Comments on: Ubuntu Web Browsers – The good, the bad, the ..?? http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/ A look within, and to the side ... Tue, 25 Mar 2008 10:19:21 +0000 http://wordpress.com/ hourly 1 By: yuki http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-3759 yuki Sun, 09 Sep 2007 12:58:36 +0000 http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-3759 Try googling up "Acid Test 2" if you want to test a browsers ability to display web pages correctly. also: why no Epiphany? Try googling up “Acid Test 2″ if you want to test a browsers ability to display web pages correctly.

also: why no Epiphany?

]]> By: groggyboy http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-1661 groggyboy Tue, 13 Feb 2007 09:14:47 +0000 http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-1661 hmm... interesting. i checked out www.downthelane.net/Page_3.html in my browser (Firefox), and it worked fine. very odd. have you tried epiphany? how does that display it? or konqueror? hmm… interesting. i checked out http://www.downthelane.net/Page_3.html in my browser (Firefox), and it worked fine. very odd.

have you tried epiphany? how does that display it? or konqueror?

]]> By: Those are not “Ubuntu Web Browsers”. And give Konqueror a try. http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-1660 Those are not “Ubuntu Web Browsers”. And give Konqueror a try. Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:18:08 +0000 http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-1660 [...] felt the need to clarify some things with this article that discusses so-called “Ubuntu Web Browsers”. The fact of the matter is that those browsers are in no way tied to Ubuntu. Likewise, Ubuntu [...] [...] felt the need to clarify some things with this article that discusses so-called “Ubuntu Web Browsers”. The fact of the matter is that those browsers are in no way tied to Ubuntu. Likewise, Ubuntu [...]

]]> By: spinkham http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-1659 spinkham Tue, 13 Feb 2007 00:02:27 +0000 http://cyesi23.wordpress.com/2007/02/12/ubuntu-web-browsers-the-good-the-bad-the/#comment-1659 This is why: <a href="http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.downthelane.net%2F&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline" title="validator.w3.orf" rel="nofollow"> It claims to be valid html 4.01, but it's not by a long shot. It seems to be produced by this tool: http://www.webstudio.com/ Which I assume is only tested on IE. As a side note, it renders fine on firefox 2.0.0.1 under ubuntu for me, which detects it in quirks mode even though it claims to be valid html. This is why:

It claims to be valid html 4.01, but it’s not by a long shot.

It seems to be produced by this tool:
http://www.webstudio.com/
Which I assume is only tested on IE.
As a side note, it renders fine on firefox 2.0.0.1 under ubuntu for me, which detects it in quirks mode even though it claims to be valid html.

]]>