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!

Next IE Version Will Feature Web Audio, Media Capture, ES6 Promises, and HTTP/2

timothy posted about 4 months ago | from the loyal-opposition dept.

Internet Explorer 173

An anonymous reader writes "Microsoft [Wednesday] announced it is developing at least four new features for the next release of Internet Explorer (IE): Web Audio API, Media Capture and Streams, ES6 Promises, and HTTP/2. The company says this is not an exhaustive list of what to expect in the next version, but merely what it is currently confident that it will be able to deliver. For those who don't know, HTTP/2 is a faster protocol for transporting Web content. It is based on Google's SPDY open networking protocol and is currently being standardized by the IETF. Web Audio is a JavaScript API for processing and synthesizing audio in Web applications while Media Capture provides access to the user's local audio and video input/output devices. Promises is meant to help developers write cleaner asynchronous code."

cancel ×

173 comments

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

all i really want from IE (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119431)

is to be standards compliant so i don't have to write my html/css/js to work on everything else, then modify it to also work with IE. years after the nightmares of IE6 and 7, i still have to troubleshoot IE more than any other browser.

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119551)

Yay! When they release the next version they'll only be one year behind all the other browsers!

Re:all i really want from IE (2)

Dracos (107777) | about 4 months ago | (#47119723)

LOL, not even close. No version of IE has ever had 100% support for any web standard, not even HTML 1.0

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

marsu_k (701360) | about 4 months ago | (#47119789)

You're not quite right, wasn't it when CSS 2.1 was released that MS was bragging that they're fully compliant?

Although, CSS 2.1 was actually a subset of 2.0.

Re:all i really want from IE (3, Insightful)

Dracos (107777) | about 4 months ago | (#47120001)

MS can brag about whatever, whenever they want, but IE's standards support has always been abysmal. I believe the hype you're talking about accompanied IE9, and everyone laughed at it.

Re:all i really want from IE (2)

marsu_k (701360) | about 4 months ago | (#47120069)

I guess the Internet ate my <sarcasm>-tag - I laughed as well at the time, and still as a web developer IE gives me the most headaches. I just found it amusing at the time that they were so proud that they're able to support a subset of a standard that had been around for quite some time. Oh well, at least with IE6 finally out of the picture (or rather, I don't have to support it), my job is a little bit easier.

Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47119635)

Microsoft stops porting new versions of IE to a Windows version for which "mainstream support" has ended, which happens roughly two years after the following major version of Windows comes out. After that, all users get is "extended support", which means five years of security updates for the existing versions of IE. So if any of your users use Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, you're stuck on IE 9. And if IE 12 doesn't come out before January of next year [microsoft.com] , Windows 7 users will be stuck on IE 11.

Re:Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119691)

IE has been fairly standards compliant since 10. So, congratulations! They finally released it awhile ago!

Re:Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120183)

IE has been fairly standards compliant since 10.

Which was released after mainstream support for Windows Vista had ended. Therefore, Windows Vista users and Windows XP users didn't get to run IE 10. Because Windows XP was still in wide use, web developers had to target the most recent version of IE available for Windows XP.

Re:Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (1)

Ash Vince (602485) | about 4 months ago | (#47120769)

IE has been fairly standards compliant since 10.

Which was released after mainstream support for Windows Vista had ended. Therefore, Windows Vista users and Windows XP users didn't get to run IE 10. Because Windows XP was still in wide use, web developers had to target the most recent version of IE available for Windows XP.

Anyone running Vista has bigger problems than not getting IE 10 :)

Re:Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120337)

. So if any of your users use Internet Explorer on Windows Vista, you're stuck on IE 9. And if IE 12 doesn't come out before January of next year [microsoft.com] , Windows 7 users will be stuck on IE 11.

You are not stuck if you don't use IE.

Re:Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120447)

You aren't stuck if you own your own desktop or laptop computer and pay for your own Internet connection. But you are stuck if the employer, public library IT administrator, or head of household is unwilling to install anything other than IE, or if you are using a Windows Phone 7 device (which doesn't allow third-party apps written in anything but C#).

Re:Downlevel IE because of downlevel Windows (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 4 months ago | (#47120357)

Windows 8 only wouldn't be a bad thing. That would allow IE 12 to have lots of touch based features or dual touch / mouse features that Windows 7 doesn't support. That would allow Windows to lead the move towards dual mode (keyboard + touch, mouse + touch + keyboard)... type sites the same way Apple led for retina.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119651)

is to be standards compliant so i don't have to write my html/css/js to work on everything else, then modify it to also work with IE. years after the nightmares of IE6 and 7, i still have to troubleshoot IE more than any other browser.

It is already as standards compliant as the other major browsers. I have noticed that slashdotters are so immersed into the Linux world that their information regarding what is happening in Windows world is often horribly outdated.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47119881)

I can download the latest Safari, Chrome, Opera and Firefox for my Mac to test my code.

But I'm stuck at IE7 because the latest IE versions would require a 100$+ Windows license.

Microsoft would help themselves if they released free VM images of the latest Windows that's limited to running their browsers.

Re:all i really want from IE (5, Informative)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 4 months ago | (#47119937)

Microsoft would help themselves if they released free VM images of the latest Windows that's limited to running their browsers.

They do.

http://modern.ie/en-gb/virtual... [modern.ie]

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120339)

Microsoft would help themselves if they released free VM images of the latest Windows that's limited to running their browsers.

They do.

http://modern.ie/en-gb/virtual... [modern.ie]

Also this tool: http://modern.ie/en-us/tools [modern.ie]

btw.. OP including Safari in this argument against IE is pretty ironic, since it requires developers to buy a Mac..

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120475)

Safari for windows has been available for ages

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120643)

Safari for windows has been available for ages

Apple announced the end of further development of Safari for Windows several years ago, and the last version available is way out of sync with the OSX and IOS versions. It is a very poor choice for testing your Safari compatibility when all the Mac users who visit your site will be using a very different version.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#47120715)

Using 1 browser across several platforms to 'test' that browser is always a bad idea.

That's true for Safari, Chrome, Firefox, etc.

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120487)

btw. safari for windows exists. http://support.apple.com/downl... [apple.com]

btw. developers have to buy a computer, so why not a mac.

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120697)

btw. safari for windows exists. http://support.apple.com/downl... [apple.com]

btw. developers have to buy a computer, so why not a mac.

Did you look at the release date for the Windows-version on your link? This version is outdated, Safari for Windows is no longer maintained and a poor choice for testing Safari compatibility today.

As for your second argument, this was in response to someone claiming the problem with IE was that you had to buy Windows to get IE compatibility (which several posters have noted is wrong)... Well, for Safari you have to buy a Mac.

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120027)

They already release VM images.

As for Safari, I can't download the latest versions to my PC. Have to use a crappy iPad to test my webpages, but web Safari and iPad Safari ain't quite the same.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

freezin fat guy (713417) | about 4 months ago | (#47120065)

This is also a good reminder that anyone can have a modern web browser.

Now that browsers are auto-updating this is a good time for us as developers to weed out all the non-updating browsers. I've not been a big fan of browser exclusion but after waiting so many years for all the garbage versions of IE to die (<= IE 10) I've become a grumpy old man. You can have notices appear when an outdated browser is found and link the user to a better life. e.g. http://browser-update.org/ [browser-update.org]

If someone actually prefers to be left out, that should not hold everyone else back anymore.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120669)

And yet, you have completely left out all the corporate users visiting your website. You know, those who are stuck with the lower versions of IE due to either in-house webapps or manufacturer-provided webapps that never work right when updated to the latest IE?

By injecting this code into your websites, you add a lot more load onto the IT support staff trying to calm uneducated users.

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120849)

Good.

Re:all i really want from IE (2)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120111)

It's even more expensive to test on Safari because that would require a $599 OS X license (which happens to come with an included computer).

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120529)

And how many (paid) developer spend less than that on their computer?

So why not a Mac?

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120571)

Because they bought the computer before having learned of the Safari testing requirement. Or because they're hobbyists using the computer they already have.

Re:all i really want from IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120767)

If you can't afford the $600 computer, it's not really a requirement.

And lots of hobbyists are on Macs.

Re:all i really want from IE (2)

armanox (826486) | about 4 months ago | (#47120597)

So do what I do and buy your Apple products second hand? My 2006 MBP ($200 when I bought it) is still my main laptop, and I have a white MacBook at home for testing purposes (since Apple killed off 32bit support on newer OS X) that was also 200.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119767)

All I really want from IE is the ability to download Firefox/Chrome/etc.

Re:all i really want from IE (1)

lecithin (745575) | about 4 months ago | (#47119809)

You don't need it. FTP is your friend.

ftp.mozilla.org not for high-traffic files (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120059)

Since when? I thought releases.mozilla.org supported only HTTP and HTTPS, and ftp.mozilla.org wasn't for anonymous downloads of high-traffic release files according to its MOTD. The alternative is to use someone else's desktop computer or perhaps your Android device to download the Firefox installer.

slashdot random script injection (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119435)

I've seen two pages now where a textarea was apparently randomly incorrectly injected (the command starts mid-tag?) into the site using javascript:
document.write(decodeURIComponent("role%3D%22form%22%3E%3Ctextarea%20name%3D%22cx%2Fadtag%22%20rows%3D%225%22%3E%3C!--%20%20Begin%20Rubicon%20Project%20Tag%20--%3E%0A%3C!--%20%20Site%3A%20SlashDot%20%20%20Zone%3A%20SlashDot_Tier1%20%20%20Size%3A%20Leaderboard%20%20--%3E%0A%3Cscript%20language%3D%22JavaScript%22%20type%3D%22text%2Fjavascript%22%3E%0Arp_account%20%20%20%3D%20'10840'%3B%0Arp_site%20%20%20%20%20%20%3D%20'35246'%3B%0Arp_zonesize%20%20%3D%20'146692-2'%3B%0Arp_adtype%20%20%20%20%3D%20'js'%3B%0Arp_smartfile%20%3D%20'%5BSMART%20FILE%20URL%5D'%3B%0A%3C%2Fscript%3E%0A%3Cscript%20type%3D%22text%2Fjavascript%22%20src%3D%22http%3A%2F%2Fads.rubiconproject.com%2Fad%2F10840.js%22%3E%3C%2Fscript%3E%0A%3C!--%20%20End%20Rubicon%20Project%20Tag%20--%3E"))

Malicious attack? Or just stupidity? Hard to say!

Re:slashdot random script injection (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47119695)

There is also a bug where the <i> tags in a user's comment history page are switched to <blockquote> tags for some strange reason.

Re:slashdot random script injection (1)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47119895)

<i> tags should be converted into <em> tags anyway. The Slashdot coders are stuck in 2004.

em vs. i vs. blockquote (2)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120019)

The <em> element [w3.org] is for "emphatic stress". The <i> element [w3.org] is for other types of unemphasized "offset text" (or "text in an alternate voice" as this explanation [html5doctor.com] puts it), such as foreign language loan phrases, technical terms being defined, taxonomic names including a genus (roadrunner, Geococcyx californianus; coyote, Canis latrans), and the like. A long time ago (pre-D2), Slashdot's stylesheet added excessive side margins for the <blockquote> element. To work around this, some users got in the habit of putting quoted lines in an alternate voice (<i>) rather than using a block quotation. I seem to remember having switched my own posting style from <i> quoting to <blockquote> quoting soon after D2's introduction.

Faster First Posts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119489)

With HTTP/2

Re:Faster First Posts (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119525)

You should have upgraded to this newer version of IE.

lol? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119503)

Not april 1.

I can't wait.... (5, Funny)

Kenja (541830) | about 4 months ago | (#47119513)

to not use it.

Re:I can't wait.... (1)

hoboroadie (1726896) | about 4 months ago | (#47119717)

I can wait.
I don't think I've tried IE since 2009; I've heard it works now, don't care, done with the abuse.

Re:I can't wait.... (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 4 months ago | (#47119959)

IE won the browser war, but failed to meet the objectives.

During the 1990's that big browser war between IE and Firefox, Millions of dollars pushed to a free (as in beer) web browser, so they can obtain dominance, and use this dominance to push their standards, to keep people locked in.

Microsoft won the war... However they never got a food hold on pushing the standards, the Web Standards seemed to move around them, not threw them.
Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had became a major security problem, thus only used by poorly designed intranet apps. Then when AJAX+CSS 2 became popular and implemented for all other browsers it came to a point where you are better off not using IE, for your experience.

Re:I can't wait.... (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 4 months ago | (#47120045)

IE won the browser war...

Did they? All the sources I looked at say Chrome is the leader (followed by IE, then Firefox).

Re:I can't wait.... (1)

jbolden (176878) | about 4 months ago | (#47120455)

Agree with your point. But you mean Netscape. There was no Firefox then. The Mozilla project came in reaction to Netscape's collapsing marketshare.

Re:I can't wait.... (1)

Gunboat_Diplomat (3390511) | about 4 months ago | (#47120547)

IE won the browser war, but failed to meet the objectives.

During the 1990's that big browser war between IE and Firefox, Millions of dollars pushed to a free (as in beer) web browser, so they can obtain dominance, and use this dominance to push their standards, to keep people locked in.

Microsoft won the war... However they never got a food hold on pushing the standards, the Web Standards seemed to move around them, not threw them. Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had became a major security problem, thus only used by poorly designed intranet apps. Then when AJAX+CSS 2 became popular and implemented for all other browsers it came to a point where you are better off not using IE, for your experience.

During the 1990s the big browser war was between Netscape and IE, and by version 3 and 4 IE became the better browser of the two (yes, hard as that is to believe today), and Netscape was even worse in pushing their own standards.

ActiveX was a killer feature for developers of the day, that is why it was adopted so much, which later bit everyone in the ass -- and there is a learning here for today's developers that can't wait to implement non-standardized vendor specific prefix functions in production sites because of the nice functionality they offer..

I agree with you that IE then really fell behind other browsers in the age of modern AJAX and CSS web sites, which is quite ironic given that Microsoft actually invented the basis for AJAX (with XMLHttpRequest). But not very surprising, as they actually disbanded their IE team. They are catching up quite nicely now from IE11 and onward though, which is a good thing for the web and web developers.

Re:I can't wait.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120807)

jellomizer wrote (emphasis mine):

Things like Active X which was suppose to be the killer feature in IE, had became a major security problem, thus only used by poorly designed intranet apps.

Really? I have had very bad experience with Bank of China's website. Initially when I created an account, their website works fine, even in other browsers. Just regular text input/password input boxes for their log in page. Recently, they decided to add two-factor authentication and "secure" password submission by adding ActiveX for their password input box. You heard me right: Their password input box is an ActiveX element [ebsnew.boc.cn] . It is not just limited to intranet apps.

Ever since then, up to the day I cancelled my account, I have never been able to log in properly, even in IE.

No way ... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 4 months ago | (#47119519)

while Media Capture provides access to the user's local audio and video input/output devices

Unless this is 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea.

And, even if it's 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea -- because, let's face it, the security record of IE pretty much guarantees this will get hacked.

Re:No way ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119585)

Hope you are not using Google Chrome then. Microsoft continues to play catchup....

It's a pop-up (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47119667)

Unless this is 100% controlled by the user, it's a terrible idea.

The getUserMedia function [webplatform.org] requires the user to click through a prompt to start recording.

Re:It's a pop-up (0)

savuporo (658486) | about 4 months ago | (#47119933)

Right, UAC all over again !

Re:It's a pop-up (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120555)

So, you want security without any privilege escalation.

I bet you run everything, at work included, as root or administrator. Do you allow everyone to run like that?

Re:No way ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120227)

This will allow us to finally get rid of Flash for A/V chat. It's a good thing. If you (like me) don't trust Microsoft or closed source software in general, don't use their browser.

Where's... (1)

Skiron (735617) | about 4 months ago | (#47119533)

...Bill_the_engineer to troll this crap into /dev/null

SPDY HTTP/2 is perhaps not something to brag about (3, Interesting)

QilessQi (2044624) | about 4 months ago | (#47119555)

Not right now, at least, considering the very recent public discussions [theregister.co.uk] .

Re:SPDY HTTP/2 is perhaps not something to brag ab (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47119729)

Can you summarize?

Re:SPDY HTTP/2 is perhaps not something to brag ab (4, Funny)

ArcadeMan (2766669) | about 4 months ago | (#47119911)

To summarize the summary, people are a problem.

Re:SPDY HTTP/2 is perhaps not something to brag ab (2)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47119985)

Thanks.

Re:SPDY HTTP/2 is perhaps not something to brag ab (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119771)

Mandated SSL pretty much breaks all proxy servers out there unless they do MITM.

It does nothing to actually reduce page size and simplify things. In fact it make it in some cases more complex.

For example pretty much every web browser out there can only connect two times to one box. So you see tons of extra 'servers' that resolve into the same box somewhere. They alleviated some of that with mandated pipeline. But it does nothing for the middle of the page. To fix many of the shortcommings of http they should look at what the proxy guys have been going thru. Make it EASIER to and faster to proxy and by happy happenstance you make the web faster.

For example they could add in a list of server aliases. Proxy servers could then know foo.xyz is the same as 123.foo.xyz and 321.foo.xyz and abc.randomsite.com. They are fighting the biggest resource they have the local proxy copy to work around badly chosen default settings.

Also variable encoding is done thru ? on almost every page out there. Yet proxy servers have to ignore it because it may change. Instead of 'this is variable but it will never change' http codes returned. The guidelines are horrible so the proxy guys have to take poor shortcuts to get the web to look right.

We are fighting every step of the way the ability to cache data.

SPDY/HTTP2 spent a lot of time making the connection setup faster. But very little tools for the http page, server, and proxy itself.

What two connection limit? (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47119893)

For example pretty much every web browser out there can only connect two times to one box.

When was this? I thought browsers had long since given up on RFC 2616's limit of two connections per host. True, RFC 2616 says "A single-user client SHOULD NOT maintain more than 2 connections with any server or proxy." But RFC 2119 defines "SHOULD NOT" to "mean that there may exist valid reasons in particular circumstances when the particular behavior is acceptable or even useful, but the full implications should be understood and the case carefully weighed before implementing any behavior described with this label." For results of the 'careful weighing' that browser makers have done, see answers to "Max parallel http connections in a browser?" on Stack Overflow [stackoverflow.com] .

They alleviated some of that with mandated pipeline. But it does nothing for the middle of the page.

What do you mean by "middle of the page"? Even with a two-connection limit and a server that is taking a long time to render a dynamic page, the browser is allowed to use this second connection as a pipeline to retrieve resources referenced by the part of the page that has been downloaded.

the most important feature (4, Funny)

nimbius (983462) | about 4 months ago | (#47119615)

will it still be able to download Firefox and Chromium?

Re:the most important feature (1)

savuporo (658486) | about 4 months ago | (#47119969)

Failing that, PowerShell has Invoke-WebRequest which can be aliased to look like wget. Now all we need is a permanent web address that is easy and quick to type that downloads both .. say http://save.me/ [save.me]

You must be kidding (2)

Austrian Anarchy (3010653) | about 4 months ago | (#47119621)

How about they get the version that came with Win. 8 working right before moving on to bigger, better things? IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

Re:You must be kidding (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47119773)

How about they get the version that came with Win. 8 working right before moving on

I fully expect Microsoft to backport IE 12 to Windows 8.1 because Windows 8.1 will still be in mainstream support until two years after Windows 9 is out.

IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

Not everybody is as technically minded as you and I and most of the rest of Slashdot. Some people use the pack-in browser because they either A. don't know better, B. use computers owned (and locked down) by an employer, school, or public library, or C. have no choice of browser (other than IE and possibly IE wrappers) because they browse on a Windows Phone, Windows RT, or Xbox device.

Re:You must be kidding (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 4 months ago | (#47120459)

IE has been my last choice in a browser for well over a decade because almost anything else works better.

Have you tried IE in the last few years?

Web audio? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119647)

Awesome, finally we'll see a MIDI plugin for those leftover Geocities, Tripod and Angelfire websites.

IE's release model is failing (4, Informative)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47119683)

With the stupidly slow release cycles of IE, Microsoft will always play catch up with the "real" browsers.

Google Chrome had Web Audio API implemented in version 10. That was release in 2011. Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome. Same goes for Firefox, which had Web Audio implemented for even longer than Chrome, but used a different API. They've been on the same API since Firefox 25, which was released in October of last year. Since then, Mozilla has shipped another 4 versions of Firefox.

Microsoft in the meantime was only able to announce they were going to have Web Audio in their next major release. That's because since October last year (when IE11 came out), they have released a staggering *zero* versions of IE. While the rest of the world was moving forward, they were just shipping security updates. They just can't keep up like this. Every time they release a major version they're sorta on the same page again as the competition, but it's a matter of a few months and they're so way behind again it's impossible to ever compete in a serious way.

Microsoft still hasn't learned their lesson from IE6 as IE is still holding the web back. Get your act together, Microsoft. Stop slowing everyone down.

Re:IE's release model is failing (5, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about 4 months ago | (#47119837)

Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome.

And IE has been patched at least that often as well but doesn't bother incrementing the major version number every time.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47119907)

And how many new features have they introduced in those patches? None. That's the point, they're just plugging the holes in their buggy software instead of enabling developers to fully make use of new features on the web.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

MatthiasF (1853064) | about 4 months ago | (#47120203)

Why are "new features" so important to you? It is a web browser. It's not suppose to change drastically or it causes standards problems.

You know, standards problems like Chrome has caused over the last decade. Tossing out new features, only present in one browser and not officially determined to be a standard, is not helping the Internet.

If Microsoft is seen as dragging it's feet, it's because they only enact what is officially a standard. To put things in perspective, HTML5 is still not ratified with W3C yet. Internet Explorer did not roll-out HTML5 until it reached Draft Recommended status, which in my opinion is the prudent thing to do

And if you had not a history lesson of the mistakes of HTML past, numerous standards today were not allowed to be thought out because one side or another forced it down everyone's throats. Most of those poorly-thought-out and bullied standards are what are holding us back now.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47120303)

Why are "new features" so important to you? It is a web browser. It's not suppose to change drastically or it causes standards problems.

Because I want the web to be a real application platform so I can develop things that run on any device. Google and Mozilla are committed to making that a reality, but Microsoft isn't because they provide a large application platform themselves in the form of Windows.

You know, standards problems like Chrome has caused over the last decade. Tossing out new features, only present in one browser and not officially determined to be a standard, is not helping the Internet.

Then why are Chrome and Firefox more compatible with each other than Internet Explorer is with any of them?

If Microsoft is seen as dragging it's feet, it's because they only enact what is officially a standard. To put things in perspective, HTML5 is still not ratified with W3C yet. Internet Explorer did not roll-out HTML5 until it reached Draft Recommended status, which in my opinion is the prudent thing to do

That ship has long left the harbour. HTML5 is a reality and it has been for quite some time now. Whatever the W3C decides to do isn't really relevant as long as the browser vendors are on the same page. The W3C could have had a nice role in this, but they're just too slow and overly bureaucratic to keep up with what is going on in the real world.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

alexo (9335) | about 4 months ago | (#47120779)

And how many new features have they introduced in those patches?

A more interesting question is:
<firefox>How many useful features have they removed in those patches</firefox>

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119983)

Mod parent up... Chrome and Firefox's version numbering is the most stupid thing.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47120085)

It isn't stupid. Not at all. Both Google and Mozilla are taking the web serious by adding features frequently. They want to get to a point where the web could be a real viable application platform that's available on any device. Since we're still a long way from that, we need new stuff and we need it now. Microsoft however doesn't really want this to happen at all, because it means the web will make Windows obsolete. So they're stalling it for as long as they are able to. They have been since the days of IE6 and the only reason they have somewhat stepped up the pace of development on IE is because are switching to other browsers.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

alexo (9335) | about 4 months ago | (#47120815)

Mozilla [is] taking the web serious[ly] by removing features frequently

FTFY

Version 3.12.123.56 v2.2 versus Version 25 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120219)

I really like to just glance at a version number and see what it is.

It's really tedious when having to track down version problems and having to look at version number that are only different in the 5th decimal place or a sub version or something.

It's great to look at a version and see that "AH! I'm on version 25 when I need to be on 27." not "Ah! I'm on 3.12.156.23 and I need to be on 3.12.157.23. How stupid of me!"

Re:Version 3.12.123.56 v2.2 versus Version 25 (1)

alexo (9335) | about 4 months ago | (#47120867)

I really like to just glance at a version number and see what it is.

And how much information does this single number provide?

What's wrong with the commonly accepted scheme of <major>.<minor>.<patch> where:
<patch> changed - bug and/or security fixes
<minor> changed - some added features and/or minor UI changes
<major> changed - significant changes that may cause compatibility and/or workflow issues.

eh?

Re:IE's release model is failing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119873)

Looks like someone got caught up in the rapid release cycle hype. IE isn't the thing holding the web back, it's developers too proud to tell people their browser is unsupported.

Re:IE's release model is failing (4, Informative)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47120041)

It's not a hype, we need things like Web Audio API to enable the web to be a real application platform. Audio-intensive apps are simply not possible without something like what Web Audio API provides.

Firefox introduced the Audio Data API in 2010. Chrome has supported Web Audio API since 2011. Apple introduced Web Audio API support in 2012 on both Mac OS X as well as iOS. Mozilla deprecated Audio Data and supported Web Audio API since 2013. October 2013 was the point that for example a web game could support audio in Chrome, Firefox and on the iPhone/iPad. But where is Microsoft in all this? Nowhere to be found. It took them another 7 months to just announce they were going to have support for this in their _next_ version.

If that isn't a prime example of IE holding back the web I don't know what is.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120153)

It's not a hype

I think Anonymous Coward is trying to accuse developers of being "too proud to tell people" to install a different web browser when feature detection fails. Apparently not a lot of project managers would be happy with "This web application requires Web Audio. Please install Firefox or Chrome." Instead, they require to develop 14 native applications for 14 different platforms. (I can list them if you want.)

October 2013 was the point that for example a web game could support audio in Chrome, Firefox and on the iPhone/iPad.

At what sort of latency? For example, when I press the Up arrow key to jump, how long would it take before the jump noise starts coming out the speaker? One of the reason OUYA failed is that its version of the Android operating system didn't provide any way to reduce the lag between a keypress and the sound effect of what the keypress does.

Re:IE's release model is failing (1)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47120251)

At what sort of latency? For example, when I press the Up arrow key to jump, how long would it take before the jump noise starts coming out the speaker?

It would be almost instant, as Web Audio API provides a way for a web application to interact with the native audio capabilities of the host environment through the browser. There are lots of demo's on the web where you can see all sorts of applications running without any problems or hiccups, even on older systems. Even filters, reverbs, delays and all sorts of processing is possible without perceivable lag.

I think Plink is a cool example of the possibilities: http://labs.dinahmoe.com/plink... [dinahmoe.com] - it's a real-time multiplayer audio game that runs in the browser. Every player controls an instrument and together you can make "music" by changing your sound and pitch. It seems they haven't updated their code to work with Firefox yet, but since Firefox switched to the "common" Web Audio API, it's totally possible to do cross platform audio now with a single code base.

I also like this simple synthesizer a lot: http://www.femurdesign.com/the... [femurdesign.com] - it works great on a touch device, but also works in desktop browsers.

Audio latency measured (1)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120489)

I tried the theremin demo in Firefox 29.0.1 for Windows, and I noticed a delay of about 120 ms from my click to the beeping.

Re: Audio latency measured (1)

dingen (958134) | about 4 months ago | (#47120759)

It isn't very well made for Firefox, but after some initial hiccups, it's quite responsive on my system. Definately good enough for games.

Re:IE's release model is failing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120013)

While the rest of the world was moving forward, they were just shipping security updates.

At first I was ready to say this was wonderful -- it means they weren't changing the UI every six weeks! Oh, the horror, what will the UX developers do?

And then I realized the UX people weren't around to ruin IE11 because they were using their copious free time to ruin the entire operating system instead.

Nevertheless I stand by my initial point: what you consider "moving forward" is what I consider creeping featuritis.

Re:IE's release model is failing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120847)

With the stupidly slow release cycles of IE, Microsoft will always play catch up with the "real" browsers.

Google Chrome had Web Audio API implemented in version 10. That was release in 2011. Google in the meantime has shipped *25 versions* of Chrome.

TO BE FAIR... chrome "versions" are essentially patches and updates, with a significant change being infrequent.

so, in comparison, microsoft has literally shipped HUNDREDS of "versions" with all the security patches and updates through windows update.

Decade (1)

NotInHere (3654617) | about 4 months ago | (#47119713)

Hey, in about a decade a web designer can even assume that the majority of their visitors have these features!

Swiss Cheese (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119725)

Adding more bells and whistles will just make it an all the more a ripe Swiss cheese of vulnerabilities.

not this shit again! (1)

larry bagina (561269) | about 4 months ago | (#47119739)

Do you know why IE used a different DOM event model than everyone else? (attachEvent vs addEventListener, etc.) It's because they implemented an early draft and then never went back and updated it. Why should they? Their customers are locked in!

Well, HTTP 2.0 is DOM Events 2.0! IE and IIS will support HTTP 2.0 while the rest of the world scraps it (it's a turd in need of flushing) to work on HTTP 3.0.

WebGL? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119797)

Still no WebGL then? Fucking luddites.

Re:WebGL? (1)

savuporo (658486) | about 4 months ago | (#47120003)

You'll be guaranteed to have WebDirectX of some sort, and two very "popular" game publishers will immediately announce support for it for their two upcoming titles. My money is on Electronic Arts

WebGL is already part of IE (4, Informative)

tepples (727027) | about 4 months ago | (#47120099)

Re:WebGL is already part of IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120637)

IE supports some of a lot of things.

That's not a good thing.

If it gave BJs THEN I'd consider it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47119863)

Not really.

Why is asm.js not listed!? (3, Interesting)

goruka (1721094) | about 4 months ago | (#47119901)

I know it's not a "standard" (yet?) but asm.js is one of the best things that happened to web browsers. It already works well in Firefox, Chrome and Safari, yet performance in IE is much worse than in the other platforms. Given all platforms support WebGL at this point, we are pretty much only waiting for IE to adopt proper support for asm.js.

Re:Why is asm.js not listed!? (1)

UnknownSoldier (67820) | about 4 months ago | (#47120321)

As a WebGL developer I 100% concur.

GPU's have been standard for what 10 years? And only now Microsoft is supporting "Compositing and Blending in Canvas 2D", "Mix Blend Mode" now ??

They can't even alphabetize properly. The "Sort by name" is broken ! Typical Microsoft; never gets anything right until the 3rd version.

Re:Why is asm.js not listed!? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120331)

Oh god no! Then the JavaScript "engineers" will then have to put more shit in their web pages.

Yeah yeah yeah, NoScript - unfortunately, my banks' and brokers' websites won't even work without js.

I hope there's a special hell for the inventor of JavaScript. Like; he has to get anally assaulted by all the JavaScript "engineers" that belong with him. Then all those "engineers" then have to suck everyone else's dick to clean the shit off.

There's nothing more fun than having to kill Firefox because of some runaway javascript.

But hey, it wouldn't happen if those JavaScript 'engineers' actually used engineering principles instead of being hacks with an undeserved title to boost their little egos because they have engineer envy.

Since when has the title of 'programmer' become less than? When I started in this business, being a programmer was a good thing. Something to be proud of because of all the hard work and study it took.

Is it because programmer is equated with 'code monkey'?

Holy Crap! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47120121)

IE just announced every item on my 'do not want' list for their next browser release!

It's almost like they're reading my mind, and blasting audio advertisements, and monitoring my web cam, and messing with my data connections, all at the same time!

Cool Story... (1)

w-wright (3525625) | about 4 months ago | (#47120133)

But first fix all the issues with IE such as its poor support for HTML5, speed, security and the general pain in the backside the whole application is as a whole!

Feels like (2)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | about 4 months ago | (#47120821)

2011 all over again! If we're lucky we'll get this new version of IE before 2016.
MS: Where did you want to go a couple years ago?

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>