other browsers such as Internet Explorer. Once we evaluate and make the decision, the information will be posted on the site."

here's what I'm curious about, if Firefox is open source and if the web technologies it uses are free, why can't Opera use them? are there any legal issues?

I think that other weboffice suites & stand-alones might also have some problems with Opera. but, I haven't checked.

YouOS

Originally posted by srini:

Opera and Safari compatibility are goals we are slowly achieving (Safari more than Opera).

Opera is a tough nut to crack, and it doesn't work particularly well with our javascript and/or the Dojo Toolkit. We'll do our best, but it will take some time.

Originally posted by srini:

I'm one of the few people that probably has IE, Opera, and Firefox installed I switch back and forth from IE to firefox for personal use.

so, he's not ignoring Opera. he's just having a difficult time making their site work with Opera.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

You're not listening to me!

sorry, I thought I have. I'm just trying to share a different perspective… which is of webdesigners/webmasters who'd like for their site(s) to be compatible with Opera but are having difficulties due to free nonstandard web technologies that are not supported by Opera.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

It's not as simple as Opera becoming "more flexible and compatible". You might like Opera Software to bear the entire burden of website compatibility because that makes the problem a whole lot simpler to solve. The fact is it's not that simple. It won't matter how flexible and compatible Opera is - there will always be sites that won't work with Opera, but will in Firefox and Safari. The reverse is true too - both now and in the future.

so, the action is to do nothing? this all just futile? won't any step forward, even if its just one step forward, be progress?
I'm not asking for a miracle. I'm not asking for Opera to be more compatible than Firefox or Safari. the thing is, if they can do it, why can't Opera?

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

I'll note that after all the volumes of discussion here, you haven't mentioned one single specific feature that Opera is missing compared to other browsers.

that's because I initially mentioned that this thread is not about features.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

this thread should not be about:
...snip...
browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.
...snip...
bad coding

Why not? These are the primary reason sites don't work in Opera!

agreed, they're the primary reasons but not the only reasons. those reasons are debated/discussed in other threads, I want to deviate from them and focus more on supporting other free web technologies.

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

Opera Software have already announced development of tools to assist web site development.

please provide links to them in this thread.

Originally posted by Kelson:

Will you stop moving the goal posts?

First you say you want Opera to work better with non-standard sites.
Then you say you don't want to discuss broken code.
Then you say you don't want to discuss browser blocking.
Then you say you don't want to discuss anything introduced by IE.

At this point you've narrowed the topic to the point where there basically isn't anything left to talk about.

yet, here we are… I'm a bit overwhelmed by trying to reply to each of you…
I need to clarify…

• as long as IE is allowing other browsers to use their web technologies for free, then it's okay to mention those technologies but not involve IE into this discussion. if IE introduced a web technology and is now offering it for free, then it's okay to mention it without delving into IE.
  
• I've only made 2 amendments: bad coding and no mentioning of IE (what seems to be the 3rd was just rephrasing to better explain what not to mention about IE)

Originally posted by Abraxias:

for this thread, please don't discuss about browser discrimination, sniffing, etc. this thread is aside the point that some sites do block Opera. please don't discuss about Firefox add-ons or extensions. when I refer to Firefox, it's the stock install. this thread is about compatibility and not about features. and, I don't see the need to list sites because I'm certain that I'm not the only one who's encountered compatibility issues with Opera.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

I forgot to mention not to include bad coding or any version of IE. this has nothing to do about IE. I'm not interested in sites that don't render right with Firefox & Safari.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

just for this thread, let's imagine/pretend that IE doesn't exist.
so, no mentioning of it or sites exclusively designed for it.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

here's a rehash:
this thread should not be about:

• anything to do with IE
  
• browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.
  
• features, add-ons, or extensions
  
• bad coding
  
• using proprietary web technologies that can bill/charge other browsers for usage

Originally posted by Kelson:

The main issues affecting site compatibility are (in no particular order) broken code, browser blocking, differences in standards support, and proprietary tech (most of which was introduced in IE), all of which you have eliminated from the conversation.

please read back the rehash. I don't recall ever mentioning not to include "differences in standards support, and proprietary tech" in this thread.

I don't want you nor anyone else to misundertand me.
so, to hopefully prevent any further misunderstanding, here's an update of my guidlines/parameters…
this thread should not be about:

• anything exclusive to IE
  
• browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.
  
• features, add-ons, or extensions
  
• bad coding
  
• using proprietary web technologies that can bill/charge other browsers for usage
  my guidlines/parameters for this discussion is to help keep it focused. instead of going off tangents.

Abraxias, if I understand correctly, you are talking about sites which don't render properly in Opera, but do render correctly in Firefox and Safari, and not because of browser sniffing?

Abraxias, these "free web technologies" like AjaxLaunch are built on underlying technologies like HTML, CSS, JavaScript, and DOM. They use standards-based features, and sometimes proprietary features. AJAX, for instance, is based on the JavaScript and DOM standards, and on proprietary extensions like XmlHTTPRequest. (Just to be clear, AjaxLaunch in only one of many sites that rely on AJAX.)

XmlHttpRequest has an interesting history: It was introduced by Internet Explorer 4 or 5 as an ActiveX control. Gecko later added it as an extension to JavaScript. Still later Safari and Opera added it, also as an extension to JavaScript. (Oddly, Internet Explorer 7 has switched from an ActiveX control to a built-in JavaScript function, which will simplify cross-browser development once it supplants IE6.) Opera has continued to enhance and refine its support for this feature.

This is an example of something Opera has been doing to support a free, non-standard web technology.

One of the problems appears to be inertia on the part of web developers. Until Opera 9, Opera's support for AJAX-like technologies was considerably behind Firefox and Safari. Without knowing what, specifically, developers like ajaxLaunch are trying to use, it's not clear whether they actually do have problems working with Opera 9, or just with Opera 8 and below.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Because Firefox is the "new Netscape", and all webmasters know about Netscape, and have always learned that Netscape compatibility is a must. Because Firefox and Netscape use the same rendering engine.

On a side note, Yahoo has finally dropped support for Netscape on the theory that it will act the same as Firefox (or IE, depending on what mode it's in).

Originally posted by Hildanknight:

Abraxias, if I understand correctly, you are talking about sites which don't render properly in Opera, but do render correctly in Firefox and Safari, and not because of browser sniffing?

If such pages grow by days, opera will have a real problem convincing people, no matter who is to blame, what technicality is involved.

I am afraid that opera is getting to the point where we, all fan boys, will be fighting/shouting/debating many technical fine points from a confined underground cave and there will be no one to listen to.


One of my friend asked the known question again but I could not answer.

"If opera is great why people don't use it? isn't it unacceptable that people did not hear its name for last ten years"?

Originally posted by operafan2006:

One of my friend asked the known question again but I could not answer."If opera is great why people don't use it? isn't it unacceptable that people did not hear its name for last ten years"?

it was stated before. no brand name.

Safari? Everyone using Apple at least knows Safari. If he doesn't know what Safari is, he's using it anyway, because in that case he's using the default browser.

Internet Explorer? Everyone using Windows at least knows Internet Explorer. If he doesn't know what Internet Explorer is, he's using it anyway, because in that case he's using the default browser.

Firefox? Whoever knows Internet Explorer AND Safari also knows Firefox. People who know enough to distinguish between operating systems, that is, because of the media and all that. And of course, all the Linux people know Firefox. And everyone who's on the net for more than XY years and actually kept his eyes just a LITTLE open, seeing that Netscape (which everyone knew back then) died and was followed by Mozilla which was followed by Firefox.

If you have anything to do with computers, you will come across Firefox and one of the two others eventually. No way around this. But it's pretty easy to come around Opera. To get to know Opera, until last year or so you'd have to be downloading a program that would punch ads in your face or cost money. Stuff for people who really want to dig into these things. Nowadays it's hard because "the alternative" to browse the web is already branded with Firefox.

And Opera doesn't invest millions into ads. There's plenty of reasons why Opera is pretty much unknown out there, and unless you actually have millions to invest, it's pretty hard to make normal (read: non-techie) people associate "Opera" with more than "music".

Originally posted by Abraxias:

that's because I initially mentioned that this thread is not about features.

You don't get a meaningful discussion without looking at specific examples and features. I've written a longer response on my blog:

http://my.opera.com/hallvors/blog/2006/11/17/being-compatible-with-the-dark-matter-of

Originally posted by Hildanknight:

Abraxias, if I understand correctly, you are talking about sites which don't render properly in Opera, but do render correctly in Firefox and Safari, and not because of browser sniffing?

partially… depends on how you define 'render'… do you mean just display-layout? or both display-layout & functionality? if the latter, then yes.


my disclaimer: I am an end-user and not a programmer, webdesigner, webdeveloper, nor webmaster. therefore, I make no claim of knowing the technical aspects related to them.
and, I'm not omniscient. so, please politely correct my mistakes. I am open to learning.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

my point for this thread is to take the side of webdesigners/webmasters who'd like for their site(s) to be compatible with Opera but are having difficulties due to free non standard web technologies that are not supported by Opera.

But what are these technologies?

here's a list of standard web technologies. I don't know, if there's a list of free nonstandard web technologies.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

here's what I'm curious about, if Firefox is open source and if the web technologies it uses are free, why can't Opera use them?

Which ones? The technologies that make Firefox bloated and unsuitable as mobile phone browser?

I don't know which one. I'm not a programmer. I don't know the technical details. can you honestly/factually tell me why Ajax13 (a.k.a. ajaxLaunch) AJAX for Everyone only works for Firefox? I think hallvors answer was XUL, and since he's very credible, I believe him.
do you honestly know for a fact that every code used in the desktop version of Opera is also included into the mobile version? or, is the mobile version of Opera a slimmed down version of the desktop?

Originally posted by nelsson:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

so, he's not ignoring Opera. he's just having a difficult time making their site work with Opera.

And that still doesn't mean anything since he's obviously used to the other browsers. It's just another example of someone ignoring Opera. You quoted it yourself: he uses IE and Firefox, but not Opera.

please provide verbatim quote on where he states that he does not use Opera. prove it. how can someone who's trying to make their service work with Opera not use Opera?

Originally posted by nelsson:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

so, the action is to do nothing?

A lot is being done. You are just making assumptions and not paying attention.

prove to me that I'm not paying attention. my reply was not directed to you. it was directed towards Andrew Gregory and what he said.

Originally posted by nelsson:

it helps that Apple is such a huge brand, so when they knock on someone's door, they get a real answer.

prove this.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

Originally posted by Andrew Gregory:

I'll note that after all the volumes of discussion here, you haven't mentioned one single specific feature that Opera is missing compared to other browsers.

that's because I initially mentioned that this thread is not about features.

But it is. You wrote:

"nonstandard web technologies that are not supported by Opera"

These technologies are known as "features". You have yet to mention any examples.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

those reasons are debated/discussed in other threads, I want to deviate from them and focus more on supporting other free web technologies.

Such as? You keep referring to these web technologies, but you never tell us exactly what they are.

okay, I'm not a programmer, so I'm just making wild guesses… I don't know whether or not, if the following are supported by Opera: AjaXSLT (probably); some of the technologies used in dōjō (what they are, I don't know); and, some of the technologies in the Tamarin Project.

Kelson, you're the 1st to hit the target of this thread.

hallvors, BULL'S EYE!!! thank you so much!!! you're the man!

Originally posted by Kelson:

XmlHttpRequest has an interesting history: It was introduced by Internet Explorer 4 or 5 as an ActiveX control. Gecko later added it as an extension to JavaScript. Still later Safari and Opera added it, also as an extension to JavaScript. (Oddly, Internet Explorer 7 has switched from an ActiveX control to a built-in JavaScript function, which will simplify cross-browser development once it supplants IE6.) Opera has continued to enhance and refine its support for this feature.

so, a 'good' reason for IE7?? If activex use is reduced drastically, yes!!

Originally posted by operafan2006:

One of my friend asked the known question again but I could not answer."If opera is great why people don't use it? isn't it unacceptable that people did not hear its name for last ten years"?

I think it maybe because opera is too shy to do 'in your face, everywhere' advertising.... (no, it is not expensive, compared to how many more customers it will get!!)

- and if you say 'branding' to the 'man in the street' he wont know what you are talking about... all he wants is 'good value for money' and does not care for the name... In fact, if a lot of 'rich kid' adverts are about it, he will usually say 'huh, hollywood' and avoid it due to the percieved expensiveness!

Originally posted by WildEnte:

Internet Explorer? Everyone using Windows at least knows Internet Explorer. If he doesn't know what Internet Explorer is, he's using it anyway, because in that case he's using the default browser.

Sorry, but *most* peeps who use IE just call it 'the internet' !!!

I have to remind peeps again, that only 10% of the country has any clue about computers, and only half that feel confident enough to not rely on MS as 'the king'...

It's just another example of someone ignoring Opera. You quoted it yourself: he uses IE and Firefox, but not Opera.

yes, there are some lazy webdevs out there, but there are also some very *petty* ones that that *block* opera because a small detail is not exactly right!!

Hallvors, great blog post!

I've found myself thinking about the stated problem in the following fashion:

W3C standards are carefully discussed in advance to ensure that not only do web developers know how to use the features correctly, but web browser makers know how to implement them correctly. Do it that way, and it shouldn't matter what browser you use.

Non- standards, however, tend to only have end-user documentation, which means there's a hundred different ways each browser can vary 'under-the-hood', since there's a hundred different ways a browser maker can implement the features. Not to mention the horrendous 'undocumented features'.

What this means is that, if you're developing for Firefox, you're probably working from Mozilla's version of the documentation, which is likely to contain all the things that work correctly in FF, and none of the things that don't. Broken features get marked and avoided.

It works both ways - Opera supports some features FF doesn't. Either way, you've already found yourself coding to the quirks of your chosen browser, and making it harder for yourself to port to other browsers. This is why developers come back with 'Opera doesn't support so and so, so I won't code for them'.

This is why the W3C standards are so important - if you code to that documentation, then your code should be valid for future browsers - any quirks in each browser become obvious and you can provide alternatives earlier. Hence the priority Opera places on the W3C standards.

here are my choices on hallvors' options for "dark matter":

• event.button = support the DOM standard (not sure, if that's option 1 or 2) and help break IE's version.
  
• XMLDocument object = if Mozilla is truly "open source", then ask them how it works and collaborate on how to standardize it. (collaborating is better than complaining)
  
• XUL = support (if its something easy to implement, why not? why wait?)
  
• Windows MediaPlayer scripting = if IE is going to abondon ActiveX (from what I understood with Kelson's post) then wait for whatever the new implementation would be, otherwise: Fake ActiveX (is that virtualization? if it is, I never considered that. if this is the safest option, then yes.) or Add some other kind of compatibility layer; or, whatever works best with Opera. if it doesn't break Opera, then consider it.
  (I'm not certain; but, I think Firefox supports ActiveX, to a degree)

Originally posted by Abraxias:

XUL = support (if its something easy to implement, why not? why wait?)

Because it's non-standard, and based on other non-standard Mozilla technologies? And bloats the browser with little or no benefit? So it would fix ONE site on the web. Maybe. Possibly. Is it worth it?

No.

Abraxias: I choose to ignore most of the tech stuff, but 'opera breaks my site' is a 'pet rant' .....

XUL is not really a web standard as I can see, it's more like the extension language etc. It's basically Mozilla's version of ActiveX if I understand it correctly, and would basically require Opera to implement the equivelent of most of FireFox's underlying code to work, unless I'm entirely mistaken.

If mozilla released a XULRunner plugin I guess maybe sites that didn't want to mess with browser chrome could possibly work?

I'm not for opera implementing extensions - but I'd give quite something for the joy to see that the old argument "there are no extensions for opera, so FF is better" is destroyed if Opera were actually able to run all firefox extensions (c;=

XUL?!?!? Ajax13 uses XUL??? I should've looked at the site in Firefox. It would have been blazingly obvious.

For those unfamiliar with it, XUL is part of Mozilla's cross-platform application toolkit. The interface (toolbars, menus, dialogs, etc.) on most Mozilla programs -- SeaMonkey, Firefox, Thunderbird, and their extensions -- is built using XUL. and they've been working on a XULRunner base that would work sort of like the Java Runtime. It was never intended to be used in web pages.

The potential for delivering XUL apps over the web (kind of like Java Web Start) has been known for a while, though up until now I've only really seen proof-of concept type stuff, like Minesweeper clones. Technically, I think it's impressive.

But they should identify their suite as XUL applications up-front. Calling them "Ajax" is misleading at best, because it leads people to expect compatibility. I'm sure they use Ajax, but it's kind of like calling Thunderbird "JavaScript Mail." Yeah, it uses JavaScript internally, but the name would imply that it runs in a normal web page -- which it clearly doesn't.

As for Active X, a little explanation is in order. There are really two things to look at:

1. ActiveX as a technology that lets Windows programs talk to each other (embedding an Excel spreadsheet in Word, or embedding IE's display engine in Maxthon or Avant Browser)
   
2. ActiveX in web pages, allowing websites to load mini-programs on your computer (like Flash, or Microsoft Update), and to offer to install them.
   

Firefox itself doesn't support ActiveX. I believe someone has a plugin out there that will act as a middle-man for ActiveX in web pages, which might work in Opera too (since Firefox and Opera use the same kinds of plugins).

It's also possible for a Windows-only Firefox extension to use ActiveX to talk to other programs. I believe the IETab extension works this way, loading IE's engine through ActiveX.

One thing that Microsoft has been doing with IE7 is trying to increase security by "reducing the attack surface." IE7 still supports ActiveX in web pages, but has blocked access to most of the ones installed with the system. So people trying to break into IE7 through an ActiveX component have to stick with those that are actually used by websites. This gets back to XmlHTTPRequest, which used to be IE talking to a system component using ActiveX, but is now built into IE.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

XUL = support (if its something easy to implement, why not? why wait?)

It's not easy. In fact XUL is very complex, and I believe the Ajax13 sites you linked to is just about the first web app I have seen that uses it. Naturally, since it is only available in Firefox/Gecko-based browsers making your web app depend on XUL excludes IE as well as Opera and Safari. Anybody interested in cross-browser compatibility should code by the W3C standards as johnnysaucepn notes, and XUL is a good example: it's not a W3C standard, and depending on it means your web app will not have a chance of being cross-browser.

Doing something regarding WMP's scripting is tricky to but probably among the top three issues for getting more websites working. Of course something we wish we didn't have to work on, but life doesn't offer that option.

Forget desktop, for now... Focus on quickly making Opera the browser of choice on mobile, devices and TV ... When the world reads about the 100 million Opera Mini users... then webmasters will make sure, that Opera work on their sites... (That takes care of desktop problems too)

hallvors, I like your analogy of dark matter (it sounds cool) and I'm hooked on using it.

definitions:
(here's a list of standard web technologies)
dark matter = nonstandard web technology
types of dark matter:

1. open source = not proprietary
   
2. free proprietary
   
3. exclusive proprietary
   
4. unoriginal (alternative/redundant to an existing standard web technology) & pointless

• friendly dark matters are Types A & B
  
• unfriendly dark matter are Types C & D

I believe that its safe to assume that any/all of the standard web technologies that anteceded the formation of the W3C were dark matters. ideally, dark matters should have ceased to exist post-W3C. however, independent innovation and red tape (bureaucracy) might be a few of the reasons why dark matters still exist. I personally believe that friendly dark matters (hate them or not) will continue to help the evolution of the Internet.

I understand the need for standards. and, yes, I'm aware that Opera also supports other friendly dark matters. I believe that a proactive way for Opera to help "open the web & take action" is by supporting more useful friendly dark matters.

prioritization for supporting friendly dark matters should be by popularity & practicality.

I think that it would be ideal, if Opera collaborated with the sources of friendly dark matters to learn how to better support and help standardize (if they are cross-platform) them.

its unreasonable to support unfriendly dark matters.


it seems that Opera supports YUI, which probably contains friendly dark matters.

is X3D a friendly dark matter?
I didn't see Opera listed in Web3D Consortium's Directing and Organizational Member List.

(I also didn't see Opera listed in Web Services Interoperability Organization (WS-I)'s Community membership, which might be another source of friendly dark matters)



Kelson & hallvors, I decided to do a little research about ActiveX & Windows Media Player scripting from MozillaZine Knowledge Base, it's all gibberish (acataleptic) to me but perhaps useful for others:

• ActiveX
  
• 3rd party (unofficial) Mozilla ActiveX Plug-in
  
• Windows Media Player (WMP)
  
• WMP ActiveX plugin

Testing WMP plugin:

• Broadband
  
• Narrowband (dialup)

Originally posted by Abraxias:

I believe that its safe to assume that any/all of the standard web technologies that anteceded the formation of the W3C were dark matters. ideally, dark matters should have ceased to exist post-W3C.

Most certainly. However, the standards are not always sufficiently detailed (or sometimes explicitly state that it is up to the browser how something should be done). Dark matter comes from pre-standard legacy code as well as the "holes" in the current standards, where they are incomplete.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

a proactive way for Opera to help "open the web & take action" is by supporting more useful friendly dark matters.prioritization for supporting friendly dark matters should be by popularity & practicality.

I think you're preaching to the choir here - that's pretty much what we have been trying to do for at least the last five years. The main problem with "dark matter" is that we don't know about it until something is broken, meaning the users suffer, you think we're dumb and incompatible, and we have to start messing around with what used to be perfectly logical code to support all the oddities that we need to handle sensibly (which again increases complexity and the risk of breaking something else).

X3D is simple an XML data format - the XML part Opera can handle perfectly well, but that's not very useful on its own.

However, because the 3D part is something that goes inside a page, rather than something that affects or modifies the rest of a page, it's best implemented as a plug-in. The X3D site only lists two plug-ins, one using ActiveX (Windows only) and the other using Java (apparently anything apart from Windows). If a third-party developed on using the NSAPI specification, it would mean the same plug-in can run in multiple browsers, from Opera to Firefox to (I think?) Konqueror.

XML is well specified, the NSAPI interface is well specified, everybody on all platforms would be happy. And Opera already supports these technologies.

Similarly, the ActiveX compatibility plugin available for Firefox also uses the NSAPI interface, so it should theoretically work in Opera also. I believe there are people on these forums that do so, but it's a step most users don't understand, shouldn't need to understand, and it also potentially opens themselves to security risks. And of course, it only works for Windows.

As far as I know, YUI doesn't use friendly or unfriendly dark matters, unless you include AJAX/XMLHttpRequest. The reason YUI is compatible is because that was something Yahoo! prioritised, and stuck to utilising existing standards for the core coding, overriding parts to compensate for browser-specific issues, exactly as has been advocated in this thread.

Hope I've not missed the train yet.

From what I've read from this thread, looks like a not balanced debate between Abraxias against a crowd of Opera fanatics, although the point is very simple, "why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?"

I myself is Opera fanatic, since I have the power to push what application have to install and use in my office. I've define using Opera is a "must" as email client and web browser. But unfortunately, besides Opera there must be Firefox or IE in every machine for only one reason, "COMPATIBILITY".

There are some sites not Opera friendly enough, either it cannot correctly use or cannot fully utilize the sites features. One example is Opera does not support WYSIWYG web editor (in most CMS) while FF doing well.

Instead of blaming what's not compatible or standard is caused by certain sites, don't even expect some web designer starting to create sites "Best viewed with Opera", I hope Opera programmer pro-active enough to do something to make Opera more and more compatible with other sites.

What if starting with spreadsheet and calendar features in Google / Gmail.

Happy New Year everybody.

Darwin


________________________________________________________________

Moderator note: Be warned that personal attacks like calling people "fanatics" are not acceptable in this forum. You are also encouraged to read the thread before raising issues/asking questions that have already been addressed.

(more information)
________________________________________________________________

Originally posted by darwintjoe:

I hope Opera programmer pro-active enough to do something to make Opera more and more compatible with other sites.

What is that "spmething" can be? Some magic code implanted in browser.js file?

Better hit the cause, reach out to different corners.

I have come across this post by accident looking for help for my problem. I have just installed Opera and Firefox this past week on my computer. When I first tried them both I was leaning towards Opera, but then I had a problem with tdameritrade.com site. I started a separate post for the problem and I had one or two quick responses and help for my problem is virtually non-existant. I tried using Firefox and I had no problems. I also have had a problem with another site and again no problem with Firefox. I am not here to promote Firefox or any other product, as I would like to use Opera, but I can understand what Abraxais is saying. I have wasted enough time trying to get it to work and I am disappointed with the response help. My post is

http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=172481

in case anyone would like to help. From what I have read people are trying to defend a product with problems. Why not just admit there is a problem and work on fixing the problem. From my brief experience I think Opera is a good product, but use your time wisely to fix the product. I know very little about programming and so a lot of what is said previously is over my head. If as has been stated other browsers can do whatever they do to make their product work, then how come Opera can't and from what I have read, that is all Abraxais is asking. I hope that I have not offended anyone, as that is not my goal. Rob

I don't know why you bothered posting here? The answers are going to be exactly the same. Unless there is someone here with a tdameritrade account AND web development expertise, nothing can be done to diagnose the problem and find a possible solution. The odds are there's some poorly written Javascript that's falling over when it finds out you're using Opera. Just a guess, and possibly wrong, but without an account I, or anybody else, cannot tell.

My personal opinion is that 99% of "web compatibility" is provided by the web site developer, not the browser.

Andrew Gregory, as I stated in my reply, I am not looking for answers to my problem in this post. I commented on what Abraxais is addressing. I happened to stumble across this post as I was searching for information regarded to my problem. Rob

Originally posted by darwintjoe:

From what I've read from this thread, looks like a not balanced debate between Abraxias against a crowd of Opera fanatics

So people who disagree with you or try to explain the problem with actual facts are "Opera fanatics"? Why insult people?

although the point is very simple, "why can't Opera be more flexible and be as compatible as Firefox & Safari?"

Why are you assuming that it isn't?

If you had read the thread you would have noticed that this question has been addressed already. The bottom line is:

Opera can be even MORE compatible than Safari and more sites could break because Opera Software is a tiny company, the browser has a tiny market share, and most sites are simply not tested in Opera.

Instead of blaming what's not compatible or standard is caused by certain sites

Instead of insulting people by using straw man arguments, why don't you try to actually read the thread before commenting?

I hope Opera programmer pro-active enough to do something to make Opera more and more compatible with other sites.

Instead of ignoring the other posts in the thread, why don't you read the rest of the thread before commenting? If you had done that, you would have known that Opera does indeed work on compatibility.

First you insult people, and then you talk about things that have been addressed already. What's the point?

Originally posted by robrpb:

From what I have read people are trying to defend a product with problems.

What you are reading is people explaining this complex issue in more depth than some people can apparently understand. If making factual statements is "trying to defend a product with problems", then so be it. But I see no reason to stop making factual claims about the actual situation because someone is unable to understand the facts that are presented.

Why not just admit there is a problem and work on fixing the problem.

Why not just read the thread before making assumptions? Opera is working on compatibility all the time, but there are multiple reasons why sites fail, and some of them aren't even a problem with Opera. Most sites that fail do so because of browser sniffing that excludes Opera from the "compatible browsers" list and end up sending Opera useless code instead of the working code they are sending to IE and Firefox.

From my brief experience I think Opera is a good product, but use your time wisely to fix the product.

Often or most of the time it isn't Opera that needs to be fixed, but sites that actually block it or exclude it from the list of supported browsers.

If as has been stated other browsers can do whatever they do to make their product work, then how come Opera can't and from what I have read, that is all Abraxais is asking.

Because other browsers fail on many sites too, but more sites are tested in those browsers because they have a lot more users.

nelsson,

Originally posted by nelsson:

Instead of ignoring the other posts in the thread, why don't you read the rest of the thread before commenting?

I find it interesting how most of your previous posts/comments on this thread have vanished (specifically, those that I've quoted from). how can you fairly ask others to "read the rest of the thread", when most of your own earlier posts/comments are no longer available? please explain, why your prior comments have vanished?

Originally posted by nelsson:

The fact is that Opera has to be even more compatible, since fewer sites are tested in Opera than in Firefox or even Safari.

FWIW, Safari probably has more site compatibility problems than Opera, but it helps that it's an Apple browser, so it's improving.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

just curious, I'd like to test a site that works better with Opera than Safari, can you please provide one? I would definitely enjoy seeing something that works better with Opera than with Safari.

to date, you have yet to provide a site that works better with Opera than Safari. if you claim a "fact", then prove it.
and, you haven't proven anything I requested from you. yet, you've accused me of ignoring you:

Originally posted by nelsson:

Opera can be even MORE compatible than Safari and more sites could break because Opera Software is a tiny company, the browser has a tiny market share, and most sites are simply not tested in Opera.

please explain, how can Opera "be even MORE compatible than Safari", if they're both web standards compliant browsers? I'd like to see the logic to that statement; which is similar to your earlier unproven claim:

Originally posted by nelsson:

FWIW, Safari probably has more site compatibility problems than Opera, but it helps that it's an Apple browser, so it's improving.

Safari & Opera both passed the Acid2 Browser Test

if sites are tested with Safari and not with Opera but both are web standards compliant browsers; theoretically, a site that works for Safari should work with Opera; unless, Safari supports more dark matters than Opera.

You, too, Abraxias, need to stop posting until you get at least a basic understanding of the problem. You clearly show that you have no idea how these things work.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

please explain, how can Opera "be even MORE compatible than Safari", if they're both web standards compliant browsers?

You are confused about standards compliance and compatibility. Standards compliance today does not bring site compatibility. Being standards compliant is in fact a bad thing if you want to be compatible, because sites aren't standards compliant. This is why Opera and other browsers do lots and lots of stuff to handle normal sites.

You are also taking the quote above out of context. What I wrote was:

"Opera can be even MORE compatible than Safari and more sites could break because Opera Software is a tiny company, the browser has a tiny market share, and most sites are simply not tested in Opera."

The quote does not say that Opera IS more compatible than Safari (it very well could be, and likely is), but that it wouldn't help, because more sites are tested in Safari than in Opera, and Apple is a huge brand compared to Opera Software.

The key here: "fewer sites are tested in Opera than in Firefox or even Safari"

Being compatible doesn't mean that sites can't use browser sniffing to block the browser (or only support IE, Firefox and Safari). Opera is blocked more often than the other "major" browsers.

Safari & Opera both passed the Acid2 Browser Test

That's got nothing to do with being compatible with the real web. Again these are two different things:

1: Standards compliance.

2: Compatibility with sites.

Since most sites aren't standards compliant, these are often mutually exclusive.

if sites are tested with Safari and not with Opera but both are web standards compliant browsers; theoretically, a site that works for Safari should work with Opera; unless, Safari supports more dark matters than Opera.

Or unless Opera is more often ignored than Safari.

Consider this rather common scenario on a site:

if (MSIE) { Useful stuff for MSIE }
else if (Firefox) { Useful stuff for Firefox }
else if (Safari) {Useful stuff for Safari }
else { Nothing useful for all other browsers }

The above checks for MSIE, Firefox and Safari, and specifically sends different stuff to each. Any browser which is not either MSIE, Firefox or Safari is ignored and doesn't get anything useful, so these browsers are more likely to break.

please explain, why your prior comments have vanished?

Originally posted by nelsson:

You, too, Abraxias, need to stop posting until you get at least a basic understanding of the problem. You clearly show that you have no idea how these things work.

prove to me that I don't know what this thread is about.
what gives you the right to tell who can post and who can't?

I can see the semantics of your statements. so explain this:

Originally posted by nelsson:

The fact is that Opera has to be even more compatible, since fewer sites are tested in Opera than in Firefox or even Safari.

FWIW, Safari probably has more site compatibility problems than Opera, but it helps that it's an Apple browser, so it's improving.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

just curious, I'd like to test a site that works better with Opera than Safari, can you please provide one? I would definitely enjoy seeing something that works better with Opera than with Safari.

to date, you have yet to provide a site that works better with Opera than Safari. if you claim a "fact", then prove it.
and, you haven't proven anything I requested from you.

Originally posted by nelsson:

Or unless Opera is more often ignored than Safari.

Consider this rather common scenario on a site:

if (MSIE) { Useful stuff for MSIE }
else if (Firefox) { Useful stuff for Firefox }
else if (Safari) {Useful stuff for Safari }
else { Nothing useful for all other browsers }

The above checks for MSIE, Firefox and Safari, and specifically sends different stuff to each. Any browser which is not either MSIE, Firefox or Safari is ignored and doesn't get anything useful, so these browsers are more likely to break.

from the getgo, I've written:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

for this thread, please don't discuss about browser discrimination, sniffing, etc. this thread is aside the point that some sites do block Opera.

and, I've written several times:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

this thread should not be about:

• browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.

do you actually know what this thread is about?

The problem I see is that many sites seem to rely (either knowingly or not) on error handling of various browsers. This is never going to be the same between any browser, heck - see all the sites that break in IE7. IE is not magically more complient than any other browser, neither is FF or Opera or Safari or Dillo or whatever.

Then there are the sites that use propriatery features like ActiveX that don't work in FF, Opera or whoever. A site that wrote an SVG game using the Opera extensions wouldn't work in FF or IE, would that suddenly make FF or IE uncompatible? Well, with that site yes.

Relying on bug for bug complience when the bugs aren't documented, and the devs may not even know them, much less competing devs is a sure way to require not just a specific browser, but a specific *version* of a browser - again, see all the sites that require FF1.5.x or IE6, and don't work in say IE7. The worst part is many of these are actually "webapps" deployed internally so I can't give links, but I'm sure you've dealt with them somewhere.

This is just stupid coding on the web dev's part, or a desire to only care about one browser for ease of development or whatever reason.

I just recently tried out scanshare(webapp) - worked in IE6, FF2.0.0.1 and Opera 9.1, but not in FF1.5.x. So... it depends on the coding really. And Opera works hard to fix things and to get things to work.

I don't know if you read on slashdot, but sites (porn, but I'm sure others will follow) are already fixing their sites to work with the Wii, and this will improve them on all platforms for using Opera I'm sure.

I don't know why people don't understand that Opera has to be met in the middle to do any better than they are now.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

this is not to say that Opera doesn't support nonstandards technologies; it does, but not as much. so, why can't it support more?

Opera will (in this respect) always lag behind browsers with a larger market share. Why?

If a browser vendor decides to add a certain non-standard technology (whatever it may be) to its browser, it will only be successful if it's actually adopted by web developers. The next step is that developers of other browsers feel the need to implement it because the new technology is being used in a significant number of websites.

So Opera, not being the developer's browser of choice (as proven by numerous sniffing scripts), cannot dictate what new non-standard technologies have to be implemented by others, it can only follow. Even if it implemented something new, it would probably not generate sufficient following among web designers to convince other browser vendors to work on the same technology. (With standards, it's an entirely different story.)

What if a new technology is really good and Opera doesn't support it? Web developers can either decide to rely on a different technology with better support among browsers, they can continue working with this new technology and provide browsers that do not support that technology with alternative (but useful) content (ideally in such a way that if a browser eventually implements that technology, it can immediately get access to the website's features), or they can somehow block access for these browsers.

The latter is what happens too often with Opera - and not only for not supporting certain non-standard technologies. So even though you want to exclude browser discrimination from this discussion, I think it is an important part of it. If it doesn't happen with scripts etc., then it happens in the minds of the developers that do not test their websites in Opera (or other small browsers) and don't provide alternative content if a certain technology hasn't been widely adopted yet. Or worse: they don't even realize that what they're using has not been implemented in every browser.

Anyway, this discussion seems a bit fruitless if we don't have examples of these non-standard technologies that are not supported by Opera.

And moreso - What about things like Google Doc's? It can work with opera, see the thread and userjs in this forum: http://my.opera.com/community/forums/topic.dml?id=162209&page=1#comment1774661

So it's not much work to work with Opera, why doesn't it? I don't know what the js does, but if you can hack on a script by someone who isnt a dev for either product, it seems that the Google devs could eaisly incoporate that in if they wanted to.

Originally posted by Abraxias:

prove to me that I don't know what this thread is about.

I wasn't talking about this thread, I was referring to compatibility issuses/sites that don't work, and how you don't understand how these things work.

to date, you have yet to provide a site that works better with Opera than Safari.

I'm not going to spend time digging up stuff for someone who doesn't even understand the problem.

from the getgo, I've written:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

for this thread, please don't discuss about browser discrimination, sniffing, etc. this thread is aside the point that some sites do block Opera.

I don't care what you wrote. You are pretending that the only reason why a site might work in Safari and not in Opera is that Safari is more compatible, and I have pointed out that this is a flawed assumption, and I have also explained why Safari (and Firefox) can get away with being less compatible with Opera.

This is highly relevant to the discussion even if you want to pretend that it isn't.

The whole premise for this thread is the claim that Opera is not as compatible as Firefox and Safari.

I have now explained why this premise is flawed, and how you should try to inform yourself before jumping to conclusions.

nelsson,

the first 2 people who understood the actual problem related to this thread are both Kelson & hallvors. specifically, just for this thread, the problem is what hallvors coined as "dark matter". his blog post, "being compatible with the dark matter of the web" is an excellent read.

I've been aware of the other problems (e.g. browser blocking, discrimination, sniffing, etc.). and, they've already been addressed in other threads on numerous occasions. and, I see no point on discussing it here on this thread. as mentioned before:

Originally posted by Abraxias:

my guidlines/parameters for this discussion is to help keep it focused. instead of going off tangents.

has dark matter been addressed on other threads before?

please explain, why most of your prior posts/comments have vanished?

I'm throwing the following back at you:

Originally posted by nelsson:

• Why insult people?
  
• Instead of insulting people by using straw man arguments, why don't you try to actually read the thread before commenting?
  
• Instead of ignoring the other posts in the thread, why don't you read the rest of the thread before commenting?
  
• First you insult people, and then you talk about things that have been addressed already. What's the point?
  
• Why not just read the thread before making assumptions?

it seems that you're contradicting yourself.

Originally posted by nelsson:

But I see no reason to stop making factual claims about the actual situation because someone is unable to understand the facts that are presented.

yet, you contradict yourself with an excuse for a cop out:

Originally posted by nelsson:

I'm not going to spend time digging up stuff for someone who doesn't even understand the problem.

tell me, is providing an actual website that works better with Opera than with Safari going to be difficult to understand?

Originally posted by nelsson:

I wasn't talking about this thread, I was referring to compatibility issuses/sites that don't work, and how you don't understand how these things work.

looks like you're trying to wriggle your way out of it.
prove/justify how I don't "understand how these things work" and how it is relevant to this thread.

Originally posted by nelsson:

You are pretending that the only reason why a site might work in Safari and not in Opera is that Safari is more compatible

prove the following:

• where was I "pretending" with Safari and Opera?
  
• where did I make that claim that "the only reason why a site might work in Safari and not in Opera is that Safari is more compatible" I'm aware of the other issues. when did I mention that there was only one reason?
  
  if you haven't understood it by now, let me rephrase it for you: this thread is about compatibility issues with "dark matter".
  

  Originally posted by nelsson:

  you should try to inform yourself before jumping to conclusions

  
  show me where I'm "jumping to conclusions".

Originally posted by Abraxias:

this thread is about compatibility issues with "dark matter"

Then perhaps it should be retitled, or restarted?