Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Site Compatibility and IE8

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the same-but-different dept.

Microsoft 214

Kelson writes "As the release of Internet Explorer 8 approaches, Microsoft's IE Team has published a list of differences between IE7 and IE8, and how to fix code so that it will work on both. Most of the page focuses on IE8 Standards mode, but it also turns out that IE7 compatibility mode isn't quite the same as IE7 itself."

cancel ×

214 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Target a standard (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192639)

HTML as a standard has been so bastardized over the years that the kind of incompatibilities that the article discusses exist not only across different browsers but also between browser versions.

Maybe it's time to start over. Flash and Java applets seem like a good place to start.

Re:Target a standard (5, Insightful)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192661)

Agreed.

And at the bottom of your web page, instead of having some non-sense such as "This page best viewed with IEx", have something that says, "Page best viewed with standards compliant browsers, such as X,Y, and Z".

Re:Target a standard (4, Insightful)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192857)

Maybe it's time to start over. Flash and Java applets seem like a good place to start.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or serious, or if you're saying that we should move back towards Java applets and use more Flash or if they should go away. Care to elaborate?

Personally the idea of bringing Java applets back makes me cringe. I also have FlashBlock set to block all Flash by default, so you can guess my stance there as well. In fact the trend to include more Flash and the increasing use of Silverlight has me wondering what the future HTML and CSS will be if they have one at all. (I say as I format my post with HTML tags...)

Re:Target a standard (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192989)

The nice thing about Flash though, its fast. Sure, some of the plugins enjoy eating up 100% of CPU occasionally, but as a whole Flash is a rather fast language, I haven't ever seen a fast Java applet on the other hand...

Re:Target a standard (5, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193015)

I haven't ever seen a fast Java applet

This is a temporary problem. As computers get faster, this problem will go away.

Re:Target a standard (4, Insightful)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193045)

This is a temporary problem. As computers get faster, this problem will go away.

Um, it has been stated that its a temporary problem ever since Java applets were introduced in the '90s, and even today with dual-core multi-ghz CPUs commonplace as Gigabytes of RAM, the problem still hasn't gone away.

Similarly, Flash seemed just as fast on a Pentium III with about 128 MB of RAM as it does today on the latest quad-core box.

Re:Target a standard (3, Informative)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193485)

Somehow Flash isn't as fast to me.
I can barely watch a Flash animation in low Q mode at half Speed

I have a Athlon XP, 2 GB RAM.

Re:Target a standard (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193653)

Plugin version? OS? There seem to be some versions of the Flash plugin that are super-fast, other versions enjoy eating your CPU and RAM. Usually, Mac/Linux versions aren't that great compared to the Windows version, but here on Flash 10 R22 on Ubuntu 8.10 running on a Athlon 64 3500+ with about 700 some MB of RAM, it works fine, no Flashblock, no NoScript, no Adblock (though I do have a hosts file configured to block most ad servers) running on Firefox 3.0.7

Re:Target a standard (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194621)

Yes, let us please kill that lie right now. Working with SOHO and SMBs I can tell that there are most likely millions of machines still doing their jobs in offices accross this country, as well as in many customers homes, that are between 1GHZ and 3.6GHZ with anywhere from 256MB to 2GB of RAM. In fact for purpose of this example i am typing this on a refurbed office machine I have had working as a Nettop(long before there was even such a word) for the past 9 years. This machine is a 1.1GHz Celeron with a maxed out 512MB of PC133.

For the Internet it works beautifully EXCEPT if the evil known as flash is allowed on. In fact let me quote the system requirements for Linux Flash Player 10 that a fellow Slashdot reader posted(Thanks McGuirk) "Minimum Requirements: Modern processor (800MHz or faster) & 512MB of RAM, 128MB of graphics memory For "Standard" and for HD playback:Intel Core Duo 1.8GHz, AMD Athlon(TM) 64 X2 4200+ processor (or equivalent) & 512MB of RAM & 64MB of VRAM"

I'm afraid I have to agree with his comments after reading the specs "Good God...that's more than many games" and you want to use THAT as the "standard" for making web pages? I have many 3d video games that aren't that damned bloated! But to me it simply highlights why Flash is bad: It is made by Adobe. No offense, but Adobe has always been a "throw more RAM and CPU at it" kind of company. There products have always gotten more bloated and buggy with every release. That is just who they are. But wanting to turn the whole WWW, which is used by countless millions across the planet, including businesses, charities, users rich and poor alike, into a giant flash site because the HTML and CSS code has gotten sucky is just insanity.

If the HTML and CSS standards suck, then have a fit and demand they change! But don't turn the web into a giant bloated playground for a single monopoly. We went through that in the 90s with "This site is designed for IE only" and I'm not really wanting to go back to that, Are you?

Bring back JAVA (4, Interesting)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193603)

JAVA: ahead of its time! NOW the things we want to do are what it could have been doing way before Flash could have filled the demand.

Applets were dismissed back when our needs were simple and our computers were slow.

1) Javascript is SLOWER than JAVA! (browser and flash use it)

2) Flash started out as a vector graphics format; now its a Director/HyperCard mess that is moving towards becoming an Applet platform itself. Flash 10 is NOT anywhere near the same as Flash 1. Its not just an animation format.

3) We have battles over JavaScript 2 at ECMA trying to turn JavaScript into a clone of Java and now the browsers are runtime compiling the script-- next will we start seeing pre-compiled javascript bytecode? (Maybe in Flash?)

4) "safe" platform independent access to web cams and audio hardware-- we have people running ARToolkit in FLASH from a webcam in real time! Its not a vector format anymore... its another kind of applet.

5) Java Applets need better integration; they've not progressed since people dismissed them in the 90s. Now its open; we should be trying to integrate it; catch up to where it should have been now if it were not so ahead of its time.

6) Java was designed to take on massive projects; flash and javascript are not. Java Applets should get DOM access so complex web apps can be made without making javascript a rerun of java-- this means tight integration and FASTER startup times. It could be done.

7) New formats can be done using Java without installing client-side plug-ins. Sure, it is not quite as fast and has overhead; these issues can be addressed-- Flash games are not so simple to startup-- its pre-loaded with the browser... and it has built-in loading screens... Java sure beats being unable to access something in Flash 10 when your setup is too old to install Flash 10. JVM is open now; flash is still risky (and crashes my browser more than anything else.)

Re:Target a standard (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193805)

Java is plenty fast. It's just that applets haven't been used for anything worthwhile in a long time, so you remember Java performance from back when CPUs had clock rates in the double-digit MHz range. The only real problem with Java performance is the comparatively slow startup time of the runtime environment.

Re:Target a standard (3, Insightful)

sjames (1099) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193969)

It is fast. It's so fast that it can screw up spectacularly faster than I can make it stop. I must admit that nothing gets your message across faster than an all flash index page.

Unfortunately, that message is "we're sorry, but our message is all hype and no substance. We were afraid you might figure that out if we didn't guide you firmly through our message with no opportunity to look behind the curtain, or for that matter, to think about what we're saying and realize that it adds up to nothing at all. On the bright side, since you block flash by default, at least we know you're the sort of "critical thinker" who we can never win over with gibberish.

I'm not saying flash is all bad, it seems to have it's place in the world (though it needs to be replaced with an equivalent that actually works on all platforms). I block it by default, but do have it installed for the few cases where it actually makes sense.

Too often, flash is resorted to to get around the apparent fact that MS has a whole division that does nothing but come up with the oddest and most brain damaged possible interpretation of a standard and makes sure that's what gets implemented. Their motto: "Those weirdnix [ups.edu] guys are rank amateurs"

Re:Target a standard (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194003)

So what are some examples of Java applets that you have problems with?

Without a doubt there were a lot of shitty Java applets out in the past. After all it was the first way for a lot of people to build multi-media websites and as such it suffered by it's easy entry point and the fact people didn't have any previous examples of what they should doing with multi-media on their website.

However I would say most applets aren't a problem. Most of my wait time on Java based gaming is the downloading of content, just like Flash games.

Lastly, if Java was that shit I doubt one of the the world's largest MMORPGs (Runescape [runescape.com] ) would use it. More so when the applet has to perform along side flash adverts for non-paying customers.

Re:Target a standard (3, Insightful)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192909)

That's odd. All the webpages I create work just fine with flat text, maybe a .css file to capture the style, and no dancing bears of any kind. Keeping the silly behavior on the server side makes them vastly more robust, handicapped accessible to people with text->speech needs or with large typeface needs, and generally keeps their bandwidth and support requirements way, way, way down.

Re:Target a standard (5, Insightful)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193063)

HTML rendering is actually pretty consistent among standards compliant browsers (Firefox, Safari, Chrome & Opera). The problem is that the largest browser vendor by marketshare (Microsoft) has a poor history of standards compliance; rather they ignore parts of standards for their own proprietary implementations, which change from version to version.

This has caused Microsoft their current position, where it becomes difficult for new versions of their browser to match the quirks and partial standards compliance of the past versions. It's hard to remove features from a browser when a popular site coded years ago is still using them. In essence, they have painted themselves into a corner.

The problem is not in HTML, the problem is the long term effect of proprietary technology instead of standards compliance. Vendor-owned technologies such as Flash or Silverlight are not the answer, in fact they're characteristic of the problem!

Re:Target a standard (3, Informative)

aurispector (530273) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193267)

They had all the resources they needed to produce perfectly compliant browsers, so one must inevitably conclude that the incompatibilities were deliberate. If your average clueless Joe has trouble with anything but the bundled IE, there's big incentive not to change, right? It's not done 'til Firefox won't run!

It's quite ironic that MS's shenanigans are coming back to haunt them.

Re:Target a standard (0, Offtopic)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193723)

But then Flash came along and suddenly you've got crap that can't be indexed and is inaccessible to people who are blind or deaf

Yes it can be indexed and yes it can be made accessible. If people don't do that, it's just because they don't care/are lazy.

Re:Target a standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193975)

More resources is not usually the solution to a problem.

Re:Target a standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193357)

That's why Microsoft has been pushing so hard for new standards: "Render in the manner of IE 6.0"

To be fair give MS credit where it's due (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194179)

Actually Microsoft did include functionality to allow people to build a site that would have made it dead easy to cut out the proprietary crap, the hacks, etc. in the form of IE conditional tags.

Had developers and designers made good use of these then it should be relatively easy to convert the bulk of the crap.

They could have done more to promote these but then again you shouldn't call yourself a professional and include CSS hacks for IE6 in your main stylesheets.

xhtml = xml + html (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193077)

try xhtml

Microsoft's interfaces are written on quick sand.
use their standards at your peril.

Microsoft has never met a standard that they won't try to break.
That is what happens when lawyers and accountants are the designers of software.

Re:Target a standard (3, Insightful)

Sleepy (4551) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193789)

>Maybe it's time to start over. Flash and Java applets seem like a good place to start.

Yes. Because Microsoft has bastardized open standards like HTML and CSS, let's move a vendor-controlled standards.

After all, it's not like Microsoft went out of their way to bastardize Java RIGHT?

Never mind how locking up valuable data in ANY proprietary format, has NEVER turned around and bit mankind in the ass time and time again.

Our intranet has been standards-only for 5 years, and our public website is XHTML strict, with a few (validating) hacks to support IE 6 and 7.

The momentum for standards compliant browsing is pretty strong. The biggest obstacle are the people who make webpages in FrontPage or Office... they're getting calls from customers who can't read white text on a white background, because the MS tools still go out of their way to (deliberately) suck.

Big comment FAIL. Hope you weren't serious and not a troll

Re:Target a standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193837)

Hope you weren't serious and not a troll

You hope he was kidding and earnest?

Perhaps you might want to think about your "Big comment FAIL".

If you are hoping he isn't a troll, why? Is it because you took the bait?

Re:Target a standard (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194145)

Are you seriously suggesting that web sites be build using nothing more than flash and java? ewwwwwww! I won't even vista one of those all flash sites. I despise flash. Its only usefulness is for youtube videos!

My favorite (3, Informative)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192659)

This is actually a pretty good list and will allow me to encourage action on some standards-compliant bugs I know of in sites I work on. (e.g. Some programmers previously relied on getDocumentById searching "name" elements.) However, there is one bug in this list that has me both bemused and disgusted:

Object Detection

Object detection works great when used correctly. However some pages assume the existence of one feature based upon the presence of another, leading to problems when both features are not implemented in the same release.
if(window.postMessage) {
        window.addEventListener(
                "load",
                myHandler,
                false
        );
}

SOLUTION: Perform proper object-detection for each feature used.

if(window.addEventListener) {
        window.addEventListener(
                "load",
                myHandler,
                false
        );
}

Hmmm... maybe that's because Microsoft didn't implement the fucking standard correctly? The standard is more or less DEPENDENT on DOM2 events. (At the very least, I doubt anyone expected someone to implement the standard with a dysfunctional DOM.) That's why you can assume that you can use addEventListener to set a postMessage event receiver. But Microsoft didn't implement DOM2 events, despite helping develop the standard 10 years ago.

IE8 standards compliance is a joke. A sick joke played out by millions of unsuspecting users everywhere.

Re:My favorite (4, Insightful)

RomSteady (533144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192887)

I think you are missing the point of the example given.

Microsoft isn't saying that they didn't implement both window.postMessage and window.addEventListener.

They are saying that if you want to test for the existence of feature A, you check for the existence of feature A and you don't infer its existence by checking for the existence of feature B.

Re:My favorite (4, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192933)

I think you're missing my argument. The assumption that addEventListener should exist if postMessage exists is a good one. Why? Because postMessage relies on addEventListener. However, Microsoft decided that proper DOM support wasn't important to standards compliance, and implemented a bastardized version of the spec.

The example they gave as a solution is actually buggy. The original code checked for cross-document messaging and presumably would have fall-back logic if the feature didn't exist. Microsoft's "corrected" code does not correctly check for cross-document messaging. It simply assumes it exists and registers an event for it. Which is likely to break a lot of truly standards compliant browsers while "fixing" IE8.

Re:My favorite (2, Insightful)

hey! (33014) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194019)

This is getting into the philosophy of ontology.

AKAImBatMan says: If exists(A) -> exists(B) and exists(A), then we should be able to assume exists(B).

RomSteady says: it it possible to test for exists(B), then we should test for exists(B), even if we believe exists(A) -> exists(B).

I think that you are both right. It comes down to a simple principle of design: contain unnecessary assumptions.

A web app developer, assuming that the browser won't violate your expectations is bad unless there is a compelling reason to rely on those expectations. It doesn't matter whether those expectations are reasonable, because even if the browser developer intended to honor them there many be bugs in the implementation.

For a web browser developer, assuming that developers won't rely on some aspect or implications of the standard that isn't (in your opinion) necessary) is bad. You should strive to meet as every expectation that is demonstrably implied by the standard.

I tend to wide with AKAImBatman's view a bit more, though. In practice the accumulation of "best programming practice" can result in code that is cluttered with exception testing. Developers when coding should deal with concepts rather than implementations, and creators of platforms should make this feasible as far as humanly possible.

Re:My favorite (1, Insightful)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192999)

http://webkit.org/projects/css/index.html [webkit.org]

So let me understand this...

WebKit isn't yet CSS 1 compliant.

WebKit isn't yet CSS 2.1 compliant, and does not currently pass the CSS 2.1 suite.

WebKit isn't yet CSS 3 compliant, but CSS 3 isn't a finished standard yet anyway. ( http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work [w3.org] )

IE 8 is coming out with full CSS 2.1 compliance that passes the CSS 2.1 test suite entirely.

CSS 2.1 is the newest *completed* CSS standard level.

But according to the Intarnets, Microsoft should replace their IE Trident engine with WebKit.

Which would reduce their CSS standards support...

I'm confused.

Re:My favorite (3, Insightful)

FuzzyBad-Mofo (184327) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193283)

IE8 will have full CSS 2.1 compliance? I'll believe it when I see it.

Instead of simply making assertions it's much more informative to compare CSS support by function, as in the following chart:

CSS contents and browser compatibility [quirksmode.org]

From this it appears that IE8 DOES have improved CSS 2.1 support from previous versions, although it's still lacking in certain areas. The web's problem child has almost caught up to the rest of the class. Sadly, IE8's CSS 3 support is still far behind the curve :(

Re:My favorite (2, Interesting)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193531)

Can you explain why that page indicates all green for CSS 2.1 on WebKit based browsers, except for the "static" classifications, yet WebKit claims that their CSS 2.1 support is not yet complete?

Perhaps using the W3C standard test suites would be a better measure than some guy putting green boxes next to features?

If WebKit claims their CSS 2.1 support isn't done yet, I'm going to take their word for it.

Re:My favorite (2, Informative)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194259)

Can you explain why that page indicates all green for CSS 2.1 on WebKit based browsers, except for the "static" classifications, yet WebKit claims that their CSS 2.1 support is not yet complete?

Maybe you just looked at the CSS 2.1 Selectors section, which is mostly green for Webkit browsers (but with a few marked "static").

However, if you also look at the Webkit browsers in the CSS 2.1 Declarations section, you'll notice that one item (content) is marked as "almost", while another (table columns) is marked as "incomplete". Perhaps this is why Webkit does not claim complete support.

Perhaps using the W3C standard test suites would be a better measure than some guy putting green boxes next to features?

Obviously.

Re:My favorite (3, Insightful)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193373)

Just because they checked the box on the feature doesn't mean it works correctly. I'll grant that IE8 is better with CSS, but most of their "standards compliance" BS is just for show. Microsoft has no intention of supporting the standards that are in wide use. Instead, they focus on areas where their desktop APIs (i.e. Win32) won't be impacted. Thus the focus on complete CSS2.1 compliance. That lets them claim a commitment to standards without actually furthering the existing use of standards on the web.

Case in point: IE was the last major browser to reach ACID2 compliance (by a wide margin) and is the only upcoming major browser to score below 95 on the ACID3 test. (Around 20, if you're interested.) Most of the upcoming browsers that will directly compete with IE8 already support 100/100 on ACID3. That's a much more pragmatic test than Microsoft's checkbox fascination.

Microsoft isn't stupid. They know that the web is making their desktop lock-in obsolete. The last thing they want to do is help it along. That's why they're pushing Silverlight so hard. If they can provide Microsoft lock-in for web applications, they'll maintain the dominance of the Windows platform. In the meantime, they have to convince the public not to move to other browsers and give up their Windows/IE lock-in. Thus the box-checking on poor standards support.

Re:My favorite (4, Interesting)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193447)

Acid2 isn't a standard. It also isn't a part of the test suite of W3C. Acid3 isn't a standard. It also isn't part of the test suite of W3C. It's a marketing gimmick of Opera and people lap it up like it is more important than real standards work from the W3C. Plus, Acid3 is more about DOM than CSS, and Acid3 tests for features that have not yet been standardized.

You can push for implementation of standards, but to knock someone's products because they haven't implemented DRAFT standard recommendations is just stupid.

And your claims that Microsoft isn't really implementing the CSS 2.1 standard correctly and that they're just "checking a checkbox" don't actually stand up to the test of reality:

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/27/microsoft-submits-thousands-more-css-2-1-tests-to-the-w3c.aspx [msdn.com]

Your arguments are a subjective standard, you want to appeal to the W3C for "standards" authority, but then set the bar for judgement to be whatever "people are using" or whatever marketing gimmick "standards" test IE fails and others ALSO fail, just fail less.

Stick to the W3C standard test suites for an actual measure of standards compliance and leave the Acid tests to the fanbois who are out to prove a point. And don't talk about "standards" that are not yet standards.

Re:My favorite (1)

BeerCat (685972) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193633)

Acid2 isn't a standard. It also isn't a part of the test suite of W3C. Acid3 isn't a standard. It also isn't part of the test suite of W3C. It's a marketing gimmick of Opera

Or maybe, from the Web Standards Project [wikipedia.org] -

a group of professional web developers dedicated to disseminating and encouraging the use of the web standards recommended by the World Wide Web Consortium

, so may not be part of W3C, but wants to work to their guidelines.

Re:My favorite (4, Interesting)

AKAImBatman (238306) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193831)

Amusingly, I never stated that ACID2 and ACID3 were standards. I stated that supporting these tests are a pragmatic approach to optimizing resources for implementing parts of the standards. (The stated purpose of the ACID tests is to promote implementation of standards with immediate applications.)

The truth is that the fine details of the CSS standards are hard for EVERYONE to support. Including Microsoft. No one except Microsoft claims 100% CSS 2.1, because it would be disingenuous to do so. I've only heard that claim (incorrectly) assigned to Microsoft.

You can push for implementation of standards, but to knock someone's products because they haven't implemented DRAFT standard recommendations is just stupid.

This would be a good argument, except for one problem: Microsoft is implementing DRAFT standards while NOT implementing the RECOMMENDED standards they're based on. Want an example? Look up to the top post. Cross Document messaging is not yet recommended, but Microsoft is bound and determined to mis-implement it.

In any case, your argument betrays a misunderstanding of how web standards work. The current approach being used is that standards will not reach a recommended status until at least two successful implementations of the standard exist. The idea is that this will determine if the spec is actually implementable or not. (One of the primary reasons why CSS 1 & 2 are not fully implemented is because the spec was written without implementations. The spec ended up being extremely difficult to implement correctly.)

Now if Microsoft wanted to be the browser that would only implement recommended standards I would be fine with that. But they're not. They're explicitly picking and choosing, being careful to avoid the standards implemented by everyone else. ESPECIALLY the RECOMMENDED standards that would make IE compatible with other browsers.

What is the point of standards compliance if you're explicitly trying not to be compatible?

And that right there is why their standards compliance is a farce. A sick joke that's all about control for Microsoft. It's just sad that people are buying into Microsoft's friendly veiner, all while Microsoft slides the knife even deeper in their backs.

Re:My favorite (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194187)

Ok, so let me ask a serious question.

Browser Foo gets 86% on ACID2. Browser Bar gets 99% on ACID2.

What exactly does that tell me, as a web developer?

Re:My favorite (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194539)

blah blah...usual meaningless drivel..blah blah

...Microsoft's friendly veiner...

My creepy uncle once told me he had a friendly veiner. I believe he called it Mr. Blue Veiner. Let me tell you something. It wasn't so friendly.

Re:My favorite (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194129)

What does ACID2 have to do with web standards? That's not part of the test suite.

Re:My favorite (1)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193489)

How up-to-date is that page? For example, it says that white-space pre-wrap is not supported, but a quick google search found that they were fixing bugs [webkit.org] with pre-wrap in 2008 - which means support for it was implemented at least a year ago.

"Not yet CCS 1 compliant" is a joke. Look at the bugs [webkit.org] that remain. They are things like this [webkit.org] . If you hold WebKit to such a strict standard, you'll have to do the same with other browsers as well. I guarantee you'll find such bugs in Firefox too, as you will in IE8 when it ships.

The first two lines after the title on the CCS 2.1 test suite page are: "This is a development version of the CSS 2.1 Test Suite. It is woefully incomplete and may contain incorrect tests." If you're using that as the basis to gauge CSS 2.1 compliance, I have a bridge to sell you.

Re:My favorite (1)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193605)

It's okay, Microsoft is helping with the CSS 2.1 testing.

http://samples.msdn.microsoft.com/ietestcenter/ [microsoft.com]

http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/27/microsoft-submits-thousands-more-css-2-1-tests-to-the-w3c.aspx [msdn.com]

Either you're standards compliant or you're not. WebKit claims they're not. I believe them.

Re:My favorite (1)

Shin-LaC (1333529) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194553)

In other words, Microsoft is writing its own compliance tests. I'd be surprised if they didn't score 100%!

What determines standard compliance is not any test, but the standard itself. If you had ever tried coding a website to the standards, you'd know that IE has been the worst-conforming browser by far. For version 8, Microsoft has found CSS2 to be a low-hanging fruit (especially with an a basically abandoned compliance suite that they could resurrect and shape to their convenience to gain an appearance of legitimacy), and might actually deliver an implementation that's on par with the average modern browser - for that specific standard alone. Meanwhile, they've given up on getting decent DOM conformance in this version.

They're not fooling anyone, and neither are you.

Re:My favorite (1)

FloydTheDroid (1296743) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193721)

Isn't this why we have libraries like jQuery? In my experience IE isn't alone in it's quirks. Most browsers aren't going to treat events 100% the same so using a js library to process events seems like a no brainer to me.

Re:My favorite (2, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194099)

Hmmm... maybe that's because Microsoft didn't implement the fucking standard correctly? The standard is more or less DEPENDENT on DOM2 events. (At the very least, I doubt anyone expected someone to implement the standard with a dysfunctional DOM.) That's why you can assume that you can use addEventListener to set a postMessage event receiver. But Microsoft didn't implement DOM2 events, despite helping develop the standard 10 years ago.

IE8 standards compliance is a joke. A sick joke played out by millions of unsuspecting users everywhere.

Yeah, they didn't. But they're making a good try here at fixing the problems, so fucking relax already. The only people who give a shit about web standards are web developers, and that's a very, very small percentage of the population. The amount of kicking and screaming and tantrum-throwing I read on this site on a daily basis is just crazy. Relax!

The example posted above is common sense, anyway. If you want to use "addEventListener," check for the existence of "addEventListener." Duh. Why would you check for anything else, anyway, except for being retarded?

PRESCRIPTION FOR THE SHORTSIGHTED (2, Informative)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194741)

WTH? Relax? Fuck that.

You obviously fail to understand the gravity of the situation. Does the web seem like a trivial thing to you? Are you one of those people who says "oh, it's just another thing on the Internet -- no need to take it seriously"?

You think that it's okay to pain "a very, very small percentage of the population" with compatibility problems? I guess you wouldn't give a damn about sewer system engineers or transportation system engineers or power grid engineers either, eh? That's pretty idiotic myopia.

"Yeah, you're suffering. Big deal, there aren't many of you. Just relax." Fuck that.

If you'd been following along you'd have noticed the 5 year languish of IE6. Microsoft dominated the market using its distribution and then just stopped. "Tada! The World-Wide Web! Let it rot." What, you never had to clean up a friend's IE6-spyware-infested machine? Only when their dominance was threatened did they rouse themselves to make any changes. And now you think "they're making a good try here at fixing the problems"? And you're ready to take what they serve you? You trust these guys? The same purveyors of stagnation?

The self-serving protocol pollution and dominance games of Microsoft are only half the problem. You are the other half. Ignorant users (and developers) who fail to see the importance of standards and who are either virtual amnesiacs about Microsoft's track record of standards subversion or are just acting like battered wives.

What happens with standards and the web is pretty damn important. Get some glasses, jackass.

How are options bad? (1)

Chas (5144) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192689)

Come on! If I wanna make something standards compliant, I can.

Only not quite.

Sorta.

Kinda.

When the stars align in the heavens just so...

...ish

And now Microsoft has given us a new wrinkle^H^H^H^OPTION...option! Yet another way of almost (but not quite...sorta...kinda...YOU GET THE IDEA!) emulating IE7! A most wonderful *COUGH*, stable *COUGH!*, standards comp...AW FUCK! WHO AM I KIDDING?

Yup. Just another pooch-screw waiting to be exploited in some particularly nasty manner!

Status quo!

They seemed to miss something... (1)

cjmnews (672731) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192725)

There are little things that could be fairly important where they don't render things correctly. Just search and you'll find quite a few examples and work arounds.

The most basic one I can't understand is by a basic inset or outset button renders with a solid black line in IE8? The work around is to color each side of the border individually with the custom color you need to make it look inset or outset.

IE8 Standards mode?? (3, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192811)

How about following the standards the rest of the world uses instead?

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (4, Funny)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192889)

How about following the standards the rest of the world uses instead?

Habits are hard to break ;)

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (3, Insightful)

SirLurksAlot (1169039) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192953)

The rest of the world where? I'm as pro-standards as anyone else, but I hate to break it to you that most of the world is still using IE [hitslink.com] .

Yes, standards-compliant browsers are gaining more support every year, but it doesn't change the fact that with such a huge market share MS is still setting the defacto standard. This is especially true in the corporate environment. The great majority of corporate intranets are still using IE as their supported/required browser, and there is still A LOT of legacy web applications out there that rely on technologies like ActiveX to function. All that being said I'm glad to see Microsoft is finally starting to get with the program with IE8. Whether or not businesses start following suit and update their sites to be standards compliant is another question entirely, but I would hope that would be the case.

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193333)

The rest of the world where? I'm as pro-standards as anyone else, but I hate to break it to you that most of the world is still using IE [hitslink.com] .

So, because most of the world uses IE, the rest of the world apart from IE ALSO uses IE?

What the fuck?

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193549)

Most of the world is still using IE because that is what was installed when they purchased the machine. If people were given a choice when they installed it, you would see IE with a much much smaller market share.

IE is a an inferior product compared to pretty much every browser out there. IEs market share will continue to decline and that makes me so happy. I am sick and tired of creating a design in Firefox, works in every single browser (maybe a minor tweak here and there for Safari) then spending a few hours to make it work in IE. Look at what they score on the ACID tests! Its no wonder I waste my time on it.

You supporting Microsoft and their completely screwed up browser hurts everyone. I waste countless hours because of YOU.

Microsoft is holding back innovation and it won't stop until they drop under 33% market share. That is the day, that I will throw a party.

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (2, Informative)

tecnico.hitos (1490201) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193611)

IE is not compliant with IE standards.

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193691)

You talk as if IE still had a 90% plus market share. According to Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] , in February IE was barely above 66% and dropping steadily.

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27192967)

IE is the rest of the world AFAIK, isn't it still the most popular browser?

Re:IE8 Standards mode?? (1, Redundant)

BasharTeg (71923) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193013)

http://webkit.org/projects/css/index.html [webkit.org]

So let me understand this...

WebKit isn't yet CSS 1 compliant.

WebKit isn't yet CSS 2.1 compliant, and does not currently pass the CSS 2.1 suite.

WebKit isn't yet CSS 3 compliant, but CSS 3 isn't a finished standard yet anyway. ( http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/current-work [w3.org] )

IE 8 is coming out with full CSS 2.1 compliance that passes the CSS 2.1 test suite entirely.

CSS 2.1 is the newest *completed* CSS standard level.

But according to the Intarnets, Microsoft should replace their IE Trident engine with WebKit.

Which would reduce their CSS standards support...

I'm confused.

I'd comment on the article but... (1)

InsertWittyNameHere (1438813) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192871)

I just can't seem to figure out what compatibility mode to set my IE8 to to read the article...

Great.... (2, Interesting)

Chrono11901 (901948) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192971)

Wow now i need to test my site in at least 4 browsers, this is getting fucking ridiculous.

Re:Great.... (1)

theArtificial (613980) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193905)

I feel your pain. The CMS software our company produces uses a single style sheet and supporting multiple versions of IE is already troublesome (IE6 especially so). IE6 css support is by far the most irritating to deal with when testing designs on different browsers. Hopefully they'll provide free sunshine enimas with the release.

Re:Great.... (2, Insightful)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194219)

Poor baby. If you were writing a desktop app, you'd have to test it in:
Windows 2000, XP, Vista, 7 (possibly Server 2000, 2003, 2008 also)
Mac OS 10.3, 10.4, 10.5
Linux -- God knows! 3-4 versions of top 5 distributions, perhaps.

The only people who cares about web standards are web developers, and web developers already have less QA work than most other software fields. I feel like breaking out the tiny violin when I hear stuff like this.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194471)

the difference is, if it compiles for those platforms, it normally works and looks the same. Try web programming where your design and parts of your code are liable to behave completely differently based on the platform, and where it can take almost the same amount of time again(as making the application in the first place) to make it work in IE6, if your boss demands IE6 compatibility.

Re:Great.... (1)

Blakey Rat (99501) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194655)

the difference is, if it compiles for those platforms, it normally works and looks the same.

Your software must be unbearably buggy.

Re:Great.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194811)

Mod parent Funny! - intentional or not. Ten years ago a bare minimum would be two versions of IE on PC, two versions of IE on Mac, and two versions of Netscape.

I say forget IE (4, Interesting)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27192985)

My websites will block IE8, and a message will pop up telling people to go download Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.

I tried IE8, and it is a pitiful joke. I'm not going to work around it, and Microsoft should realize I'm not gonna jump through hoops just to please their idiotic decisions.

*fully extends third finger in direction of Microsoft*

Re:I say forget IE (5, Insightful)

Samschnooks (1415697) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193059)

I would suggest, if I may, that instead you show the web page without IE specific code showing all its ugliness and with a message that states that IE isn't standards compliant, you don't have the resources to code around IE's hacks, and that the user would be best served by Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.

This accomplishes two things: one, it shows that their browser isn't that good, and two, it shows other browsers are available and lastly, it doesn't just throw those folks out - otherwise, they'll just move on; unless you're the coder for the Wall Street Journal or some other website where the viewers are captive.

Re:I say forget IE (4, Insightful)

Kozz (7764) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193069)

My websites will block IE8, and a message will pop up telling people to go download Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.

For those whose whom their website is not tied to their livelihood, I suppose one can afford to be smug.

Re:I say forget IE (2)

Vu1turEMaN (1270774) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193257)

One could also consider that the time is ripe to throw IE off of its throne, and trying to conform to such shitty standards might actually make your website worse.

If MS really cared about the quality of their products, they wouldn't be releasing something that is this poor. In reality, they want to have their own set of standards for people to follow. We followed them for IE6 and IE7, and IE8 is where I draw the line.

Re:I say forget IE (0, Flamebait)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194737)

Ahahaha. I find angry, impotent nerds to be absolutely hilarious.

Thank you. You've made me laugh. Please tell people who use Firefox about your righteous jihad against IE when they visit your page, I want to laugh then too.

Re:I say forget IE (1)

fermion (181285) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193925)

Yet for years web sites blocked IE for no apparent reason, other than this was an option the MS pushed on web developers. Even if this were only 5% of the market, I hardly think that any business wakes up in the morning and says I am going alienate 5% of my customers. I don't know, maybe they do and that is why we are in the situation we are in. We are so,a s you say smug, that firms see themselves as a entity customers must pay tribute to, rather than the other way around.

Re:I say forget IE (1)

pauljlucas (529435) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194081)

I hardly think that any business wakes up in the morning and says I am going alienate 5% of my customers.

Maybe not wuite like that, but, historically, at least banks and other financial institutions required IE due to perceived security reasons. (Banks tend to be extra careful with people's money, at least on the web.) Presumably, they simply didn't want to spend the time/money to test in other browsers. And they already have your money and I highly doubt customers are going to close their accounts and move elsewhere due to the bank's site not working in a non-IE browser.

Re:I say forget IE (1)

nyctopterus (717502) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194477)

Mac users might. I certainly would.

Re:I say forget IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193101)

I'm not gonna jump through hoops just to please their idiotic decisions.

So you'd rather force your viewers to jump through hoops in order to access your site? Guess what, most will probably shrug and go someplace else on the Web. Hope you're not running business websites.

Re:I say forget IE (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193139)

My websites will block IE8, and a message will pop up telling people to go download Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.

I can assure you I won't be using your websites then ... along with millions of other people.

Thanks for playing. Good bye.

Re:I say forget IE (1)

alukin (184606) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193389)

Pretty good decision but how much web sites will follow you? How much sites can kindly suggest to use standard-compliant browsers?

Browser market share itself is not a problem. Problem is army of web-designers with microsoft addiction %)

Re:I say forget IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193459)

I actually wouldn't block it.
I remember i thought the same as you, block IE and just give them a message, but i came up with a better idea.

Just have a bare-bones site, no JavaScript.
But i will have one conditional comment at the top of the page that will insert a header before page content
A Double-bordered red box that states they are using IE and they might not see all the features, then scare them in to updating their web browser (viruses lol), links to X, Y, Z browsers.
Fear is a great tool :)

Re:I say forget IE (1)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194277)

I'm not going to work around it

You will :-)

Why web developers should be dragged out and shot (4, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193055)

People, the web is fine for multimedia and information presentation, but why is there this constant push to integrate everything into the web? There's all this crap being tacted onto what constitutes a "web browser" that it's becoming less and less a browser and more and more a platform every day. This is not the direction we want to go right now. A lightweight browser that can present information in a variety of devices is where the web needs to stay: Accessibility is more important than features. HTML, XML, CSS, and maybe some javascript is all the farther anyone needs to go. But then Flash came along and suddenly you've got crap that can't be indexed and is inaccessible to people who are blind or deaf, and increasingly devices like mobile phones which have enough power to do the basics aren't enough because the standards are getting jacked up to the point that we have to cram a laptop's worth of computing resources into a form factor that can fit in your hand, and a battery life of less than a day.

This so-called progress is a step in the wrong direction. We need to work on a set of standards that can be implimented with minimal computational resources, is flexible enough to offer a range of presentation options sufficient for most information (images, text, some video and audio) -- and leave it at that. By extending the web into areas reserved for applications and then trying to do everything at once (cross-platform, intensive computations, entire application suites stuffed into web browsers) we are opening a can of worms that promises to segment the web into a million incompatible methods.

We need to work on making this information as available and accessible as possible, not coming up with fancy new ways to make it inaccessible to larger and larger groups of people in the name of progress.

Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193199)

You are making a great argument, but let me tell you also, KDE as example, show that even without standards one is able to create bloatware performing slower on older machines, and alike slow on newest machines.

The same applies to Firefox, it's not the standards, it's bad programming:

1) programmers start using 4GB RAM and 3GHz CPU and code as if there was no 400MHz 128MB machine - i386 or ARM (like iPhone) ....

2) next release, the developers have 8GB RAM and 5GHz CPU (multicore), and the program is alike responsive, more bloated, but they don't notice the program actually is SLOWER because they use faster machines

3) and it doesn't matter if it's open source or not, bad programmers are everywhere

So, not standards, but programmers are the culprits.

A few examples:

BIND vs NSD: save 100MB RAM usage, 20 domains
Apache2 vs Lighttpd: save 150-350MB RAM for 10 domains serving web-site with 1000GB traffic/month (cgi/perl/php mixed)
Firefox2/3 vs Opera: save 50-200MB RAM with 3 windows with total 60 tabs/sites open

so, this shows there are solutions which are truly faster, and using less memory, but that often means to start from scratch and go different paths than the established ways.

Flash: doing what HTML/JS/CSS does not provide and missed to include for a long time (animated SVG coming slowly) - I would recommend abandon Flash, but given the YouTube is quasi standard to deliver (entertaining/educational) videos these days, how can you abandon it now?

Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh (2, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193327)

People, the web is fine for multimedia and information presentation, but why is there this constant push to integrate everything into the web?

That's easy. The desktop OS market is monopolized and innovation has slowed to a crawl. The market is attempting to route around the damage. It's not working well, but that's what is happening.

Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194365)

Fuck yourself and that stupid ass "route around the damage" quote that's been abused to fucking death.

Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194791)

Yeah, that 99 bottles geeky dweeb really is an insufferable dipshit, I have to agree.

Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh (2, Informative)

hkmwbz (531650) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194467)

why is there this constant push to integrate everything into the web?

Because web is, in theory, accessible from anywhere, from any kind of device, any kind of connection. It's easy to develop web applications. It's faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps.

But then Flash came along and suddenly you've got crap that can't be indexed and is inaccessible to people who are blind or deaf

Which is why web standards need to replace Flash, and that's exactly what Mozilla, Opera, Apple and others are working on with HTML5 and such.

Re:Why web developers should be dragged out and sh (1)

RightSaidFred99 (874576) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194815)

Because web is, in theory, accessible from anywhere, from any kind of device, any kind of connection. It's easy to develop web applications. It's faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps.

Anywhere availability is nice in some domains, not so important in others. The corporate world is an area where people tend to use web apps overmuch.

As for it being faster and easier to develop web apps than native apps. Ahahaha. Seriously? Tell me you're joking? Not even in the same league - a good desktop GUI development toolkit will _always_ be much more effective.

Which is why web standards need to replace Flash, and that's exactly what Mozilla, Opera, Apple and others are working on with HTML5 and such.

I guess it's nice when some commercial entities anoint themselves standards makers. How nice for them. The problem is people are sick and tired of trying to make the web work. That's why things like Flash and Silverlight are popular with developers. People want to develop web apps the way they develop desktop apps.

Don't get "Compatibility View" (4, Insightful)

krou (1027572) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193107)

Am I missing something here? Why the hell even introduce the idea of "Compatibility View"? That's just pure sloppiness.

Since when was it the browser user's responsibility (or even the browser's) to decide what mode a page should be viewed in? Isn't it the developer's job to tell the browser how to behave, and the browser does so accordingly, in a consistent fashion?

Re:Don't get "Compatibility View" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193429)

Microsoft's excuse was "Because if we make a standards compliant only browser now, it will break the whole web"... you know, for certain Microsoft-centric values of "the whole web".

So then they came up with this horrible compatibility mode hack, and told us all "Yeah, you'll have to put a non-standards-compliant tag in your page to force our browser in to standards compliance. It will default to IE7 mode" which of course put the entire web design community up in arms.

So they default to IE8 standards mode, then throw in some blacklist of major pages that forces the browser to IE7 mode on those major pages, on the theory that their users won't see broken pages at sites that may not update fast enough for IE8 release. Except that IE7 mode doesn't actually render like IE7, which means companies will STILL have to retool their pages for IE8 to work, completely defeating the purpose of IE7 mode that they original set out with. Which means they introduced not just ONE new non-standards-compliant browser this time around, but TWO. Yay!

You're right, it's completely incomprehensible and stupid, and it's going to be an albatross around everyone's neck for the next few years.

Bc/ of craptastic intranets (2, Insightful)

Nicolas MONNET (4727) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194143)

Early Microsoft web frameworks, circa 1998, generated code so ugly it should qualify as crime against humanity. The stench has contaminated many enterprises, which are stuck with those unmaintainable festering sores.
Looking at the javscript those beasts produced is fascinating; they could put ";" in places you never expected.

Re:Don't get "Compatibility View" (3, Informative)

kestasjk (933987) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194351)

Even Firefox has different rendering modes depending on what sort of site it's looking at. Most web-dev plugins for it will tell you whether it's rendering in Standards mode or Quirks mode.

It's more about pragmatism than sloppiness; they need to support new sites which need a correct implementation of standards, and they need to support the old sites used in corporate internets which are kludgy messes, that no-one would dare try and update.

IE == dead (1)

sunshinekiller (1350005) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193125)

Last year the IE market was around 80%, its not down to around 60%. Windows 7 will release, and that market share will become 40%. Sure you still have those grandmas and the average unlearned person using their old xp computer with IE and tons of malware but companies are switching to linux and that will make IE lose, plus I hear that they are making IE an option on windows 7?, and their standards compliance is a joke. I stopped making websites that work with IE.

Re:IE == dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27193477)

I'm glad you stoped working with this POS. Now if you only could start making shorter sentences that made grammatical sense...

Re:IE == dead (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#27194057)

Get the dick out of your ass. That ain't happenin'.

What's the point... (1)

nicodoggie (1228876) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193561)

...of having a fuckin' IE7 compatibility mode if it isn't going to be compatible with IE7?

Shit, and after I RTFA, it seems that keeping compatibility with IE7 is potentially just as time-consuming as recoding for IE8. Web Designers coding with browser market share in mind, might not really code as close to spec as IE8 can get, instead they'd just make sure it works for both IE7 and 8 under "compatibility" mode!

Microsoft doesn't really give a shit about web standards, IMHO, they're just making sure that they're browser doesn't show ill-rendered XHTML 1.0 Strict, HTML 4.01 and CSS 2. Especially since people who build their sites to spec display badges of honor, the IE dev team would just look bad if they can't properly render those pages.

Considering any site worth a damn have people who code for all major browsers anyways, so my entire post might be just rantish and view as Anti-Microsoft. (not saying it isn't)

ACID 2 Test (3, Insightful)

caffeinejolt (584827) | more than 5 years ago | (#27193617)

Currently less than 25% of browser usage can pass the ACID 2 test [statowl.com] . It will be interesting to see how the release of IE8 affects this. Luckily for JS developers, projects like JQuery make cross-browser scripting WAY easier and less error prone. Hopefully broad support for an increasing subset of web standards will make cross-browser layout quirks less annoying for web developers. Overall I think the ACID tests are a good thing to measure this.

Reject IE8 (1, Insightful)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194125)

Please don't encourage yet another browser we'll all have to support.

If your job depends on addressing the market, then write to standards (test in Firefox and Safari and Opera) and IE7/IE6. That's where the market's at right now.

If your boss says you should anticipate IE8, point them to this graph [wikimedia.org] and this graph [wikipedia.org] . Tell them your anticipation is that IE8 will add work without adding substantial market benefit. You can put off IE8 support until it proves it can achieve the same penetration as IE7.

Encourage Standards (1)

Onymous Coward (97719) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194215)

Try to push things towards using a single standard so that move towards "write once, run everywhere".

Hinder further fragmentation of the code you have to write. The two major versions of IE already complicate things unnecessarily, so discourage adoption of IE8 every chance you get.

Internet Explorer is lame.

When you think about it, you realize it's true. Generally the cool kids aren't into IE.

I'm curious to see how much closer... (1)

CFD339 (795926) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194427)

...IE8 will be with Webkit/V8 based browsers and with Mozilla based browsers.

      Until we get much closer to parity with these things, many of us are still going to work very hard to do most code to the least common denominator -- avoiding if(IE){ } whenever possible.

getElementById finds 'name' attribute values! (0, Troll)

slashbart (316113) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194551)

I didn't realize that even IE7 was that pathetic; it doesn't even see the difference between a 'name' and an 'id' attribute.
Very happy that I'm not web-developing any more.

My favorite (1)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194679)

This one caught my eye simply because it's caused issues for me so many times...

The method getElementById is now case-sensitive and no longer searches name attributes. (emphasis added)

For me, that right there expresses what's been fundamentally wrong about IE development for many years.

The farging cork sorckers (1)

ronmon (95471) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194755)

If you haven't seen the move 'Johnny Dangerously' you probably won't get it. Sorry, but these bastards screwed up all the web standards. Just fix the damned thing and move along, please.

Heh (1)

TheMightyFuzzball (1500683) | more than 5 years ago | (#27194831)

Compatibility with IE7's bugs, not W3C standards...
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>