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!

CSS Support Could Be IE7's Weakest Link

Zonk posted more than 9 years ago | from the who-uses-that-css-stuff-anyway? dept.

The Internet 575

Ritalin16 writes "Many web developers may be disappointed to hear that Microsoft decided to hold off on full CSS2 support with IE 7.0. As said by Microsoft-Watch: 'One partner said that Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a flawed standard and that the company is waiting for a later point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3, before throwing its complete support behind it.'" More commentary available from ZDNet. Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test thrown down by Opera.

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

So... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965803)

Support CSS 2.1 [w3.org] . We're really not picky. Anything is better than nothing.

Re:So... (5, Interesting)

tabkey12 (851759) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965875)

Has anyone ever justified these claims that CSS is a flawed standard? In slashdotters experience, is CSS flawed, and if so, how?

Re:So... (5, Insightful)

Moonshadow (84117) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965930)

CSS2 has some flaws, but it's a far cry better than anything IE currently offers. Writing cross-browser CSS can be an exercise in frustration unless you resort to browser-specific stylesheets. I just want IE to support, you know, the standard.

Re:So... (1)

British (51765) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965984)

Just out of curiousity, what apps do support CSS2 to 100%? Web browsers, whatever.

Next week we will discuss what apps support the SVG spec 100%(inkscape?).

Re:So... (3, Insightful)

Maul (83993) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966025)

There are certainly shortcomings in CSS, in my opinion, but CSS does a pretty good job when the browser supports it properly. Opera and Mozilla/Firefox currently seem to do an excellent job of supporting CSS.

The only reason Microsoft doesn't support CSS properly is that they don't OWN it. MSIE supporting CSS properly would be a massive step towards web interoperability, which is definately against what MS wants.

Re:So... (4, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966067)

I'm not trying to dismiss your question (I'd like to hear more answers), but even if we assume that it's flawed, I still really want to say, so what? It's still the standard.

Is Microsoft seriously arguing that they've never thrown their weight behind an imperfect work-in-progress technology/standard before? Is the imperfectness of CSS2 made better by making IE render it improperly?

Now, I'm not trying to keep people from discussing the finer points of possible improvements to web-standards, but can't we all agree that it's better to have all browsers interpreting the same standards the same way?

Flawed? (3, Interesting)

Apathetic1 (631198) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966087)

I dislike CSS because it makes the most common layout formatting (columns) hard to implement. I also dislike that it has no inheritance. Just as an arbitrary illustration, I get sick of writing:

a {
some formatting
}

a.somestyle {
more formatting
}

a.otherstyle {
yet more formatting
}

instead of, say:

a {
some formatting

.somestyle {
more formatting
}
.otherstyle {
yet more formatting
}
}

Great concept, mediocre execution. This "flawed standard" garbage, however, is just a lame excuse.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966107)

As a web developer I find CSS to work just fine when the browser does what I intend it to do.

I suspect the browser developers who have to deal with 100% of the spec, as opposed to the maybe 20% I use might have other ideas as to its flawedness ;)

They are probably... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965805)

going to hold off on alpha transparency for another 8 years too.

Re:They are probably... (1)

fanfriggintastic (751454) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966056)

Nope. It's in line for IE7

http://news.com.com/Microsoft+yielding+to+IE+stan [com.com] d ards+pressure/2100-1032_3-5620988.html

Re:They are probably... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966077)

Slashcode totally borked that URL. Sorry

Better link [com.com]

Spare Me (4, Insightful)

filmmaker (850359) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965812)

"One partner said that Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a "flawed" standard and that the company is waiting for a later point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3, before throwing its complete support behind it." If MS were so concerned about quality standards, they would embrace the best thing we have: CSS 2. And then, when 2.1 or 3 came along, they'd support that promptly.

Re:Spare Me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965967)

I think we all knew this was coming really... I sure didn't expect them to do any kind of useful improvements like proper support of basic functionnalities/features like CSS in a long awaited overhaul of a crappy browser. I'm guessing, no support for things like the <abbr> tag either, no standard xhtml+voice either, no XForms either - in short, nothing useful whatsoever.

Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test (4, Funny)

tomhudson (43916) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965815)

Well, it probably does *help* to be doing acid when trying to get IE to work properly ...

Re:Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test (-1, Redundant)

mattyrobinson69 (751521) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965838)

+2 Funny? this guy's serious.

Obviously the mods have never tried it.

Re:Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965852)

I would never try Internet Explorer, it's too dangerous.

Re:Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test (1)

crummynz (818547) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965969)

I have a friend that does it quite regularly.

*shudder*... ugh, sure don't want to end up like him.

Re:Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test (2, Funny)

RangerRick98 (817838) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966103)

Well, it probably does *help* to be doing acid when trying to get IE to work properly ...

I have a friend that does it quite regularly.

*shudder*... ugh, sure don't want to end up like him.


Is that shudder because of the "doing acid" part or the "trying to get IE to work properly" part?

Re:Generally related to the IE 7 Acid Test (1)

cei (107343) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966011)

I would never try Internet Explorer, it's too dangerous.

Indeed, I've heard that every time you use IE it permanently rewires parts of your brain and that after a certain number of uses a person can be declared legally insane.

Or was that acid they were talking about?

Just like... (5, Insightful)

turtled (845180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965820)

See, that's the problem. It's just like Microsoft to say "We'll wait til later ( point release, such as CSS2.1 or CSS3) before throwing our complete support behind it" I don't understand! You have to plan for the future, no plan after the fact!

Good lord (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965823)

They're _already_ years behind. Way to cement your position as a dinosaur, Microsoft!

Flawed Standard? (1, Troll)

rkeen (844134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965828)

Maybe they should have a look in thier own products.

Re:Flawed Standard? (5, Interesting)

nightski (860922) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965882)

What. Just because their products have their own flaws means they should adopt all technologies that are flawed?

Re:Flawed Standard? (1)

MerlinTheWizard (824941) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966004)

Nope, you're right. But that could mean they're not really up to the task of judging what is a flawed standard and what is not. It's not like they've never created a flawed de-facto standard themselves...

Re:Flawed Standard? (2, Informative)

rkeen (844134) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966017)

Just sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. I just thought the irony was intresting is all.

HAHA suck on it you open source fags (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965830)

suck it down

Oh The Irony (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965831)

from the who-uses-that-css-stuff-anyway? dept.

Certainly not slashdot, it seems. In fact, they don't seem to be adhering to any standards at all.

Funny how that open source superiority give slashcode cruddy HTML code and horrible, outdated design.

The Truth Is Flamebait?? (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965859)

The parent point is 100% accurate true fact. Why is pointing out what is an inarguable truth "flamebait"?

5-3 odds this was an editor bitchslape. Nice censorship.

time to spend some karma (4, Insightful)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965999)


Can we get the parent modded up? It's ridiculous for any employee of Slashdot to be criticizing anyone for their lack of support for web standards.

Re:Oh The Irony (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966009)

this is one fugly site.. if this is what open source produces......... not a good sign!

Why I hate developing webpages... (3, Insightful)

bdigit (132070) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965833)

Even when you design a standards compliant webpage you still need to use hacks to get things to work and validate correctly. And because of IE who refuses to fully support CSS it just makes life more miserable for web developers wasting time on figuring out how to hack together their code to display correctly on all web browsers. I hope companies start designing webpages for Firefox only and it will display a message when you try to access the site in IE saying please use firefox to access this website.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (3, Insightful)

someonewhois (808065) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965877)

Why would ANY company block out IE? That's the stupidest thing I've ever heard. They still have the huge majority of the market share.

Businesses are out to make money -- why would they care about technology? God.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (2, Insightful)

Arctic Dragon (647151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965894)

Designing pages for one particular Web browser is a bad idea, especially for a browser that has a relatively small market share (sure, Firefox is gaining popularity, but IE still has the majority of market share). Locking out users is unprofessional and bad for business.

obviously not blocking IE (1)

bdigit (132070) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965902)

obivously im not going to do that. It was just said out of frustration. Of course it would be stupid to block out the majority web browser from accessing your site.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (5, Insightful)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965962)

Designing pages for one particular Web browser is a bad idea

Using CSS2 and designing for the set of all browsers known to support most of CSS2 isn't "designing pages for one particular Web browser".

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (3, Interesting)

msoftsucks (604691) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965968)

True. But the experience for IE users can be worse. On the page you can say, "Best viewed with Firefox" and then have a link to www.mozilla.org. M$ has been doing this crap for years. Maybe its time for M$ to get a taste of its own medicine.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (2, Insightful)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966036)

Actually IE makes it very easily for web developers, with 90% of the market, you only need to design for one browser. And the 10% who run opera/mozilla are the ones who usually run ad blocking software, so you can fuck them anyway without any real loss in revenue.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (1)

KillerDeathRobot (818062) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966109)

90% of the market does NOT necessarily mean 90% of your customers. Furthermore, why would any company want to automatically lose 10% of their customers anyway?! Imagine if a retail store turned away every tenth customer because they were wearing the wrong shoes.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (1)

SilentChris (452960) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966041)

"I hope companies start designing webpages for Firefox only and it will display a message when you try to access the site in IE saying please use firefox to access this website."

Huh? How could this possibly be a good thing? The goal of Firefox isn't to emulate IE, it's to do things right that IE could never do in the first place.

Re:Why I hate developing webpages... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966085)

You know what you fucking assholes. You gd lazy webpage designers think you can design a web page once, collect your money and run off. Software development IS NOT like that. For as long as engineers (I include most true software developers among engineers) have been around, they have been known for their love of tinkering with things, even when they're already "perfect". That's just part of what drives them. The current state of web developers who just want to list as many web sites on their resume as possible is so typical of the "want it now" generation. This is not a pro/anti-MS/Linux/OSS rant, but just a comment on the "standards will fix it all" mentaility.

more on css2 (4, Informative)

dmf415 (218827) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965834)

This specification defines Cascading Style Sheets, level 2 (CSS2). CSS2 is a style sheet language that allows authors and users to attach style (e.g., fonts, spacing, and aural cues) to structured documents (e.g., HTML documents and XML applications). By separating the presentation style of documents from the content of documents, CSS2 simplifies Web authoring and site maintenance.

CSS2 builds on CSS1 (see [CSS1]) and, with very few exceptions, all valid CSS1 style sheets are valid CSS2 style sheets. CSS2 supports media-specific style sheets so that authors may tailor the presentation of their documents to visual browsers, aural devices, printers, braille devices, handheld devices, etc. This specification also supports content positioning, downloadable fonts, table layout, features for internationalization, automatic counters and numbering, and some properties related to user interface.

more here:
http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/ [w3.org]

Here, have some karma. (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965903)

Thanks for saving me the trouble of typing "CSS2" into google.

+5 Informative? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966008)

All this guy did is do a Google search on CSS2 and paste it here. That deserves +5 karma?

It's redundant, not informative. Any of us could have easily done a search for "css2."

So In Other Words... (3, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965836)

Microsoft has once again decided that it's going to go its own way, and I'm sure this means more crippled MS pages that other browsers can't read. I'm going to start making it very clear to my customers now that MS has no intention of playing nice on the web, and recommending Opera or Firefox.

Re:So In Other Words... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965950)

Erm, I can't recommend to my customers Firefox or Opera if they refuse to support the correct Microsoft standards. IE commands 90% of the browser market and sites will just have to use whatever MS bundles in. It's called capitalism, and it's good for America.

Re:So In Other Words... (1)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966023)

Monopolies are bad for consumers. Doing what you can to tear up a monopolist's market share is in my mind a noble cause.

Re:So In Other Words... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966034)

However, their monopoly allows them to get away with being lazy in such areas, which is bad.

Re:So In Other Words... (2, Funny)

jbellis (142590) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966060)

"I'm going to start making it very clear to my customers now that MS has no intention of playing nice on the web"

Wow. Welcome to 1998.

B.S. (1)

Look KG486 (867105) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965837)

What makes CSS2.1 better than 2.0 enough not to support either? Is there something in their code base that gets funky when handling CSS?

Well... (4, Interesting)

th1ckasabr1ck (752151) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965847)

Michael Cherry, senior analyst at Directions on Microsoft, said he believes the software giant's biggest focus will be on security issues with features and standards support taking a back seat.

I guess that's not THAT bad.. Sure it would be nice to have CSS2 support, but security seems to be the #1 thing everyone bitches about around here and is probably more important.

Then again, I can't really see why they don't do both...

Re:Well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965885)

If they actually improved security. But they won't. So we'll have IE6 with more bloat and they'll call it a major update. Just as important as security is a codebase to deal with the change nature of the web.

Irony at it's best (4, Funny)

grasshoppa (657393) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965849)

MS complaining about broken standards.

Re:Irony at it's best (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965874)

well, is it a broken standard or is the standard 'flawed' in that way that they don't know how to easily support it in their codebase?

Re:Irony at it's best (4, Insightful)

Tenebrious1 (530949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965912)

well, is it a broken standard or is the standard 'flawed' in that way that they don't know how to easily support it in their codebase?

Well, it's really only "flawed" because MS doesn't control it...

I'm only gonna do this one more time.... (0, Offtopic)

Onimaru (773331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965909)

Oooooooh, if you want to be possessive, it's just I-T-S but if it's supposed to be a contraction then it's I-T apostrophe S. Scalawag.

Re:I'm only gonna do this one more time.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965977)

BZZ wrong.

Re:Irony at it's best (4, Funny)

iamthemoog (410374) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965998)

surely "Slashdot posting articles about css standards" ?

Boo... Sort of (2, Insightful)

MankyD (567984) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965853)

Agreed, CSS needs some work, but its a hell of a lot better than nothing at all (or flawed support, anyways.) What gives?

This is silly... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965855)

Yesterday I had to make a page.
I made it in firefox with no problems. Then, I looked at it in IE and it was terrible. If I code to standards why can't microsoft make their products support standards?

Flawed logic (5, Interesting)

wileynet (779280) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965856)

We consider the standard to be flawed. So instead we will continue with our flawed support of the previous standard.

Microsoft and standards.... (4, Funny)

room101 (236520) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965863)

Microsoft considers CSS2 to be a flawed standard
In other news, Microsoft considers every standard to be flawed. You know, no innovation and such.

Translation .... (4, Funny)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965864)

We don't want to support your flawed standard so we can have a chance to push our own flawed standards.

At this point, who cares? (5, Insightful)

Ars-Fartsica (166957) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965868)

People will use IE7 because windows update will automatically put it in place of IE6 one day. It will fix some bugs and create others. It will not change how web developers create sites, it will not derail Firefox, it will not make people salivate for Longhorn.

Wait till CSS2.1/3? (4, Interesting)

critter_hunter (568942) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965871)

What a load of crap! CSS3 builds up upon CSS2.1, and even though CSS2.1 is still a candidate recommendation, it's being pushed as the standard by the W3C (as evidenced by the fact they are linking to CSS 2.1 in the navigation menu of their CSS page [w3.org] )

Of course, some people are actually in favour of IE not supporting CSS any better than it currently does - with IE7 being unavailable on platforms older than XP, and any attempted improvement to CSS being likely to add more than it's share of CSS bugs, it would just make another browser developpers need to work around. The evil we know might just be better...

Strategy from a Different Age (4, Insightful)

Onimaru (773331) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965887)

Once upon a time, this would have worked. Take the emerging layout standard that doesn't use your bizarro extensions and strange layout tactics, decide not to support it, and force everyone who wants slick new layout features to write for either you or everyone else, or else write every page twice.

But I'm not so sure this is a good idea now. The fact is that more and more people are getting to the point that they would rather write for everyone but IE rather than just IE. I think falling behind on standards while steaming ahead with the next generation of crappy proprietary extensions just isn't going to work again. In fact, I think this might accellerate the death of IE.

Bottom line: bad move. The correct response to more competition is to compete, not to stick your fingers in your ears and scream "LA LA LA I'M NOT LISTENING!"

back to explorer? (2, Interesting)

sakri (832266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965889)

I just hope all those people who "defected" to firefox wont go "back to daddy" because "they've fixed it all"...

Re:back to explorer? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965927)

Let them. If MS actually fixes things (which is a pretty big "if"), let them go. If MS ever screws them over again, they should know where to come.

Re:back to explorer? (1)

sakri (832266) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966024)

I'm not so easy to let them go... the issue being that your average user (or client in my case) is clueless about the existance of such a thing as CSS. They think all is fixed, and I just have to keep playing the broken record about "why there is an extra cost to make your site compatible with more browsers". it's a dick move.

Stylesheets and MS (2, Interesting)

phorm (591458) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965891)

Didn't MS introduce their own "standard" for stylesheets at one point? Perhaps they're just gunning to introduce a new "MS standard" to blow off browsers using the real standard?

IE7 & Google (4, Interesting)

tpengster (566422) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965896)

Let's put two and two together:

  • Google is gaining a huge foothold on the web. Alot of Google's new sites (gmail/maps/suggest) depend heavily on Javascript
  • Microsoft decides to release a new version of IE

Perhaps the new microsoft motto will be "IE's not done till Google doesn't run"

This won't be a huge problem since Google can simply update their code. However, I wouldn't be surprised if alot of JS functionality that would be very useful to google either now or in the future is simply "missing" on IE7

There has been alot of talk of Google launching a new era of computing with the web as the OS. But Microsoft controls the web (through IE), and they won't allow the web to become a competitor to Windows.

Re:IE7 & Google (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965978)

I think you may be on to something.

This sounds like a perfect way to have the Justice department serve Microsoft tea and cakes again, while asking if they are comfortable, and if they can get Sir Bill a pillow for his feet.

"What a country!" - Yakov

Easy solution (4, Funny)

NoSuchGuy (308510) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965900)

Rename CSS2 to CSS2.1 or CSS3

It doesn't matter what's inside the documents.

MS only supports what it want's to support.

Think about it!

Re:Easy solution (2, Interesting)

drspliff (652992) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966084)

Your damn right about Microsoft only supporting what it wants to support, an issue with PNG images has existed for years..

To get PNG images with an 8bit alpha channel (also known as super-cool translucent stuff for those of you that are non-technical), you had to use a microsoft specific CSS property that manipulated the DHTML/DirectX attributes of the image... All of that instead of just correctly implementing the PNG standard.

Without full support for CSS2, less and less web developers will be pushing the limits of what CSS2 can do (lets face it.. MS/IE still has the majority). Without a wide adoption of CSS2 the W3C won't be pushed as much to revise and improve CSS2 to create CSS3 (or an intermediate version)

As a web developer I'm seeing this as a major kick in the teeth from Microsoft, we've been waiting for years for a version of IE that actually works towards standards, instead of yet another botched implementation.

Hell, if they made IE 7 open-source i'd implement as much of CSS2 as a lone developer could, but thats just wishful thinking :)

Is it just me? Or am I seeing the whole Netscape/Microsof fiasco happening again, but with different players?

Weakest link? (3, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965904)

I read the title and thought, "CSS will be IEs weakest link? Something doesn't sound right."

This sounds like typical Microsoft logic. "Just wait a bit longer and something better will come out." CSS2 is here now and people are using it. Support it instead of forcing web designers to put in loads of ugly hacks just to make your bloated software work as it should in the first place.

Yeah, I'm bashing Microsoft but it is deserved in this case.

Translation (4, Insightful)

bonch (38532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965916)

"I'm Microsoft, and I'm a big monopoly, so I'm arbitrarily deciding not to support standards I don't like. For no other reason than I don't like them. Secretly, it's just because I don't want to adopt standards that compete with my own, but my managers have told me to tell everyone I just think it's a buggy implementation. I never make any of those..."

Someone should start an organization that publicly hands out awards to companies that severely hinder the progress of technology. Microsoft would win every year. The web has been held back for seven years now because IE won't properly support CSS2. That's like someone developing an improved version of gasoline that costs and pollutes less, and then none of the gas stations adopting it for close to a decade even though it's cheap and available. You look back and shake your head that all this time, people could have been saving money and polluting the air less and they have no idea.

The general public doesn't even realize the web would look and interact much better than it does now. We should have been visiting more advanced websites years ago. But the web still looks and functions the way it did in 2000, because the majority browser IE doesn't adopt technological progress. It's times like these I wish I was rich enough to run public service commercials that stated all this, just to inform people how they're being hindered without even knowing it.

Just askin' (2)

bonch (38532) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965980)

Why was I modded "flamebait?" Internet Explorer's broken support of CSS2 has hindered its full adoption for years. Microsoft now controls the standards of the Web unless web developers speak out VERY loudly to drown out their press releases.

Would have been nice... (1)

narrowhouse (1949) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965935)

If they had made a more specific mention of their problems with CSS2. OK, it's flawed, would a little constructive commentary on how to fix it kill them? Is it not flexible enough? Too flexible? Too hard to extend in a proprietary way?

Will IDN support be a bigger issue? (2, Interesting)

NerdHead (35767) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965941)

When Firefox, Opera, and other browsers got burned by the support for IDN and phishing exploits associated with it, IE looked good for not having IDN support. It will be interesting to me to see if Microsoft noticed it and will offer users a choice to turn off IDN support.

I want to USE CSS! (1)

teamhasnoi (554944) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965943)

And those pricks at MS are making it difficult. Not to mention that they are waiting til they have their own implementation out.

Dicks.

If Bill had to wipe his ass with the TP the 'rest of us' use, we wouldn't have this problem. Unfortunately for us, he uses only the freshly washed hands of his underlings' children.


DAMN YOU, GATES!

Firefox rendering engine for ie (4, Interesting)

acomj (20611) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965952)

Someone should make a ie "plug in" that handdles ccs. We have a couple open rendering engines (geko/khtml)..

Could this be done?

Re:Firefox rendering engine for ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966089)

And what should the point be by that? Joe desktop would still have to download and install it, and then he might as well just install Firefox.

Re:Firefox rendering engine for ie (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966098)

I don't have the slightest idea, but that'd be awesome.

Microsoft already supports... (1)

suitepotato (863945) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965956)

...CFS: Cascade Failure Sheets. These are CSS which cause IE to crash taking Explorer with it followed by kernel32 and then your sanity...

This should be illegal (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11965964)

I call it plain incompetance.
This is how MS works, they ignore the standards and develop their own BS version that sucks. Of course the MS BSSS will require hacks and tweaks for web pages to look the same on other browsers. With the effect of customers rolling over on their back, and have their tummy's rubbed by MS's browsers.
This is F'd up. Kill MS

Re:This should be illegal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966070)

It should be illegal to not support CSS2 in your browser?

If your customers/visitors/etc. will not switch away from MSIE, then I think your problem is with them, not MSIE. Microsoft doesn't force you to use their browser.

What does CSS2 give you that is needed? (1)

caluml (551744) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965985)

From TFA: "CSS 2.0 has a few nice features, but realistically, I don't think it being in there makes much difference either way," said a Windows developer, who requested anonymity.

What is there in CSS2 that is really needed/useful then? I am a pretty pitiful HTML coder (as you can witness on my website), so I need an expert to explain to me. :)

Re:What does CSS2 give you that is needed? (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966100)

well, if they supported it properly web designers would have easier job of making the pages look the same on all browsers.

Great news! (1)

Broiler (804077) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965990)

If everyone followed the standard it would be easy.
If it were easy then anyone could do it.
If anyone could do it then half of /. readers would be out of work.
So, this is good news.

The real reason (1)

thisisauniqueid (825395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11965997)

CSS is only considered by M$ to be a "flawed standard" because they didn't have enough input in setting the standard in a way that makes it easy for them to take the standard in a narrow-minded direction. This is the rebellion of a netizen that is not happy when other bodies start setting the standards for once.

Support CSS2 ??????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966006)


Not ANY of the MSIE browsers supports ANY CSS, not even CSS1, none! You see the first C in CSS actually means CASCADING, no Microsoft browser has ever handled this (inheritance) properly, none!

So I'd say LET THEM FOCUS ON SUPPORTING CSS1 FIRST.

And yes, I'm really p#$%#%d off!

Please excuse my ignorance here (3, Insightful)

psyklopz (412711) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966012)

I'm surprised it hasn't been said:

Wouldn't supporting CSS 2.1 or CSS 3 imply support for CSS 2? These standards are backwards-compatible, right?

Security will no doubt be the weakest link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966013)

I bet Microsoft loves it if people start saying CSS is the weakest link; because it'll distract people from the real issues.

Huzzah! (1)

Crimsane (815761) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966029)

If "css support" for IE will be considered its "weakest link", I guess microsoft finally did the right thing and started classifying "easy-remote assistance (from ex-kgb agents)" and "personal data proliferation" as browser features.

It's just numbers.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966050)

MS has 90% of the market on web browsers.

If IE displays things differently then other browsers which will most companies choose? The 10% or the 90%?

Now if IE were to adapt the standards then it would loose that advantage, so from their perspective a non-MS standard IS a flawed standard...

one question (2, Insightful)

danielk1982 (868580) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966054)

Wouldn't a company who owns over 90% of the market essentially dictate what is an what isn't a standard?

If Microsoft doesn't back CSS2 then CSS2 has no chance of becoming a standard.

CSS? Get HTML right first! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11966057)

Not even CSS2 support - what are they thinking?
Perhaps they are too busy trying to fix their extremely broken support for the standard HTML button element (*not* input type="button").

What ????? (1)

polyp2000 (444682) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966092)

Since when did Microsoft care whether something was flawed or not?

Unless by "flawed" they mean that if they were to actually implement an open and recognised standard it could threaten their business model of lock-in.

Microsoft seem to be abusing their position in the industry market place so flagrantly is amazes me how they continue to do so without anything being done about it.

The only thing flawed here is the system... Why is it that there is no-one with enough might to prevent big corporations from assuming so much power and control?

I consider IE to be a "flawed" product (1)

kers (847541) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966094)

and will not consider supporting it for a while ..

Learning from its own mistakes (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966097)

Everything Microsoft did to date, from word processor to compilers to full operating systems, has only become usable (and in some cases, barely) in the third version. Why then would they expend their hard extorted monopoly money on a version 2 of anything?

Slashcode... (3, Funny)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11966102)

Many web developers may be disappointed to hear that Slashdot has decided to hold off on full CSS2 compatibility in the Slashcode product line....
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?