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!

Making IE Standards Compliant

CowboyNeal posted more than 10 years ago | from the clever-css-tricks dept.

Internet Explorer 582

spin2cool writes "Dean Edwards has taken it upon himself to make Internet Explorer W3C compliant. How? Well, it isn't by patching the application, as you might suspect. He's created a stylesheet, dubbed 'IE7' that uses DHTML to load and parse style sheets into a form that IE can understand. Just include the style sheet in your HTML pages, and things should render correctly. The complexity of the CSS transformations is really amazing and shows off the power of this stuff."

cancel ×

582 comments

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

Making IE Standards compliant? (4, Funny)

Zone-MR (631588) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541722)

I'm sure IE 6.05.1 will feature a small modification which happens to cause this fix to stop working. ;)

Re:Making IE Standards compliant? (1)

Outsider_99 (761534) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541784)

Its strange how that happens... isnt it?

Re:Making IE Standards compliant? (3, Funny)

Openstandards.net (614258) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541786)

I have found that the DoNotUseIE.patch file has upgraded it to 100% open standards compliance, and this cannot be overridden by any future version of IE or other Microsoft extensions.

MS releases patch to fix Security bug in IE (4, Funny)

peragrin (659227) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541838)

MS released a patch today to fix a major Security Bug in IE today. MS offcials say that a malisious hacker, is destroying websites around the world, by making them compatible with other web browsers. We at MS can abolutely not have any competion, so we are funding a $1 billion reward to the person who finds this man and breaks his even hack. We would do it ourselves but all 80,000 of our developers are busy trying to get longhorn out by 2010.

:o (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541723)

Cool.

All that's missing (4, Funny)

blirp (147278) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541727)

All that's missing now, is a stylesheet that'll close all remaining security holes... :*)

Re:All that's missing (1)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541864)

I wonder if it's possible to implement a DHTML hack for proper PNG support :)

Kudos, but... (5, Insightful)

Channard (693317) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541731)

.. it's a sad state of affairs when a developer outside of Microsoft actually ends up doing something that MS should have done themselves. So they can say 'screw it' to standards and someone else does the finger-work.

Re:Kudos, but... (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541744)

It is even a sadder state of affairs that they are a large enough company for this fix to matter, all things considered when it comes to customer service as a whole.

Re:Kudos, but... (1)

Phidoux (705500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541809)

Finger work? As in choose one?

Re:Kudos, but... (5, Insightful)

MartinG (52587) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541845)

Not really. It's perfectly natural to many of us for someone to change things to work in the way they want them to. It's a basic freedom that many of us try to protect.

What's unusual in this case is that closed proprietry software has been "changed" without access to the source.

It's not sad that someone other than Microsoft had to do it. It's sad that people other than Microsoft can't do such things a whole lot more.

(in reality, they can of course by not using closed source software, but for some it seems percieved convenience is more important than freedom, but I digress)

Re:Kudos, but... (4, Informative)

kalidasa (577403) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541914)

in reality, they can of course by not using closed source software, but for some it seems percieved convenience is more important than freedom, but I digress)

What this does is allow developers of standards-based sites, which they have under their own control, to provide a stopgap for users who don't understand the issue of standards and so haven't themselves chosen freedom. So your digression doesn't quite match the facts. As a developer, I can choose to make my site work in Mozilla and KHTML - and will - but I can't choose to force my audience to use them. With this, if it works as advertised, I can choose to follow standards and still provide some means for those who have, for whatever reasons, chosen to use a non-free browser to use my content.

Re:Kudos, but... (1)

boer (653809) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541875)

You know that's called community contribution. There's this thing called open source software which relies to this very same thing. Some like it hot.

Useful stylesheets (3, Funny)

plams (744927) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541738)

I think I'd personally be more interested in a stylesheet that redirects IE browsers to www.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] :) Or even better: crashes them.

Re:Useful stylesheets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541765)

Crashing them... is that possible? Oh wait, you said IE... nevermind :P

Re:Useful stylesheets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541769)

not a stylesheet. but it will selectively crash visiting IE users :>

<object ID="dosIE-doe" CLASSID="CLSID:00022613-0000-0000-C000-00000000004 6" ></object>

Re:Useful stylesheets (4, Funny)

Dashing Leech (688077) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541790)

Or even better: crashes them.

That doesn't require style sheets, just normal webpages.

Re:Useful stylesheets (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541857)

Or for something even more useful, how about one that keeps mozilla from crashing? (This is not meant completely as a troll - in the course a normal day I usually have to go to IE at least once to see pages that crash Mozilla)

Re:Useful stylesheets (1)

next1 (742094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541898)

are you using firefox?

that sounds more like ns 4.7 days.

Re:Useful stylesheets (0, Redundant)

kauschovar (601739) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541863)

I actually did something similar for a website I created. Using PHP, I searched for 'MSIE' in the USER_AGENT, and if found displayed an alternate HTML page which essentially said 'upgrade your browser n00blar' (I was young when I did this :P), and then listed all alternate web browsers I could think of, not just Mozilla.

Oh yeah, and at the bottom of the page it said 'Your browser will crash in 10 seconds' and of course it worked ;)

Re:Useful stylesheets (-1, Redundant)

gazbo (517111) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541938)

Oh man! That's really elite! I've never understood PHP so I would have no idea how to do this.

Re:Useful stylesheets (4, Interesting)

davetrainer (587868) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541890)

I think I'd personally be more interested in a stylesheet that . . . crashes them.
Your wait is over [webmasterworld.com] .

Re:Useful stylesheets (4, Funny)

Phidoux (705500) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541916)

Yeah! Doez enyone no off a goot spel checing stile sheet?

Re:Useful stylesheets (5, Informative)

farlukar (225243) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541934)

try this one [tudelft.nl]

Sheeesh...slashdotted already. (-1, Redundant)

vyzar (11481) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541739)

Anyone got a mirror up yet?

Re:Sheeesh...slashdotted already. (1, Funny)

mirko (198274) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541878)

Here's a cheap one... [ebay.com]
Mind you, it might not fit your home.

he went to all that trouble (-1, Offtopic)

SkunkPussy (85271) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541740)

and then hosted it on a weak server so noone will see it. what a waste

Shows the power of IE (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541741)

This will probably get modded down - but this hack really does show the power of IE that you can deploy a script fix to browser problems.

And before people start attacking ie for saying that mozilla supports xyz css and ie6 doesn't - mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was released 2+ years ago. Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released.

Great to see the css3 support though - removes the need for so hard-to-manage javascript hacks.

SharedID [sharedid.com] - Single Sign On for web applications

Re:Shows the power of IE (5, Insightful)

Nadir (805) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541778)

Fact is that IE 6 doesn't even support CSS2 properly which became a W3C recommendation in 1998.

Re:Shows the power of IE (4, Informative)

ender81b (520454) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541824)

AFAIK there is no browser available that correctly renders CSS 2.0 -- the entire spec.

IIRC Moz and Opera do render all of CSS 1.0 correctly and nearly all of CSS 2.0 correctly. But doing some advanced things with CSS 2.0 (especially doing all formatting with it, instead of old table hacks) you really run into problems with both Moz and Opera.

Re:Shows the power of IE (5, Interesting)

next1 (742094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541924)

current project i'm working on i did all css layout (ie; no tables) and had opposite experience: same code was fine in moz / opera, needed completely different version for ie5 and ie6 due to various bugs in each.

now actually reverting to tables for a lot of the layout because of it.

Re:Shows the power of IE (5, Funny)

minus9 (106327) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541785)

but this hack really does show the power of IE

The power of IE is that it's broken but it may be possible to fix it?

I have a powerful car for sale if you're interested.

Re:Shows the power of IE (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541860)

Why does every post, which starts with the statement "This will probably get modded down", "Mod me down, but..." or similar get +5 Insightful? Reverse psychology, anyone? Mod me down, but that's the truth.

Re:Shows the power of IE (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541871)

"Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released."

Isn't this the real problem? Isn't this why all microsofts products uses uncompatible versions of the real standards? Microsoft are so big, that they dont have to update there software when the real standard gets released, and it endsup with one microsoft standard, and then the real standard.

Shows the power of Open Source (5, Insightful)

fidros (8566) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541891)

> mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was
> released 2+ years ago

So, you're saying that the problem is not IE but the broken proprietry way of building softwarwe that can't can release new versions in time to answer real customer needs?

I think I agree :-)

Gilad

The site seems down? (-1, Redundant)

CVD1979 (718352) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541742)

Can anyone confirm this?

Re:The site seems down? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541755)

A link to technical content was posted on Slashdot's front page. Do you really need a confirmation?

Re:The site seems down? (-1)

-Maurice66- (728513) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541894)

... oh... site being down is just because it is running on IIS I guess.
(OR this is the actual stylesheet at work! ...generating a errormessage if not IE7 complient)

No worry though, Dean is working on a patch, ehm...no, stylesheet, for that too.

All he has to do now (5, Funny)

maroberts (15852) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541746)

Is ponder how to get over the Slashdotting of his site.

I'm sure the CSS is a work of technical art; seeing it would be even better.

Re:All he has to do now (1)

originalTMAN (694813) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541819)

I think I could write a css script for that....

Re:All he has to do now (-1)

Vint Cerf (713706) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541896)

No, I don't think you could.

Re:All he has to do now (4, Funny)

Gabrill (556503) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541862)

Umm . . . Sourceforge?

This? On Slashdot? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541748)

What the hell does Slashdot care? You're going to get a bunch of comments about how standards are great, and this story was posted, yet Slashdot maintains a piece of shit website that looks like it was coded by monkeys on meth.

Table layouts, font tags, broken and improper HTML... what the fuck. "STANDARDS ARE GOOD! YAY! But we're too fucking lazy and stupid to implement them."

Slashdot. Hypocrisy for everyone!

Gone with only 3 comments (-1, Redundant)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541749)

/.ed already, that was fast work guys, seriously, I *WAS* interested in a standards compliant browser for IE7.

Re:Gone with only 3 comments (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541771)

go fuck yourself, pompous twat

Re:Gone with only 3 comments (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541777)

on the root of the site (http://dean.edwards.name/) it says:
* This is my site
* for my personal use
* running on my machine
* in my kitchen!

jesus christ, someone create a mirror before his computer blows up from being slashdotted.

firefox (4, Informative)

selderrr (523988) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541757)

I wish someone would release such a sheet for firefox : /. itself still doen't render correctly on FFox 0.8 under XPpro. As shown here [kuleuven.ac.be] , the left column tends to dribble into the article summary...

Re:firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541773)

Renders fine for me using FireFox 0.8 @ 1600x1200

Re:firefox (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541782)

works fine for me.....

Re:firefox (1)

Urkki (668283) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541788)

I definitely second that!
Mod parent up!

Most annoying when it happens, which fortunately isn't all the time...

Re:firefox (-1, Redundant)

gadders (73754) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541791)

I third it. My screen res is 1600 x 1200.

Re:firefox (4, Insightful)

Basje (26968) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541870)

This isn't a problem with FFox not being standards compliant, but a problem with the slashcode not being standard html. See the faq [slashdot.org] . Bugs [sourceforge.net] have [sourceforge.net] been [sourceforge.net] filed already.

Re:firefox (1)

michich (679957) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541917)

It is a real Firefox bug. See bug #217527 in the Bugzilla. There are some minimal testcases, which are standards compliant and still exhibit this bug.

Re:firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541797)

Interesting. I myself do not have this problem. I'm running firefox 0.8 under windows 98se. I suppose one possible cause is I do not "log in" to slashdot - so I see "different html."

Re:firefox (5, Interesting)

ideatrack (702667) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541812)

But this is why FireFox still isn't onto release one. I also get problems on my XP box using some sites, especially forms; but there are also still sites that don't work correctly in any release.

IE has the usual MS philosophy in that if something doesn't comply with the way they've done it, who cares because everyone will change to their way of thinking. I agree with those who don't like that someone else has to clean up after MS but what else are you going to do? For better or worse it is, and will be for a while yet, what most non-techy people use.

Re:firefox (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541817)

I've had it happen to me before, on this and various other sites. But it's an inconstant effect. Which is strange. I thought it might have had something to do with changing the font-size, but quick infomral testing argues not.

Re:firefox (1)

forged (206127) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541826)

I'll second that. Mozilla has the same problems so it could be in all Gecko derivatives and not just in Fox.. Sometimes, amazingly, reloading the page makes the problem less obvious.

Re:firefox (5, Interesting)

foolip (588195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541829)

Perhaps it's slashdot that needs to be made standards compliant! It would seem that someone doesn't want us to know [w3.org] how compliant it is.

It seems WDG had better luck getting through [htmlhelp.com] , but look at all those errors!

Re:firefox (4, Informative)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541903)

Downloading the index page, then uploading it to the W3C validator throws an error about being unable to determine character encoding. Forcing character encoding to iso-8859-1 results in 371 errors!

Re:firefox (5, Interesting)

Imperator (17614) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541913)

That's pretty sad, for /. to mess with their server settings to disable the w3 validator. Their HTML has been terribly broken for years. I don't understand what they do with all that money they have, because they sure haven't been improving the site very much. Makes me glad I don't subscribe and I block their ads.

Re:firefox (4, Funny)

tunah (530328) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541831)

Slashdot isn't valid HTML, so it doesn't _have_ a correct rendering ;-)

Fixed in nightlies (5, Informative)

Jack Zombie (637548) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541836)

Use a Mozilla Firefox nightly build [squarefree.com] , the bug (217369 [mozilla.org] , I think) that caused this problem is fixed in them.

More major changes since 0.8 here [squarefree.com] .

Re:firefox (1)

michich (679957) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541839)

I'm seeing it quite often. This is bug #217527 in Bugzilla. When it happens, you can workaround it with CTRL+PLUS and CTRL+MINUS.

Re:firefox (1)

plugger (450839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541865)

Works fine for me at 1152x864 on XP Pro.

Re:firefox (1)

Katchina'404 (85738) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541882)

I've noticed the same problem these last days (I'd say only one or two weeks) using Mozilla 1.6 under Win XP. As others have said, it's not permanent. When it shows up, hitting refresh a couple of times "fixes" the problem.

Since I've been running Moz 1.6 for a while now, I'm thinking it may some slight change in the "slashcode".

Are people seeing this from other platforms than Win XP ?

Re:firefox (1)

michich (679957) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541902)

Yes, I'm seeing this on Linux.

Re:firefox (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541904)

You've obviously got a shitty build, it works fine for me on /. the odd time I boot into windows and can't stay away... and it looks fine on Linux.

Re:firefox (-1, Offtopic)

MooKore 2004 (737557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541922)

Slashdot looks fine for me, using Firefox 0.8 in Linux, heres my screenshot of it [csvs.co.uk]

MSIE is the standard (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541758)

Unfortunately, for 90%+ of the population, mshtml IS the standard.

Re:MSIE is the standard (3, Insightful)

next1 (742094) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541873)

that's right, and that's why all developers have the right to bitch about it and let off some steam, i myself having just spent the last 2 weeks developing 3 versions of a site design; firefox/opera (ie; standards compliant), ie5 and ie6.

at least in ie6 they've fixed that div padding and margin issue (where ms blatantly ignored w3c standards and made their own), but it's still annoying because now it means you have to do a version for ie5 and a version for ie6!

and ie6 ignores div heights, aaargh.. never ends!!

and unfortunately i can't add any comments on this actual article cos i still can't get to it!

.name? (-1, Offtopic)

red5 (51324) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541766)

When did this TLD come about?

Re:.name? (2, Interesting)

plugger (450839) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541880)

Go to www.ntk.net and look through the last few editions. They were running a challenge to register the silliest .name domains (such as no.name , so you can host www.the.man.with.no.name)

Re:.name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541884)

see www.nic.name. They came with .info .biz and a couple of others.

Re:.name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541915)

like... 3 years ago?

They're going to completely rewrite IE? (3, Funny)

EmagGeek (574360) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541770)

Wow... who woulda thunk it?

Google cache (5, Informative)

Underholdning (758194) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541775)

Site is already slashdottet. Here's Google's cache [66.102.11.104] of the document.
So - how are the plans going with implementing a slashdot cache?

Re:Google cache (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541936)

http://66.102.9.104/search?q=cache%3Ahttp%3A%2F%2F dean.edwards.name%2FIE7%2Fsrc%2F&sourceid=mozilla- search&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf -8

The Google cache of the source code. Wow.

Mirror offer (1, Informative)

paulproteus (112149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541781)

If the author would like to email me at mirror@asheesh.org [mailto] , I'd be happy to mirror this site. I have more than enough bandwidth to cover it.

-- Asheesh.

more than enough bandwidth to cover it... (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541808)

...thems sound lik fightin' words :)

yehaw boys!!

Alternate mass distribution mechanisms (1)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541842)

Alternate mass distribution mechanisms that will work for folks without a T3 at their disposal:

* Tarball the website, and hand out an ed2k url aimed at the hash of the tarball.

* Put it on Freenet.

* Post it to USENET.

Id say (4, Funny)

222 (551054) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541794)

Judging by the loading lag, and eventual time out hes managed to make his webserver IIS compliant also ;)

IE part of the Longhorn (2, Funny)

SailfishMac (732653) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541796)

The shear horror!!!


G5's Folding@home for Team Mac OS X #1971 [stanford.edu]

Re:IE part of the Longhorn (0, Funny)

SailfishMac (732653) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541820)

Guess this means the new Microsoft mail program will also be part of the Longhorn.

No WONDER Gates wants to charge for emails!


G5's Folding for Team Mac OS X #1971 [stanford.edu]

Re:IE part of the Longhorn (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541837)

  1. Stop replying to your own posts.
  2. If you must reply to your own posts, learn how to use "Post Anonymously" so you don't look quite such an idiot.
  3. Put your damn sig where it belongs instead of apending it to each and every post.

Re:IE part of the Longhorn (0)

SailfishMac (732653) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541887)

Thanks for your advice, I'll do that. newbie.

Get firefox. (4, Informative)

MooKore 2004 (737557) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541799)

If you havent already yet, you should of switched from IE to Firefox. It is now my default browser on Windows, and on Windows XP it even puts it as the top Start menu item. It is fast, light, small download (6Mb), Tabbed Browsing, Popup blocking, Download manager, Cute icon and standards compliance are all good reasons to use it. So don't use an ugly hack to transform your pages for IE, put a firefox icon on your site.

So if you havent downloaded it yet, get it now! [mozilla.org] . Avalible for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and more!

Nice (4, Insightful)

foolip (588195) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541802)

The site is /.ed, but from what I can make out from the front page, this is making IE CSS standards compliant. Does it also work some magic to make it compliant with HTML (or even better, XHTML) standards (which would be far more useful), or is that just impossible?

In any event, this may allow me to actually use some CSS 2, a standard that was published in May 1998 (almost 6 years ago!) and still isn't (fully) supported by the leading browser in the world...

corepirate nazi felons planning to surrender? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541810)

don't bet your highly mortgaged .asp on that won.

however, the creators' intervention on unprecedented evile will include disempowerment of perpetrators from all arenas of execrability.

corepirate nazi felons poised to determine stuff that matters?(Score:mynuts won, still touting newclear power)
by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, @06:23AM (#8541780)

yikes almighty. even too much is never enough for those fauxking foulcurrs. lookout bullow.

consult with/trust in yOUR creators... unlimited storage space available.

va lairIE/robbIE's pateNTdead PostBlock(tm) devise is STILL broken? what a surprise?

Could not get to the server (1)

UltimaGuy (745333) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541813)

I think the server has been slashdotted ;) Any how, I think that whatever you do to IE, it will still have a lot of holes, and will make people vulnerable by just using it. And this facility only is like a candy wrapper, as it cannot do anything to fix the bugs in the engine.

Buut (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8541816)

Does it run on Linux?

No-one has a copy of the stylesheet?? (3, Insightful)

xxx_Birdman_xxx (676056) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541843)

Sometimes to me /.-ing a site doesn't compute with me- So the server has had so many incoming requests its gone kaput, but in all those hits not one person has kept a copy of this stylesheet.. ??
It's just simple text!
Do people just blindly click on links just because they are posted?

Already /.ed? [nt] (-1, Redundant)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541847)

[no text]

File upload (-1, Offtopic)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541856)

Now if they'd just fix the stupid file upload breakage. Every other browser I know of sends just the name of the file, in the content disposition header, but IE sends the full path, like this:

C:\windows\Desktop\myfile.doc

instead of

myfile.doc

That's not too bad though - we can just trim everything after the last backslash. Except, that the ContentDisposition is a MIME header, so those backslashes are meant to be escaping the character after them. Therefore, the filename is really:

C:windowsDesktopmyfile.doc

So we have to have two different ways of parsing ContentDisposition, the right way, and the Microsoft way, and have to pick one depending on browser ID.</rant>

Misleading title : corrects CSS2 selectors only. (4, Informative)

androse (59759) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541861)

The title of the news is misleading : this JS component only corrects some CSS 2 selectors that IE doesn't natively support.

So it doesn't really make IS standards compliant, it just extends some functionnality. It doesn't, for example, correct the box model of IE5.

So I'm afraid it doesn't spare us of using CSS hacks [centricle.com] to filter out IE.

Dean Edwards (5, Interesting)

amigoro (761348) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541889)

I thought this was something about the democratic nominations, but then saw Kerry [mithuro.com] was missing.

Flippancy apart, I think using CSS to make IE7 W3C compliant is a really brilliant idea. However, the browser itself is a small part of the equations. Very few websites are W3C compliant. Vast majority of them are geared to a certain browser, depending on the whim and fancy of the designer.

For my part, I run my sites thru Anybrowser [anybrowser.com] to make sure they will render on, well, as the name suggests, any browser.

Microsoft should hire him (5, Interesting)

SlashMaster (62630) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541908)

Anyone who cares this much about the company's product should be given serious consideration for employment.

Microsoft should hire him...

Re:Microsoft should hire him (4, Insightful)

0x0d0a (568518) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541930)

Microsoft has little benefit in ensuring that IE complies with standards -- as a matter of fact, now that they have over eighty percent marketshare, I would go so far as to say that it is to their benefit to have divergent behavior. Nobody cares about a bunch of web designers grumbling about a broken browser when the masses Just Want It To Look Right and blame the designer when it doesn't.

Wouldn't life be grand if Microsoft shipped the open source Mozilla as their default browser?

Sharpton Kucinich (1)

Pixies (450249) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541911)

Stated in a recent blog entry from Harlem that he would take this one step further, repealing the whole of Microsoft's embrace-and-extend inroads over the last decade as well as executing a 14-patch plan "...to get the GNU in and the US out."

Mirror made (4, Informative)

paulproteus (112149) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541918)

I made this mirror [jhu.edu] based on the Google cache. It has the full source code, as well as the docs he wrote.

This is temporary, of course.

Well folks, it's working already! (1, Funny)

Pflipp (130638) | more than 10 years ago | (#8541932)

I open the page in my IE browser, and it says "The page cannot be displayed", as would be the expected reaction for this browser. Tonight I'll check on Mozilla at home, I'm sure it will render correctly then! :-)
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>