Attention Windows Web Developers: Safari for Windows is here!
In working with websites, the only major browser I’ve not been able to test under was Safari. I’ve got IE6, IE7, Firefox, Opera and Mozilla installed and even Konqueror on dual boot on my desktop. But I never could test for Safari. That’s now changed!
You can download Safari for Windows XP & Vista here: http://www.apple.com/safari/download/
How do you switch from XP to a Vista computer?
Microsoft Releases a Vista patch for Delphi 7 support in Vista
Unfixed Outlook & IE hole allows XP&Vista user promotion to Admin
About Author
Well, safari for windows isn’t a substitute for safari under mac, if that’s what you mean.
Safari for windows is nice, not bad, but definitely beta (in the original sense of the word).
Safari for mac is a good deal more robust, etc.
So as far as I’m concerned the Safari for windows, while a good thing, adds to the number of browsers to test for, it doesn’t subtract the number of OS you need to access to properly test 😛
Cheers,
DR
Yeah I was wondering about that. How closely safari’s CSS parsing would match on mac and PC and iPhone
Basically, Safari (mac) uses the KHTML rendering engine, so using Konqueror actually is a better way of being reasonably sure that Safari works without using a Mac. For Safari (windows) I know they had to port key elements, so there’s going to be a bug factor just from that alone.
That said, I’ve certainly found bugs in Safari that didnt’ exist in Konqueror (or at least at the time I found it, which would be anytime between 2002 and now) so just sorting your tests based on the rendering engine isn’t going to be 100% but it’s damn close.
I’m pretty sure I have an old post discussing how to line up your testing to minimize the number of browsers/OS and maximize what that testing tells you 🙂
It’s the same browser on the iPhone as on the Mac or Windows. It’s webkit3 so devs prob don’t want to switch to Safari on Windows, but it is usseful for devving for the iPhone. If it works in Safari on your OS, it will work on the iPhone too.
Brian, I have read your explanation of URN & URL on your other page. Makes sense, but our professor has posed the following question: “What do you believe are the advantages of an URN or an URL from both the standpoint of a resource user and a resource provider?”
Here is what our team has written in response to her question:
In your groups, debate the advantages of an URN or an URL from both the standpoint of a resource user and a resource provider.
An URL identifies resources by describing the location whereas an URN identifies resources by name.
The URL follows a path to the source and therefore the URL must be written in a particular order or the item cannot be found. The URN is advantageous in the fact that it names or identifies an object instead of naming a path. If the path changes the URN is still able to locate the item, whereas the URL would have to be changed or the link would be broken. Users would not have to spend as much time searching for the missing links; they would only have to type in the name.
URNs are universal names to universal resources. ISBN’s are special URN’s for books; in fact, there is an URN category for ISBNs. So, as librarians, we can link print and media resources to URNs and not have to worry about broken links.
As to the advantage of library users, this could be one more resource to increase the permanence and availability of both print and multimedia resources. Books could be put at URNs so that they never go “out of print,” and websites could utilize URNs to decrease the transient nature of online information.
Essentially, URNs would simplify the organization and retrieval of electronic resources. Another advantage of URN is how they are named. They have to follow a specific syntax, making each name unique. With URLs, it’s possible for two websites to have the same “location” but entirely different results.
One disadvantage of a URL is that URLs are transient. If an URL becomes invalid it can become valid again; however, it can now be used to locate another resource. This can cause confusion for the resource user. An URN does consistently identify the same resource. URNs are also gaining some advantages of URLs. One positive of an URN is that name subspaces are permanently assigned; therefore, the same URN cannot be reassigned to another document.
URLs can sometimes identify abstract resources that they are unable to locate. One example is an XML namespace. This is abstract for the URL. URLs can identify them but not locate them.
Champin, Pierre-Antoine. “Why URLs are good URIs, and why they are not.” 5 May 2001.
Universite Claude Bernard Lyon 1. 16 July 2006.
http://www710.univ-lyon1.fr/~champin/urls/
Layman, Brian. The Code Cavehttp://www.thecodecave.com/article93
Kozierok, Charles M. The TCP/IP Guide. http://www.tcpipguide.com/free/ t_Uniform
ResourceNamesURNs.htm© Copyright 2001-2005
Do you think we are on the right track?