molly.com
Saturday 24 September 2005
Got Browser Woes? Think Again.
IF YOU’VE BEEN LOSING HAIR due to browser incompatibilities on the desktop, blame your remaining gray hairs on IE 6.0, Safari or Opera bugs and implementation problems, and have felt the calcium leeching from your tired bones while trying to make standards-based sites compatible in older browsers, you may wish to stop reading right now.
As we expand our horizons from desktop to wireless, browser support isn’t going to get easier. In fact, anyone who has done wireless development already knows cross-device and wireless agent development is much more insane than anything we deal with on the desktop.
The battles we’ve fought and ultimately appear to be winning for screen-based browsers have done nothing to inspire those in the wireless manufacturing and user agent environment to think standards. Add to that literally thousands of unique wireless devices, many with proprietary user agent implementations, and if you haven’t gone bald, gray or lost bone mass, you’re about to.
Here’s a little taste, and I do mean a little, of what kind of XHTML support major agents sport.
| Device or Browser | XHTML Support |
|---|---|
| Openwave | XHTML MP (XHTML Mobile Profile) and WML Extensions |
| Nokia | XHTML MP |
| Access Systems | XHTML Basic |
| AU Systems | XHTML Basic |
“Okay,” you’re thinking. “That doesn’t look so bad! It’s pretty much either XHTML MP or XHTML Basic, right?”
Wrong. Despite the simplicity of both the XHTML MP and XHTML Basic specifications, there’s such inconsistent implementation between the individual devices and browsers it’s enough to make a standardista give up the old holy ghost.
Ready for another morsel? If you’ve read this far, you know you are. So here’s a little taste (and I do mean little) of mobile device and browser inconsistencies:
titleelement woes. Some browsers render it as text, some use it properly within existing agent chrome, some use it for bookmarking. Which does what? You’ll have to test to find out, because even devices coming from the same manufacturer are likely to have different rendering capabilities- Device manufacturers like to confuse us. Samsung, for example, uses the AU System browser but, get this, implements their own rendering engine. That’s almost as weird as Netscape 8.0 and its dual Trident / Gecko rendering engines
- Provider gateways are not our friend. If MIME types and content negotiation in XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 annoy you, try this on for size. Provider gateways can totally influence the rendering of your documents. Some are sophisticated: They let only valid, conforming XHTML through. Some don’t. Some might translate any graphics, or drop them all together
I did say this was only a little taste, right? Well, we haven’t even covered mobile CSS support, which is either very limited or downright non-existent in most mobile environments. Where it does exist, what happens to many of the best practices we teach for the screen? Out the window! Why? Because most existing mobile browsers that support CSS do not cache CSS! As a result, any CSS in use must be embedded or inline.
I’ll revisit CSS in mobile devices on another day. Right now I think I need to go color my hair.
Filed under: standards, software, WaSP
Posted by: Molly | 9:01 am |
September 24th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Why can’t they just *try* to conform to some standards? Curse them… *sigh*
September 24th, 2005 at 10:50 am
Yeah, from posts made in the past by B.Adam Howell, Roger Johansson, and Malarkey (I think - not sure?)…this topic has certainly cropped up from time to time this year…and the real horror of the markup probs for mobile technologies is a nightmare!
I think I’ve read the most about this via B.Adam Howell’s site - so I think it’s definately something that’s close to his heart…(or pocket?!)
There really needs to be some sweeping agreement on standards for mobile support or the advantage of the technologies will become too obscured, muddled and awkward. Good post Molly.
September 24th, 2005 at 11:23 am
As long as web developers bend over backwards to ensure that our pages display fine on several devices/browsers that each have varying levels of standards support, what is going to motivate the mobile browser creators to respect standards.
I understand the commercial restraints that force web developers to ensure that everything works everywhere, but whilst we continue to hack for non compliant devices, the situation is never going to change.
Browser developers should be -forced- (by law?) to respect standards because at the moment, it doesnt seem that they are sufficiently motivated to do so themselves.
September 24th, 2005 at 11:56 am
Molly, this sounds like it follows right from your WebVisions 2005 talk. Testing, testing, and more testing doesn’t sound like that much fun, especially if we can’t easily get the devices or even the device simulators. (Other readers, if you weren’t at that conference and want the audio, go to:
http://2005.webvisionsevent.com/podcasts/WV05_holzschlagBeyond.mp3).
September 24th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
Perhaps Opera’s growing stake in the mobile web will “encourage” others to move in the right direction. As we’ve seen on the desktop web, a little shame goes a long way.
September 24th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Very hard to understand why Molly.com chose to totally ignore Firefox as part of an overall browser incompatibility issue.
Firefox Support Forum
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=321849
September 24th, 2005 at 12:36 pm
Molly, I am a web developer that would like to see the mobile web become more of a reality. The idea of getting the same web content on a multitude of devices excites me, but how can I help? What can I do to encourage mobile web developers to get their act together?
September 24th, 2005 at 1:50 pm
Okay, so why doesn’t WaSP try to do something about it?
September 24th, 2005 at 4:25 pm
In the meantime, I’ll just be shaving my head. Cuts off 15 minutes from my morning.
Eitherway, I’m being a big egor about this, the most amount of support I’m giving my mobile users is media=’handheld’. I don’t want to bother with server side browser sniffing and serving up 5 different kinds of headers just because 5 mobile companies are doing it different. In this rare case, I’m going to let the vendors catch up to the standard rather than tweaking the standard. Of course, then it doesn’t help when you have offenders like the Treo 650 that ignore handheld css and ‘try and be cool’ by importing screen css… what’s up with that?
September 24th, 2005 at 4:35 pm
IMHO we need to stick with standards, look to WASP and the WC3, and not jump through hoops to encourage mobile browser makers to disregard user experience. My checkbook is out and I have a few hours a month to volunteer. Where do I sign up? WASP? The W3C?
Personally, I’m done working around poorly designed browsers of any kind. I’ve wasted far too much time over the past 10 years writing code for proprietary browser bs and if they don’t support standards, they’re not getting my stylesheet. Period.
Great post Molly, but I’m not fighting the browser wars anymore and the grecian formula is staying in the garbage can.
September 24th, 2005 at 5:57 pm
Graham Says:
“As long as web developers bend over backwards to ensure that our pages display fine on several devices/browsers that each have varying levels of standards support, what is going to motivate the mobile browser creators to respect standards.”
This is so true. I think it’s like MS with they’r stinky browser, if a page render well, why the hell developpers should check for errors in their codes ? If browsers hadn’t render bad html correctly at start, everybody would have been forced to follow HTML standards, in PHP or javascript, if the codes contains an error the code won’t work. Correcting errors on the fly is a really bad programming habbit, like trying to comply to all non-standards compliant browsers, and now we live with the consequences of it.. strongs standards would prohibit proprietary tags and wouldn’t render bad codes, so developpers would be force tho follow standards.
September 24th, 2005 at 7:30 pm
Well, xhtml + media “handheld” it is, whether they render it or not.
September 24th, 2005 at 10:15 pm
I think the rubber is meeting the road in Web 2.0 here. In one world, we have the agile maniacs where (if you believe the bullshit) it’s better to go to market with whatever you have, then improve upon it, Or (if you don’t believe the bullshit) you need to go to market as quickly as possible with whatever you have in hopes to define the market.
Either way, no one’s stopping a calendar because of standards. I hate to say it, but that’s the reality.
September 24th, 2005 at 11:50 pm
If we can get something that remotely resembles ie5 on a handheld device we’d be well ahead of the times. This is one other reason I hope Opera steals the mobile market.
September 25th, 2005 at 2:58 am
[…] d under: Standards — nortypig @ 9:00 pm Got Browser Woes? Think again. Molly is pulling her hair out about the inconsistenc […]
September 25th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I’ve been doing wireless web development since the first HDML browser. Well, actually before that with the SkyTel 2-Way pagers. What I found then is still true today if you’re talking about phones, just forget graphics. To make the user experience work you have to design the page for the specific device. If you don’t most users will not stay. Think un-styled web pages with minimum navigation. And, Molly you don’t even mention that monster, the Blackberry (or Crackberry as I’ve heard it sometimes called).
If you’re talking about a PDA device such as a Pocket PC, Treo or such as that you still have to think about form factor for a good user experience.
Dustin Diaz: Actually the Treo 650 does recognize the handheld property. The problem is that it also applies the screen style sheet too. So what you must do, much like what Eric Meyer did with the ALA print style sheet http://www.alistapart.com/articles/alaprintstyles is turn stuff off in the handheld style sheet.
September 25th, 2005 at 5:29 pm
aha! Muchas gracias Tanny. So the ‘handheld’ media type needs to override screen styles. is this just a treo bug or is this in fact just the way it generally works?
September 25th, 2005 at 5:58 pm
you forget about javascript in mobile devices - generic graceful degradaton is becoming an artform.
September 26th, 2005 at 3:35 am
To be honest, with the mobile web etc. on handsets for the time being it’s got to be easier just to jump in at the J2ME level. Fine, you’ll miss some handsets (.net mobile ports are easy enough), but at least you’ll have the control you want.
September 26th, 2005 at 6:37 am
I don’t know if Molly remembers, but I griped about this kind of stuff a little over three years ago. At that point I had to implement templates that would work for XHTML Basic and WML. I hate WML.
Personally, I still think browsing with a phone is really stupid. I can see the use with some of the larger devices, like a Blackberry, but for the most part, the screen is too small. (I’m getting old already - I’m also finding the buttons too small.)
September 26th, 2005 at 9:37 am
Even the thought of trying to output code that is digestable for the multitude of devices and their one-off exceptions exhausts me. I’m sticking with standards, period. The devices that choke on it, choke. That is unless I’m developing for a particular device for business reasons. Life is too short.
September 26th, 2005 at 11:19 am
I think WaSP needs another task force!!
September 26th, 2005 at 12:47 pm
Personally, I think this is driven by the same idiocracy that drove
September 27th, 2005 at 5:29 am
and Trails: WaSP has had contact with certain people in a few areas including the Open Mobile Alliance, though it is almost as crazy as the mobile device situation, trying to get answers or communication going.
Ideally basic standards practises should be good, each device has its own support or rendering options, so if the developers of these devices and content would stick to the basic building blocks of standards for web documents, it would be easier in the long run for everyone.
== We have also asked for testing and emulators. [though the market is so saturated by variations of devices from one company to many]. Are designers and developers going to need a gazillion emulators on their desktop or at their hands to test all output variations?
There are not enough people, days, and hours in a day to get that job done.
Best case scenario, until something improves.
Use strict [x]html, avoid deprecated items completely. Separation is key [css, scripts, content, etc].
Think about that small screen design from a usability and limited view space or possibilities.
Yables may become nastier items inside mobile devices or not supported at all.
Web Accessiblity items or considerations may work well for mobile browsers….
Think about navigation, link lists, content placement, and a search box placement. Do users wish to see several scrolling pages of links before they get to a news item or content? Do they want to scroll the entire document before they get to a search box? [some of the solutions works great for accessibility and also mobile browsing]
=== Design issues ===
Very Limited on font sizing, styling, etc.
How wide is the screen / images [if displayable]
Color limits for screens?
Load time of the document or page size. [document file size totals]
===
It is a nightmare, has been a nightmare, and will be a bigger nightmare for those of us that may need to make sure our content delivers to mobile devices.
Doing our best, until something better happens, is about all we can do.
September 28th, 2005 at 12:27 pm
Nice insight, Molly. You gotta love it, though. Job security
October 10th, 2005 at 5:37 am
yep. last thursday i picked up a fokia and loaded up my site (with disguised anticipation) hoping for best mobile support results.
it was awful! from what i could tell, it was loading the handheld stylesheet on top of the regular (screen) one.
what does it take, huh?! i’ll be
damneddarned if i’m going to create a counter style declaration for each item from the regular css file that i don’t want appearing on a mobile device.just shoot me. please.
October 11th, 2005 at 10:07 am
When did all of us in this community of developers get suckered into thinking that cross-browser compatibility was something WE had to address? I develop for ONE browser, and an XML standard, and have a note at the top of my pages saying, “IF you don’t have this browser type, then tough, my page won’t display right”
We’ve been suckered far too long by companies dictating that WE should code for their particular schema. After all, without OUR content, they wouldn’t have people surfing the internet and using their phones to view websites.
October 14th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
As a tester of a mobile browser, I’ll share my 2 cents with what we deal with and the answers I get from developers: with limited memory, smaller screen space comes you guessed it limited support and best guess practices as to how a webdeveloper might code a page. We make a enterprise browser and the customers who purchase the browser expects pretty much whatever they have seen IE do for them, well that’s a fairly high standard to try and meet on a mobile device so our mobile browser standards have to pretty much try and comply with the gowd awful non standards of most desktop browsers with IE being the front runner. Our best guesses our based on what we think the webdev was trying to do so we unroll some tables and reduce size of images and do our best to support whatever JS is found within the page. Testing the sites where webdevs implement forms within tables and zillions of nested tables non complying standrd web forms ill closed tags and you have a nightmare compunded. So the mobile devs pretty much ask Product Management what they want supported and pick the standard of the day, which is based on the consumer who buys the product and how they want to use it. A person can be smart, people are dumb.
October 15th, 2005 at 1:27 am
No one has mentioned W3C’s efforts to sort the interoperability and usability problems currently facing mobile Web access. Take a look at the Mobile Web Initiative and provide feedback via the public mailing lists.
October 30th, 2005 at 2:00 pm
More links
More links: In the extended entry, a bunch of links from the past week I found of interest, and which I hope might be of use to you too…….
November 5th, 2005 at 2:14 pm
If browsers hadn’t render bad html correctly at start, everybody would have been forced to follow HTML standards, in PHP or javascript, if the codes contains an error the code won’t work.
November 19th, 2005 at 12:31 am
I agree Dave the WC# has done alot fo work with mobile accesses. Thansk for posting the link.
November 19th, 2005 at 2:08 am
Wow! I had no idea about the CSS needing to be imbedded in each page. Please post more info about this when you get a chance, I’m not even sure I know how to do that.
Set a css doc in each folder when published?
November 23rd, 2005 at 1:34 am
It looks simple enough your right but then it quickly becomes very complex. I hope you revist this topic someday would love to read more on how your going to fix these issues.
December 5th, 2005 at 2:54 am
I also oneself something would want to find out on this theme. Very attentively I will read every post.
December 6th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
Hi Molly first I’d like to say good work on your new book[s] that I read HTML and CSS very easy read and I ran through it in 2 nights. Good job. Back to biz, I might sound stupid and show my age but if the biggest problem isn’t necessarily the W3C and Designers/Programmers for the web its the actually Browser OEM’s why don’t we either A) sue B) sue again C) make the develop software that is actually using ONLY what W3C SAYS!
I have been doing web design since I was a wee boy but I never quite came to the understanding of why such a simple issue can’t be resolved with a simple solution.
Granted this is a world wide medium why isn’t this addressed?
Anyways when I’m in my MMM 101 class and we discuss how media has affected us then/now and other lil rants such as this it pisses me off because I know im not rich but shesh man if I had a few billions I’d make a browser that followed W3C to the “T” and only did things/added things that actually helped people and I wouldn’t require crap code to be setup with it.
I mean given the mass of crap code and jewel code we have floating on the planet why can’t anyone make 1 set of rules to follow that you can’t break period and then another set of rules that you can choose to bend/break independantly? That way every kind of browser would operate the same [ to a degree ] but the rendering speed/performance and usablity and yada yada would be different and totally biased toward different OS’s platforms , OEMs etc. WHY?
Cause they don’t care right now and prolly never will as long as a paycheck is being exchanged I think the web wont ever get on track. I didn’t expect the web to be perfect but when I do use Adobe Photoshop given its inherent differencts between it on the MAC/PC I can honestly say I use either one fine provided some small quirks. Its modular to a degree! Why can’t my browser be that same way?
I envsion the time when I have a super steroid powered PDA with holographic storage/ram and a holgraphic projector still not being able to control how a page renders with 800×600 or 640×480 lol.
December 9th, 2005 at 10:54 am
[…] ly unanswerable question of ‘what is Web 2.0 when it’s at home anyway?’ Got Browser Woes? Think Again. Plans for a Euro-Russian space craft. Just when I […]
December 11th, 2005 at 5:20 pm
Very interested theme, with attention I will read following registration fees.
December 19th, 2005 at 3:28 am
Thank you for calling attention to this issue! I started a cell phone version of a site and it looked fine, until I brought it up on a friends newer cell phone, then I realised how I needed to change things because his phone made the h2 text way too large, where my phone had stripped it I think. It is too bad that phone makers can just sey internet enabled, without being compliant.. we need an xtl compliant graphic or something to push on our sites and hopefully will make cell phone manufacturers consider it a marketing edge that can help sales.. Only way to get them on board i think!
December 22nd, 2005 at 12:06 pm
My phone support this version. For what new version?
December 28th, 2005 at 6:13 am
This will certainly become a huge issue with all of the new cell phone content hitting the chips this year. A year ago I had a hard time finding two sites to surf on my phone, so Io built one, it looked like crap, but it got information out to the cell, but now, there are tons of cell phone sites cropping up, and it seems that every company on the planet wants to be cell phone accessible and podcast freindly.
Perhaps when CEO see a demo of a cell phone site created for them, then show a friend with a differnt phone later, and subsequently end up dissapointed in the display - then big money will get behind standards.. perhaps..
January 14th, 2006 at 2:12 am
Yeah, from posts made in the past by B.Adam Howell, Roger Johansson, and Malarkey (I think - not sure?)…this topic has certainly cropped up from time to time this year…and the real horror of the markup probs for mobile technologies is a nightmare!
I think I’ve read the most about this via B.Adam Howell’s site - so I think it’s definately something that’s close to his heart…(or pocket?!)
There really needs to be some sweeping agreement on standards for mobile support or the advantage of the technologies will become too obscured, muddled and awkward. Good post Molly
January 21st, 2006 at 3:31 pm
Javascript in mobile devices - I do not know how this to understand? You can this well to describe?
January 24th, 2006 at 3:32 am
Javascript burdens very computer, better is to use other idea.
February 16th, 2006 at 5:22 am
Thanks java one can very much to make, and it is necessary to profit java. Only html will not suffice to code page www, and php also will not take place completely java.
February 16th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
Can anyone recommend a standards (or mostly standards) compliant PDA or cell phone device for testing purposes?
February 17th, 2006 at 10:49 pm
Scott: anything with Opera as its user agent is good. You can also use Opera in small version to simulate.
February 21st, 2006 at 11:07 am
Every viewer differently is demonstrating the same web page, I can see differences how an opera is demonstrating, whether mozilla. I think that it is through the lack of shared studies of the reading.
February 21st, 2006 at 4:33 pm
In mozilli it is possible to place free user agent and to pretend the free viewer, in opera of not such a possibility, hmm.
February 23rd, 2006 at 9:37 am
What I do like the most about Opera is being fully compatible, fully customizable. In fact, Opera is so much configurable that, if something cannot be done in one manner, it most probably can be done in another manner. The only thing I think Opera seems to miss, a feature Mozilli has; is Loading images from the originated server only. Though I can’t estimate if this feature is good worth or not.
February 26th, 2006 at 5:45 am
At one time I used IE I thought that it was the best viewer, at one time I tried mozilli but didn’t make an impression. Now kożystam around opera and really very much a big difference is in the quality mine sensational engine.
March 1st, 2006 at 4:03 pm
What I do like the most about Opera is being fully compatible, fully customizable. In fact, Opera is so much configurable that, if something cannot be done in one manner, it most probably can be done in another manner. The only thing I think Opera seems to miss, a feature Mozilli has; is Loading images from the originated server only. Though I can’t estimate if this feature is good worth or not.
April 8th, 2006 at 10:54 pm
So, back in the pre-millenial days, we used to despair about EVER getting browser developers to adhere to standards. Now, in large part due to WaSP and other pressures, the 3-4* major desktop browsers are within spitting distance of standards compliance.
So my question for you, Molly: why isn’t there a Mobile TF for WaSP? Shouldn’t we be documenting and cataloging mobile browser discrepancies? Praising mobile device manufacturers and software developers that heed designers’ and readers’ needs? Gently encouraging less compliant manufacturers/developers to get on the ball?
I’m not sure there’s another organization that has the mandate from users and designers to take on this task.
* …depending on your definition of “major”.
April 29th, 2006 at 7:18 pm
[…] The lovely and talented Molly Holzschlag reminds us that web development is about to get a whole lot harder (Hint: It’s the mobile explosion). […]
September 17th, 2006 at 10:30 am
I think Opera is the best!
October 7th, 2006 at 1:02 pm
nO Internet explorer by the version higher than 5 is the best choice!!
October 21st, 2006 at 6:46 pm
Opera is the best, but also the firefox is better than any IE…
November 10th, 2006 at 7:25 am
What´s the best?
1. Firefox
2. Operea
3. IE 7 (??)
November 17th, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I think Firefox is the best!
November 18th, 2006 at 8:17 am
Well, there’s always the Opera for mobile devices. I had that on my old Nokia cell, can’t get it to work on my new, though. Hope Opera or Firefox will make it to the mobile scene.
Go standards.
January 2nd, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Firefox is the best.
March 23rd, 2007 at 7:11 am
Thank you very much for sharing your knowledge. Firefox rock´s.
May 11th, 2007 at 1:58 am
The Minimo project, while useful, is not an official Mozilla project and should not be confused with Mozilla’s long-term mobile product. Mozilla’s official mobile Firefox browser client is still a ways off. But, I’d love a wireless-based Firefox browser.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:19 pm
No, Opera is definately not the best. Firefox is
July 7th, 2007 at 12:59 pm
I think Opera is the best!
July 11th, 2007 at 3:54 am
http://www.tammekan.com/
thanks
August 5th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
thanks
August 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am
thanks..
August 13th, 2007 at 11:23 am
good..
August 13th, 2007 at 11:24 am
thanx very nice..
August 19th, 2007 at 12:26 am
Always a good thing the read some information on your web - site , thanks
August 24th, 2007 at 12:46 pm
thanks guys
just a remark: the favicon remains when I choose not to display it (hotmail)
August 31st, 2007 at 2:29 pm
thanks guys
just a remark: the favicon remains when I choose not to display it (hotmailll
September 9th, 2007 at 4:32 am
thankss
September 9th, 2007 at 4:33 am
tskler
September 29th, 2007 at 6:09 am
The Minimo project, while useful, is not an official Mozilla project and should not be confused with Mozilla’s long-term mobile product. Mozilla’s official mobile Firefox browser client is still a ways off. But, I’d love a wireless-based Firefox browser…
September 30th, 2007 at 5:17 am
teşşekkürler ilginiz ve alakanız için
September 30th, 2007 at 5:19 am
good.. thankss ..
October 15th, 2007 at 4:44 am
good.. thankss ….
October 16th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I think Opera is the best!
October 21st, 2007 at 11:22 am
I think Opera is the best!
October 21st, 2007 at 11:23 am
I think Opera is the best!
October 21st, 2007 at 11:24 am
I think Opera is the best!!!!
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:23 am
how to recognize whether request is from desktop browser or from pocket browser…..
plz..reply..it’s urgent
October 23rd, 2007 at 2:32 am
thanks you all comment…
November 3rd, 2007 at 5:57 am
thanks you all comment…
November 5th, 2007 at 2:21 pm
how to recognize whether request is from desktop browser or from pocket browser…..
thanksssssssssssss
November 16th, 2007 at 6:51 am
thanks
*
good
November 16th, 2007 at 5:02 pm
thank you
November 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
…Thanks…
November 16th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
thank you
November 16th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
thank you..
November 18th, 2007 at 2:07 pm
thanks
November 25th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
thanks …
November 25th, 2007 at 1:54 pm
thank … you
November 26th, 2007 at 2:01 pm
thankss
November 29th, 2007 at 3:54 am
thanks….
December 6th, 2007 at 8:20 am
thank you
December 6th, 2007 at 8:21 am
thank you
December 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
thank you
December 10th, 2007 at 12:54 pm
thanks
December 14th, 2007 at 5:49 pm
nice site
December 16th, 2007 at 9:35 am
thank you
December 17th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
Love your beatiful
http://www.taraftariz.net
iddaa maç sonuçları
December 17th, 2007 at 9:49 pm
thanks
December 27th, 2007 at 5:14 pm
thanks
good
December 27th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
thanks
good
January 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
thanks alot…
January 4th, 2008 at 9:50 am
thanks alot..
January 6th, 2008 at 4:18 pm
thanks alot.. dizi izle
January 6th, 2008 at 5:17 pm
thanks komik video
January 6th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
thank you başarı.
January 6th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
thank you chat
January 6th, 2008 at 5:34 pm
thank you sevgi sitesi
January 12th, 2008 at 11:26 am
thanks
January 14th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
thanks
tanrinin bahcesi
http://tanrininbahcesi.blogspot.com
January 18th, 2008 at 3:00 am
msn , msn nickleri
January 18th, 2008 at 3:02 am
evden eve nakliye
January 18th, 2008 at 3:03 am
evden eve nakliyatt
January 18th, 2008 at 3:03 am
nakliye
January 18th, 2008 at 3:03 am
toplist , site ekle
January 18th, 2008 at 3:05 am
muhabbet.be
January 18th, 2008 at 3:05 am
siteni ekle sende kazan.
January 18th, 2008 at 3:06 am
thanks..
January 18th, 2008 at 3:08 am
toplist , site ekle .
January 21st, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Thanx for your works.I hope you well be best
……..bye
January 21st, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Thanx for your works.I hope you well be best
byeee………….ssssssssss
January 25th, 2008 at 12:25 am
Good luck molly! Thanks for all!
January 27th, 2008 at 2:30 am
Love your beatiful çet iddaa maç sonuçları çet
January 29th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
thanx
January 30th, 2008 at 8:35 am
http://www.komunistforum.org
January 30th, 2008 at 8:35 am
http://www.hostcin.com
January 31st, 2008 at 2:20 am
thanks..
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:47 pm
In the meantime, I’ll just be shaving my head. Cuts off 15 minutes from my morning.
February 3rd, 2008 at 6:02 am
thanks
February 13th, 2008 at 9:00 am
Why don’t they define a standart for all mediums?
February 17th, 2008 at 12:38 am
thank you
February 17th, 2008 at 12:38 am
thank you very good
February 18th, 2008 at 10:04 am
thank youuz
February 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
yhank your
February 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
thanxx
February 25th, 2008 at 9:46 am
thank youu
February 26th, 2008 at 10:45 am
thank you very goodd
February 27th, 2008 at 6:19 am
turkchat turk Chat
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:50 am
thx
March 6th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Thanks.
March 9th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
thanks
March 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
thank you for article
March 14th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Successful website
March 14th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
thanx a lot
March 16th, 2008 at 2:37 am
thanks
March 19th, 2008 at 2:36 am
thanks..
March 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
good text, thanks.
March 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
thanks
March 25th, 2008 at 3:47 pm
thanked.
March 30th, 2008 at 11:15 am
thanks
April 1st, 2008 at 12:56 am
thanks
April 4th, 2008 at 1:33 am
ŞAPKA SAPKA imalat
April 7th, 2008 at 2:53 am
it is easy to find it, i think u just search on google or yahoo
April 8th, 2008 at 6:58 am
but, i think it is another thing which you have
April 8th, 2008 at 4:33 pm
i like it
April 8th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
interesting, thanks
April 9th, 2008 at 7:09 am
do you know everything about css?
April 9th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
thanked
April 9th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
how can i find everything about css?
April 10th, 2008 at 5:53 am
what do you want to learn about css? we can help easily
April 11th, 2008 at 12:18 am
how can i find everything about css?
April 11th, 2008 at 9:10 am
i want learn too, i want start at the beginning of css
April 21st, 2008 at 3:01 pm
it is good t see u
April 21st, 2008 at 7:09 pm
thats the matter i want to learn
April 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Thanks,very nice blog.
April 21st, 2008 at 7:15 pm
Nice job.
April 21st, 2008 at 11:18 pm
ok,thanks
April 24th, 2008 at 6:43 am
hi, umit. how is going on
April 28th, 2008 at 9:28 am
tahnks you…
May 1st, 2008 at 6:28 am
thanks you
May 1st, 2008 at 6:30 am
thats the matter i want to learn
May 2nd, 2008 at 10:13 am
we agree with you