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!

IE Standardization Fading Fast

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the So-long-farewell-auf-weidersehen-goodbye dept.

Microsoft 176

alphadogg writes "Just as Internet users in general have defected in huge numbers from Microsoft Internet Explorer over the past several years, the business world, as well, is becoming less dependent on the venerable browser. Companies that used to mandate the use of IE for access to web resources are beginning to embrace a far more heterodox attitude toward web browsers. While it hasn't gone away, the experience of having to use IE 6 to access some legacy in-house web app is becoming less common. 'A lot of it has to do with the emergence of the modern web and the popularity of mobile. They have made it very different for companies to truly standardize on a browser,' says Gartner Research analyst David Mitchell Smith."

cancel ×

176 comments

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

shit (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904717)

Without Microsoft nobody will be left to defend us from the Ubuntu £inux monopoly.

Re:shit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905027)

Apart from Debian, Red Hat, Suse, Mint, Arch, Gentoo etc etc...

Re:shit (4, Insightful)

hairyfish (1653411) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905807)

Isn't it funny how all the hate and anger and lawsuits thrown at MS had pretty much zero affect on their market position, and what really made the most impact was innovation (ie the Mobile (r)evolution).

Re:shit (4, Interesting)

Lotana (842533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906387)

Whatever the cause this trend is great news indeed. After all these years of painfully adding exceptions to our websites to deal with Microsoft's stubborn refusal to follow standards, there are finally signs of improvement. We are not out of this mess yet and things may get worse, but for now let us just be happy with the news.

I propose all of us raise a glass of your favorite beverage to toast the beginning of the end of web's dominance by Microsoft!

Re:shit (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906665)

Yes, hate and anger are affects. Most people are just faking it. And market position is all about faking.

Re:shit (4, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906737)

Isn't it funny how we are replacing one asshole company with one that is an even bigger asshole? I hates the way MSFT pushed IE onto everybody and frankly what we are seeing now is even worse, as at least before you could just lie with the UserAgent and get around a bunch of the bullshit, but now instead of Redmond dictating we got Cupertino and Apple makes MSFT look like big sweaty care bears by comparison.

I mean we went from having an open format be the baseline in HTML V5 to patent troll MPEG-LA getting to stick a tollbooth with H.264, thanks to Apple making it clear "We don't give a fuck what YOU choose, its not running on iPhone/iPad PERIOD" and then to add insult to injury they also pretty much single handedly killed mobile flash where Adobe was at least nice enough to pay the license fees and let any browser or distro run H.264. Now try to bundle H.264 in a free product and see how quick you get a cease and desist, just ask Mozilla.

So if you wanna cheer MSFT losing power? Right there with ya, in fact I championed breaking up the company when they lost the antitrust. But what we are seeing is we are kicking the old lame dog while ignoring the two fucking lions that are saying "kick the dog" while they get ready to take a bite out of our collective asses. say what you want about MSFT but I could take any laptop or desktop and have their shit gone and well on my way to installing any damned thing I wanted in minutes, try that with a Chromebook and see how far you get. The web won't fare any better thanks to Cupertino dictating everything, If Apple has their way the only browser will be Webkit and only Apple approved formats will be on the web and sadly? Its seriously looking like they are gonna get their wish, Flash gone, Opera dropping their engine so they can get on iToys (and I wouldn't be surprised if moz goes to as they won't get on the iPhone/iPad if they don't bow to Cupertino's wishes) and video controlled by a patent troll...where is things getting better again? This is like saying "Instead of the guy on the corner kicking us in the face the guy across the street just hits us with a brick!"...uhhh, how about neither guy hitting us at all? How about being able to choose none of the above? wouldn't that be better?

If there is one thing we need to protect its an open web but all we are doing is replacing one master for another and that's just not the way we should be going, we should be trying for no masters at all.

Re:shit (4, Funny)

bidule (173941) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906641)

Yeah. Micro$oft, £inux, Appl€. The Unholy Trinity.

Now, if Son¥ was in there, we'd have the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse.

Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904731)

I've seen a lot of people start making this mistake again, but now it's the KHTML/Safari/Chrome/Opera engine, especially on mobile.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (4, Insightful)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904825)

Yes but the important distinction is that WebKit is open source. While Apple has a lot of influence on it, if Google doesn't like Apple's changes, they can fork it as can anyone else.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906003)

It should be noted that Google has recently overtaken Apple as the largest contributor to Webkit.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (0)

LordLucless (582312) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904983)

KHTML/Safari/Chrome/Opera

Eh? While KHTML is a common root, Safari and Chrome aren't exactly the same render engine, and Opera's entirely different.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905005)

Um, they all use Webkit, and Opera is no longer entirely different. There are now three major rendering engines: Webkit, Gecko and Trident/IE.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (0)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906295)

And opera doesn't use either of the three engines you mention.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906349)

Spoke too soon.. damn.

Re:Danger! Danger Will Robinson! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906541)

FYI: "either" implies "two". You want to use "any" here.

It's a good start, but... (4, Insightful)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904805)

Let's hope companies also stop mandating the use of Shockwave and JavaScript, or at least let me use the web site without having to completely disable NoScript.

Re:It's a good start, but... (3, Insightful)

Urd.Yggdrasil (1127899) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904903)

Shockwave hasn't been used much for a quite a while, unless you are referring to flash (but hopefully html video will kill that eventuall). Javascript on the other hand is going to be around for quite a while, what we are more likely to see will be things like signed javascript or some other security mechanism like that added to it.

Re:It's a good start, but... (5, Insightful)

steelfood (895457) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905105)

I rather they do use Flash and Shockwave than put everything in HTML5. Then I would have even more trouble disabling everything.

Re:It's a good start, but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905123)

Let's hope companies also stop mandating the use of Shockwave and JavaScript, or at least let me use the web site without having to completely disable NoScript.

What's wrong with JavaScript? And what would you use instead?

Re:It's a good start, but... (0)

Ichijo (607641) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905215)

JavaScript is insecure and violates privacy. CSS can handle some of the eye candy that JavaScript is currently used for. Web forms ultimately need to be validated on the server side, so client-side validation isn't 100% necessary.

There are cases where there's just no substitute for JavaScript. It should only be used in those cases.

Re:It's a good start, but... (4, Insightful)

casab1anca (1304953) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905857)

Web forms ultimately need to be validated on the server side, so client-side validation isn't 100% necessary.

Server-side and client-side validation serve different purposes. Server-side validation is important for security reasons, but client-side validation provides for a better user experience by identifying errors right away instead of waiting to submit and refresh the page.

Re:It's a good start, but... (2)

corychristison (951993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905893)

I'm a web developer and I agree with you sort of. Developers have become way too fucking dependant on JS and frameworks like jQuery, Mootools and YUI.

What I don't agree with you on is your Privacy arguement. I don't see how it causes privacy issues. You can track people without javascript.

As for security that is unfortunately an implementation issue and/or convenience tradeoff. JavaScript itself is not insecure.

Re:It's a good start, but... (3, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906423)

Developers have become way too fucking dependant on JS and frameworks like jQuery, Mootools and YUI

There is no better way for making interactive web applications than using Javascript. The only real alternatives are using proprietary platforms like Flash or Silverlight. The level of interactivity on the web that people demand these days has gone past the level you can get from reloading an HTML document every time the user clicks something or enters some text. Add in the development of WebGL for hardware accelerated 3D graphics in web browsers and some of the other fancy features of HTML5 and it's easy to see that Javascript isn't going anywhere for a while. jQuery, on the other hand, is pretty slow and should be used sparingly.

Re:It's a good start, but... (3, Insightful)

kcmastrpc (2818817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905901)

The majority of developers have moved to CSS3 for eye candy - but you can't shuffle jquery, ajax, etc. to CSS - it's not going anywhere.

Also, why shouldn't we do validation in JavaScript? You know those nifty info boxes that slide open while you're filling in a form? That happened because JavaScript did validation on it, and it probably did it before firing off an AJAX request to see if that user name was actually taken (you know, instead of sending every single character you typed to the server). Ultimately all data should be validated by the server, because that's the sane thing to do - but there is no reason give that task to the server when JavaScript (your browser) can determine if it's valid or not.

Re:It's a good start, but... (5, Informative)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906441)

JavaScript is insecure and violates privacy

Javascript is a language; it cannot violate your privacy. Security and privacy issues related to Javascript can only be application-specific issues which are introduced by the developers of said application. Javascript as a language is in no more violation of your privacy than C.

Re:It's a good start, but... (1)

pwizard2 (920421) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905239)

The last time I saw a Shockwave app was back in the late 1990s.

Re:It's a good start, but... (3, Interesting)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905399)

And it was probably the only good Shockwave app ever - Snowcraft.

Re:It's a good start, but... (2)

UltraZelda64 (2309504) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906281)

Same here, it's been a while. I admit, I actually used to like those Radiskull & Devil Doll cartoons, and a lot of the stuff on Joe Cartoon. There were also some fun games on Newgrounds like Pico's School. Flash has since engulfed Shockwave (now including Shockwave functionality) and is now mostly used for web videos... the sooner Flash is gone, the better. It's always been a pain in the ass and its Linux support sucks. And does the damn thing even run on BSD? Also, I don't even think my phone has a "real" native Flash plug-in, relying on the YouTube "app" or a standard video player to play flash video around the web.

Re:It's a good start, but... (4, Insightful)

kcmastrpc (2818817) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905849)

no thanks. as a professional web developer I often have to let my clients know that to "do that fancy ajax stuff" I need to use JavaScript, and if they want to retain compatibility with non-JavaScript browsers then it will cost them significantly more for their project. i then show them how their favorite sites like amazon, ebay, etc. will simply refuse to work without JavaScript enabled and they opt to still use JavaScript but refuse to support non-JS browsers.

If you did any sort of serious web development you'd also know how time consuming it is to include support for no-script crap.

Re:It's a good start, but... (2)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906407)

Agreed here... why should I burden my server with a full page refresh just to display an error on one single field? For that matter a lot of things are more effective having rendered templates client-side... you can definitely use a mix. JS is very fast and capable.. why not use a little of the client browser's resources and save the server a bit.. it leads to better scaling.

As a bonus, with the rise of tools like NodeJS and MongoDB, you can leverage JS much more broadly, and not have to completely switch contexts going from client side code to server-side. Regularly working in 3-5 languages on a project is cumbersome... JS is necessary on the browser... anything else is constrictive, I feel that way about CoffeeScript to some extent as well. Other cross-compilers to JS are too difficult to debug.

Re:It's a good start, but... (4, Insightful)

HaZardman27 (1521119) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906469)

This. The percentage of web users who are running non-JS browsers or have JS disabled is small enough not to matter for the people funding web development. As a developer, the best you can do, particularly in a project involving AJAX, is to have RESTful web services that allow a clever enough user to get the information they need without Javascript running, even if the site is as ugly as hell. They may have to parse some JSON or XML on their own, but that's their problem if they don't feel comfortable with their browsing executing JS.

first post (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904839)

First post!

Re:first post (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905487)

It horribly violates the standard if first post is not first.

I call BS (2)

jeromio (99753) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904853)

Try finding a merchant account with a bank (not a new fangled Web 3.0 deal like Square) that doesn't specifically write their "web" app to specifically *only* work with IE on Windows. There are lots of other examples of extranet "applications" that are written w/ MS libraries that depend on IE .It's frustrating and depressing.

Re:I call BS (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904943)

Try finding a merchant account with a bank (not a new fangled Web 3.0 deal like Square) that doesn't specifically write their "web" app to specifically *only* work with IE on Windows.

Done.

In fact, none of the (Australian) banks I've used in the past few years has had that requirement. Does the US work differently?

Re:I call BS (1)

dakohli (1442929) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905041)

Ditto for Canada

Scotiabank mandates a certain minimum browser, but I do most of my banking on Scotiabank with Linux/Firefox

Re:I call BS (3, Informative)

denmarkw00t (892627) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905089)

No, and I'm not sure where he's from - I live in the US and none of the banks I've used in the last maybe 5 years have mandated IE 6 - at least not to the public. I worked for Big Ol' Bank for a spat and, up until recently, IE6 was the "must be compatible with" browser of choice, although not the only that we could use. So, our internal sites worked great on modern browsers, and maintained functionality in IE6 thanks to some good JS libraries and sacrificing some data-intensive tasks for people who couldn't get clearance to download a new browser. They've since done a push to install Windows 7 across the enterprise, but who knows when that will be done.

Re:I call BS (1)

jeromio (99753) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905559)

Im talking about MERCHANT ACCOUNTS. For processing credit card transactions.

Re:I call BS (1)

aztracker1 (702135) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906433)

Dunno, nobody in my company uses anything less than IE9, Chrome or Firefox... The accounting guys seem to be able to get to the merchant accounts just fine.

Re:I call BS (1)

brisk0 (2644101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905327)

Westpac Requires IE with Windows for their 'balance sheet'. Given that I don't have either of those, I have no idea what this service does as I can still transfer funds and view my transaction history just fine.

Re:I call BS (1)

thediv17 (2839847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905427)

Bankwest and Tyro in Australia work fine with any browser. Although some ANZ accounts apparently need IE

Re:I call BS (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906609)

Although some ANZ accounts apparently need IE

I've always been able to use FF/Linux with my ANZ account since I opened it (2004).

Mod parent up (3, Interesting)

tlambert (566799) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905921)

There is in fact legislation in Korea requiring the use of an ActiveX control as an anti-Phishing measure, and there has been since the 1990's, in order to implement the SEED encryption algorithm in a captive frame; here is a report on it: http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120507/12295718818/south-korea-still-paying-price-embracing-internet-explorer-decade-ago.shtml [techdirt.com]

Similarly, Chinese banks implement an alternate ("software clipper chip") asymmetric key encryption, also in a captive browser frame.

The software that initially implemented this was developed in Germany, and there are a number of major banks all over the world which require ActiveX controls to implement secure banking. This is why if you search for "banking activex firefox" or "banking activex safari" or "banking activex opera", you will see lively discussioms with people bitching about not being able to do banking.

Now, there have been several researchers who have published exploits, which indicate, that it's possible to attck through the ActiveX control, and therefore this type of thing in reality provides no security any longer. But moving a bank or a government is like trying to move a mountain.

Before you fault them, realize that when you are logging into your Google account, you are also doing so in a captive browser frame -- which is why there aren't programmatic ways to log into Google accounts.

Re:Mod parent up (1)

foniksonik (573572) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906943)

So how do I log in to my google accounts through iOS apps, pop mail in a client, etc?

Gmail in the browser used an iframe buffer for pseudo Ajax (not sure about now) both because it was easier for cross browser at the time and faster/more reliable. That's not the same as what you are stating though.

I call shenanigans.

Re:I call BS (1)

Bombcar (16057) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906591)

https://stripe.com/ [stripe.com] ?

popularity of mobile (-1)

Trax3001BBS (2368736) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904861)

Mobile usage being up is my reasoning to why Win8 RT was released;
so people could go from their computer to their (windows) phone and
have the same interface. People like my Mom would see the sense in
this, as she still has no clue where her Email is (stored).

It's a bold move but I wouldn't bemoan the fact a bad browser isn't
being used anymore; but that WinRT could very well be an mobile OS in
your future.

Re:popularity of mobile (3, Interesting)

happymellon (927696) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906499)

I seriously doubt it. WinRT is a horrible mobile OS, maybe with WinRT +1, but it's current incarnation has enough loose ends to make Gnome 3 look polished.

Venerated? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904869)

Uhhh... what

lockin, not standardization (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904885)

It's not standardization to use features that require the use of a specific browser. IE standardization would mean that IE implemented the HTML standards completely and correctly, not that companies forced you to use a certain browser by putting non-standard HTML features into their web pages.

Almost dead enough (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904891)

IE 6 won't go away any time soon, the same way Windows 3.1 [google.com] is still very much alive. I believe that the number of IE 6 clients in use on the Internet (excluding China) is too low to bother. IE 6 is almost dead. Move on.

Ooh, nice word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904915)

"Heterodox"

So hard to work into a sentence, but such a nice word. My favorite is "schemata".

Re:Ooh, nice word (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905245)

Is there homodox?

Re:Ooh, nice word (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905519)

Is there homodox?

No, the antonym is "orthodox".

Re:Ooh, nice word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906137)

Then you're an orthosexual?

Re:Ooh, nice word (1)

dido (9125) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905423)

It's also the wrong word to be using in the context, and is completely nonsensical if taken in its strict meaning. The correct word is 'heterogeneous'. 'Heterodox' refers to doctrines or opinions that strictly deviate from orthodox teachings in a religion or system of belief, but not sufficiently enough to be branded as heresy.

Heterodox economists (1)

manu0601 (2221348) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905425)

I have been seen "heterodox" for a while about heterodox economists [wikipedia.org] , which are the ones that say neoliberalism is a failure, euro was badly engineered and cannot work, banks too big to fail should all be nationalized, some part of public debt should not be honored, and other insightful things ...

Not "venerable" (3, Insightful)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904927)

I don't believe IE ever deserved to be called venerable [merriam-webster.com] .

Re:Not "venerable" (1)

multimediavt (965608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904977)

Damn! Beat me by five minutes! But, yes, its been despised for as long as I can remember, and I've been hand coding HTML since 1993.

Re:Not "venerable" (3, Insightful)

sdnoob (917382) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905191)

one of the definitions is.....

impressive by reason of age

how many other single versions of a web browser have had as long a supported lifespan as ie6?

12 years 7 months and 15 days between rtm (24 aug 2001) and xp eol (8 apr 2014).

as much as you and i, and pretty much everybody else, may dislike ie6, that IS impressive.

Re:Not "venerable" (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906595)

Trivia: MS support lifecycle always rounds dates to the nearest quarter. I still remember when XP was to enter extended support on December 31, 2006.

Re:Not "venerable" (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906613)

And BTW, even IE *5.01* on Win2000 was supported until July 2010 like Win2000 itself.

Re:Not "venerable" (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906657)

And don't forget Server 2003 which actually ends support in July 2015.

Re:Not "venerable" (1)

garyebickford (222422) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905623)

That would be 'venerable' as in 'having the characteristics of a venerial disease'?

Evidence: It is contracted as a reault of poor hygienic practices, is endemic among the poorly educated and areas of poor sanitation, it itches where you can't scratch, and may cause brain damage if left untreated.

Re:Not "venerable" (2)

prasadsurve (665770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906947)

I don't believe IE ever deserved to be called venerable [merriam-webster.com] .

venerable: No

venereal [merriam-webster.com] : Maybe

5 Browser Compatibility Projects in 3 years (3, Interesting)

DontLickJesus (1141027) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904937)

All of them specifically to convert IE only sites to support at least Firefox, Chrome, & IE. A few of them even specifically listed Safari. We may not have seen the cusp of the wave, but companies have definitely heard the message loud and clear, and are responding appropriately.

Modern Apps needing IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42904961)

You must not use Eclipse time tracking . Even the newest versions require both IE & Silverlight .. to fill out a spreadsheet of your hours.
I don't support they think people have Apple Macs or Android devices.

Solution Q – Eclipse PPM

Venerable? (3)

multimediavt (965608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904967)

I can't say when there was a time when "venerable" would describe Internet Explorer. It's pretty much been despised its whole existence.

Re:Venerable? (1)

cffrost (885375) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905103)

I can't say when there was a time when "venerable" would describe Internet Explorer. It's pretty much been despised its whole existence.

I'm guessing it was used sarcastically.

Re:Venerable? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905109)

It was a typo. They meant to write 'vulnerable'.

Re:Venerable? (2)

grcumb (781340) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905629)

It was a typo. They meant to write 'vulnerable'.

I thought it was an autocorrect of 'venerial'.

Re:Venerable? (1)

exomondo (1725132) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905669)

I can't say when there was a time when "venerable" would describe Internet Explorer. It's pretty much been despised its whole existence.

It's not any good by today's standards, or even those of 5 years ago, but let's not pretend the alternatives were any better, back then given the choice you wrote for IE6 not Netscape 4. We'd be in the same position of ass-backwards browser-specific hacks for NS4 had it been Netscape that won over IE.

Re:Venerable? (1)

yuhong (1378501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906669)

Yea, it is unfortunate that Netscape 5 "Mariner" was cancelled.

Nowadays IE is annoying (2)

lucm (889690) | about a year and a half ago | (#42904999)

Today a client of mine bought a subscription to a web application (SaaS) and because they have Windows 8 workstations (IE10 built-in) they had to install Firefox, otherwise the web application would not work.

In the last two versions or so of IE, Microsoft has taken a path of enforcing things prematurely. IE is the only browser where jQuery post is not working, and they also force CORS down the throat while many applications are built on jsonp solutions.

I remember a long time ago where workarounds in CSS were mostly for Netscape. Now it's almost always for IE.

Re:Nowadays IE is annoying (4, Informative)

ahabswhale (1189519) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905201)

Query post works in IE, it's just that IE was written by retards and will actually do something no browser written by intelligent humans would ever do: cache Ajax POST calls. Yes, they actually treat POSTs like they are fucking idempotent calls. I shit you not. I assume this was in some misguided attempt to make up for the shitty performance of their browser. This caused a problem in a web app we wrote and it took a while to figure out because it never occurred to us that any browser could be this fucking stupid, but IE managed to exceed our expectations. jQuery has built in cache busting for ajax calls but it only works for GET calls, so we had to add in our own to resolve it.

I have not checked to see if this is something that has been resolved in recent iterations of IE (9 or 10).

Re:Nowadays IE is annoying (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905465)

I thought it only happened in Safari on iOS: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12506897/is-safari-on-ios-6-caching-ajax-results

Re:Nowadays IE is annoying (1)

corychristison (951993) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905959)

I just experienced this issue today. Not jQuery, it was a regular XHR request.

My work around was to force no-cache and way past expiry dates in the HTTP return headers.

This was IE 8 or 9 on Win 7. (I don't know which version. I only boot it up in VirtualBox when someone complains)

Gartner Doesn't See Internal Apps (5, Insightful)

guttentag (313541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905177)

For every business that Gartner "knows" is dropping IE standardization, there are 100 it doesn't know about who are continuing to mandate IE use because they bought some legacy Web-based app that is only used internally, and the people who wrote that app were too lazy or incompetent to write it in actual HTML (as opposed to "we played with it until it worked in this browser, so this is what your users must use").

My favorite example of a web-app developer who knew virtually nothing about HTML but shipped what "worked" had every single element on the page absolute-positioned with CSS. What looked like a simple table of 30 rows of data on the screen was actually hundreds of DIVs that had been rendered on the fly by the server with absolute position coordinates for each one. Even INPUT elements that were invisible had absolute positions calculated for them. Every time someone loaded a page, the server would calculate the offset for each "cell" in the table so it would look like a table, and for dozens of invisible form elements so they wouldn't collide with the table. The billion-dollar non-tech company that bought this couldn't figure out why the server frequently became unresponsive... They actually bought a second server from the developer and a load balancer to get around the fact that the developer didn't understand basic HTML, and have been using the app for 7 years. When I explained the problem to them, they reasoned that it would cost them more to ask the developer to do it properly that to just add additional servers as needed. They will probably be using it for the next 20 years. And the login page states that it requires IE.

Often this type of app lives on an internal server that will never be updated because the company doesn't want to pay for something that works well enough, but serves some essential purpose that hundreds or thousands of employees are required to use daily. IE standardization will die out in consumer applications long before it goes away in businesses. Microsoft knew this is how most businesses approach computers, and it's the reason the Windows/Office/IE monopoly was so successful. It's the reason Microsoft is still successful despite the Ballmer decade.

Re:Gartner Doesn't See Internal Apps (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905811)

My favorite example of a web-app developer who knew virtually nothing about HTML but shipped what "worked" had every single element on the page absolute-positioned with CSS. What looked like a simple table of 30 rows of data on the screen was actually hundreds of DIVs that had been rendered on the fly by the server with absolute position coordinates for each one. Even INPUT elements that were invisible had absolute positions calculated for them. Every time someone loaded a page, the server would calculate the offset for each "cell" in the table so it would look like a table, and for dozens of invisible form elements so they wouldn't collide with the table. The billion-dollar non-tech company that bought this couldn't figure out why the server frequently became unresponsive... They actually bought a second server from the developer and a load balancer to get around the fact that the developer didn't understand basic HTML, and have been using the app for 7 years. When I explained the problem to them, they reasoned that it would cost them more to ask the developer to do it properly that to just add additional servers as needed. They will probably be using it for the next 20 years. And the login page states that it requires IE.

Wow, I hope they did not pay you for the explanation because your description of the problem and your resolution is way off base. While I can't speak about the quality of code that was provided to this company. I can tell you that crappy HTML/CSS layouts that renders slowly in the browser has no impact on the server. This is because HTML/CSS is rendered on the client system NOT the server. Yeap, that's right, your browser is responsible for how the page looks, and that is handled by resources on your pc. Maybe what is happening here, and what I think is more plausible using your explanation of the issue, is that the data that is being served to the browser is a result from a database query served up by a server side script and it is the query that is slow and thus, needing an additional server with load balancing.

Re:Gartner Doesn't See Internal Apps (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906647)

Read carefully. The absolute positions of elements were dynamically calculated and the CSS generated on the fly. The calculations were done server-side, hence the slow down.

Re:Gartner Doesn't See Internal Apps (2)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906667)

Hello, you seem to have missed the bit where the page was made up of hundreds of absolutely-positioned DIV tags, the co-ordinates for which were calculated at runtime on the server.

Now, take a deep breath, count to 10, then try again.

Re:Gartner Doesn't See Internal Apps (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905859)

Ouch. I work for a small medical company found in the same dilemma. Application will forever be in quirks mode... Too expensive to change.

Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905261)

The best solution to a broken, fragmented web environment is even less standardization and even more broken stuff!

Great work out there guys!

Re:Excellent! (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906683)

That's not even worthy of a troll mod.

What about the real standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42905375)

I wonder how many webpages are being validated with W3C validators to make sure the pages conform to W3C standards nowadays. I have seen many websites having animation, graphics and all fancy stuff written in HTML(5)/ CSS/ JavaScript, but sometimes those websites don't load properly in some browsers (not only IE, but sometimes also in Opera). Whenever I check those websites using W3C validators (to check the HTML document and CSS), many of them would fail.

Not to mention that many websites have began using vendor-specific features (i.e. -webkit-*). I'm not sure if it is a good sign and a good time to celebrate (?) just because people are moving away from IE "standards" (to WebKit "standards").

Re:What about the real standards? (1)

sensationull (889870) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906355)

"Not to mention that many websites have began using vendor-specific features (i.e. -webkit-*). I'm not sure if it is a good sign and a good time to celebrate (?) just because people are moving away from IE "standards" (to WebKit "standards")."

+1 they are just exchanging one master for another and its the users that get shafted because of the developers arrogance or stupidity.

Re:What about the real standards? (1)

Bing Tsher E (943915) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906659)

People who mark up content with HTML are not 'developers.'

Generally, if they think of themselves as 'developers,' they're just people who slow down delivery of the content that matters. Which is text, images, sometimes audio and video.

Looks like good news (3, Insightful)

Alex Vulpes (2836855) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905413)

Mass Defections from IE? Steam for Linux? This will be the year of... no wait someone says that every year.

So instead: this is hopefully a sign that, in the world of computing, monopolistic practices will give way to healthy competition.

There we are, tentative but hopeful!

Re:Looks like good news (1)

garyebickford (222422) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905805)

As a putative armchair economist, I have to say 'good luck with that'. The conflict between those who want to monopolize, those who want everyone to be a proletarian, and those who want a dynamic, chaotic, organic garden will never end.

Free enterprise, free politics and ecosystems all have the characteristic some call "The Edge of Chaos" (there's a book. Some disagree with the principle, but it's a useful model) - that confusing, frustrating, infinitely complex, most adaptable and ever-changing middle ground between one guy rules and nobody rules.

Re:Looks like good news (1)

Lotana (842533) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906475)

So why don't we all just roll over and die?!

Slashdot these days is so extremely cynical. It has been said that behind every cynic is a disappointed idealist. Things will never be perfect and not everything we want will come true. But just for a moment put the pessimism on hold and just let yourself be happy with the good news.

Because reporting of good news on this site is so extremely rare...

Gratifying (4, Insightful)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905461)

Nice to see that typical snide attitude of "but our site is certified for IE 6, so use it" that was so common among web developers getting its comeuppance by the CEO's latest smartphone. I would have given a dollar to be there every time one of them was told to his face that his site needed to become cross-platform, and pronto. I can only imagine the weeping and gnashing of teeth as the web developer fearfully installed Firefox and Opera and began to learn that awful vocabulary "cross-platform".

Sad, isn't it? (5, Insightful)

inode_buddha (576844) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905589)

Sad, isn't it? People are *still* talking about standardizing on browsers instead of enforcing adherence to standardized markup languages.

Re:Sad, isn't it? (1)

Red_Chaos1 (95148) | about a year and a half ago | (#42906593)

I agree whole-heartedly, and have for a long time.

All the newer IBM training courses... (2)

funwithBSD (245349) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905631)

Require Firefox or Chrome, but will not run on IE.

Of course, they are really pushing the Linux Desktop as well, they had a program recently where if you had an older laptop you could get a newer one if you went with a Linux based system.

Not my company (1)

gander666 (723553) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905651)

IE is alive and well, and in fact our Oracle BI suite ONLY works in IE (how wack is that?!?!?)

Wish I could believe this, but it is too soon to declare victory.

Re:Not my company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906293)

You work for Dice I take it...

Re:Not my company (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906759)

You work for Dice I take it...

Or maybe Oracle. Some of the internal systems require IE and refuse to load pages (FLAT fucking HTML pages FFS!!) for anything else. It can be bypassed by forging the UA string, but it's still a pain.

XP means FF (1)

nicoleb_x (1571029) | about a year and a half ago | (#42905779)

I help a company who's IT guy likes XP. They use Firefox and I can't really blame them. I'm more than happy to test with FF1X but IE 6,7 or 8 is not on my radar.

Yuo Fail it.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906885)

the next step... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42906891)

The next step is to now reduce reliance on the Microsoft stack completely.....

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>