Expandable dynamic folder using CSS instead of Javascript ?

Jonas Smithson wrote:

The latest (and, apparently, last) version of IE for classic Mac is 5.1

Thanks for the clarifications - I'm certainly not an expert on mac browsers!

First of all, since you "avoid Macs at all costs," I don't think
you're in a position to tell Mac users what browsers we "should be
using"

Just IMO. Granted, I don't know all the OS versions, but I do have a couple
of macs that I can test with, and in my experience, I found IE to be very
frustrating on some basic issues which I faced repeatedly.

Matt Kruse wrote:
Hmm, I've not seen that before (since I don't have
IE5.1 on mac to test with). I'll keep it noted and try
to fix it if I can get access to that browser to test.
IE on Mac tends to have quite a few javascript quirks,
and it's annoying to code for.
Sorry, I can't make any sense out of that statement. If you don't have
MacIE5 to test your JavaScript against, how would you even know it has
"quite a few javascript quirks"?

I don't have exact version 5.1 available to me, but I've tested with other
versions. I'm not going to go out and buy a mac just to test with, so when
it is available to me I test the versions I can and hope the rest work.

MacIE5 is a buggy browser when it comes to CSS (in fact I recently
tried to start another thread on that but nobody responded) but it's
no more buggy with CSS than WinIE6 is.

I've not done extensive testing with css, but in one instance I had a simple
rule like
..class { font-weight:bold; }
IIRC, and it totally crashed IE on mac. If I took that rule out of the
stylesheet, it didn't crash. Things like that (and some of my own js
testing) lead me to believe that IE on Mac has some peculiar problems, but
I'll admit that these beliefs may not be 100% accurate. Hey, no one can
fully understand all the quirks of all the browsers out there!

Finally, saying in effect (that is, implying) "oh, it's just a ______
problem" (insert name of computer platform, browser, etc.) makes as
little sense when talking about JavaScript as it does when talking
about CSS.

Depends. If a perfectly valid rule or syntax causes a specific browser to
crash, then I always believe that it's the browser's fault, and it shouldn't
be catered to (unless it's IE on Win, since that's the vast majority of
users). If my tree code and css is valid (not sure if it is, never validated
it) then if it crashed IE on Mac, that doesn't bother me much. I'd like to
find a fix, but testing and debugging in that environment is so difficult
for me that I usually have to rely on others to find the exact source of the
problem and hopefully find a fix.

The extreme irony here is that you yourself, Matt, have
taken (IMNSHO) an admirable and even courageous stand for realism in
other threads.

Glad someone at least understood my view

Matt Kruse wrote:
Just because something is "superior" doesn't mean it will actually
_work_! Big sites need to support as many browsers as possible....
Yes, indeed. And that goes for JavaScript as well as CSS.

I agree completely, and I do as extensive of testing as I can. Most of my
code is extremely cross-browser even when performing tasks which are quite
complex. But the truth is, you can't test everywhere. I would love to get my
tree to work correctly - or at least not crash! - in IE/Mac. If you have any
suggestions, please do let me know.

Broad-spectrum testing, in my opinion, is even more important than
validation (I have a feeling I'm going to get flamed for saying that
-- but not by you!).

Certainly not by me. I agree completely!
Now, if only there was a way to test mac browsers without actually owning a
mac

--
Matt Kruse
Javascript Toolbox: http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/