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 IE 7.0's Weakest Link

timothy posted more than 9 years ago | from the can't-squash-superiors dept.

Internet Explorer 339

dilbertspace writes "Anyone who has ever developed a website knows that cross-browser and cross-platform compatibility is a nightmare, mainly due to Microsoft's willful non-compliance with the CSS2 standard. As this eWeek article points out, it seems Microsoft will continue their poor support for CSS2 even in the IE 7.0 release. This may have worked when IE was the only game in town, but now that Firefox is a serious player, it won't help them keep market share as they think it will."

cancel ×

339 comments

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

sorry (1)

thundercatslair (809424) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985799)

Im sorry, but this is clearly a dupe.

Re:sorry (2, Funny)

leon.gandalf (752828) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985853)

Its the treu Slashdot effect.... Its not a dupe ITS A REMINDER!

Re:sorry (-1, Flamebait)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985929)

Of course it's a dupe. Look who the "editor" is today.

Dupeage (1, Informative)

scapermoya (769847) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985801)

DUPE I emailed the on duty editor when i saw the red bar, nothing happened.

Re:Dupeage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985839)

hooooah dupe

Re:Dupeage (1)

leon.gandalf (752828) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985892)

Yes... Yes.... it will be remembered along with the Ice... Stone... and Bronzeages.....

This is amusing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985898)

Look at the IE section [slashdot.org] .

Re:Dupeage (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985957)

even the quote at the bottom is a dupe!

Re:Dupeage (1)

Heidistein (593051) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986019)

A 'quote' useally is a dupe of it'd original, right?

M$ cares ... (3, Interesting)

foobsr (693224) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985804)

From the full story @ Microsoft [microsoft-watch.com] Watch:
McLaws, who runs the Longhornblogs network, said a lot of "extra time and resources" had to be expended to make the site render the same way on all Web browsers.

Now this shows how M$ responsibly cares indeed about having people employed. Hmm, they probably think overtime.

CC.

Re:M$ cares ... (1, Insightful)

Bobdoer (727516) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985959)

Think again! Most people at MS are paid a given salary, and as such, are not able to claim overtime.

o.o (0, Redundant)

Ritalin16 (867772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985806)

this article was already shown :(

it is to laugh (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986031)

This may have worked when IE was the only game in town, but now that Firefox is a serious player, it won't help them keep market share as they think it will."

Sorry, me and millions upon millions of other people still arent going to switch.

well duh (0, Redundant)

atividia (858312) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985807)

microsoft doesnt conform to any standards

Re:well duh (4, Funny)

EtherAlchemist (789180) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985887)


microsoft doesnt conform to any standards

Why conform to existing standards when you can make your own?

Re:well duh (4, Informative)

flacco (324089) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986080)

Why conform to existing standards when you can make your own?

to not be a douchebag?

Re:well duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985890)

Standards only matter to vendors with small market share. When you have 95% market share YOU ARE THE STANDARD.

hmm (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985808)

severe dupe [slashdot.org] .. almost exactly the same title as well.

no no no (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985886)

You see, the old article was "CSS Support Could Be IE7's Weakest Link" and this one is "CSS Support IE7's Weakest Link." We weren't sure before, but now we know that CSS Support is IE7's Weakest Link.

Dupe support slashdot's weakest link (4, Funny)

m50d (797211) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985811)

It's deja vu all over again. You'd think that when it's not just the same story but the same headline...

Re:Dupe support slashdot's weakest link (4, Funny)

ari_j (90255) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985857)

Not exactly, although I thought the same thing at first. The old headline is CSS Support Could Be IE7's Weakest Link [slashdot.org] . Here, we have left out the "Could Be" and changed it to "IE 7.0," so it's entirely different, and therefore it's not a dupe.

W3C CSS (4, Funny)

soloport (312487) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985902)

No, this is the w3c-css supprted version of the story. The previous one supported only IE.

Not a dupe! (2, Informative)

fm6 (162816) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985884)

Wrong! The first story pointed to an article on Microsoft Watch. The second story points to an article on eWeek. It's not the editors' fault that the eWeek article is just a summary of the Microsoft Watch article!

Re:Not a dupe! (2, Informative)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985953)

actually it is the editors fault if he accepts a story that has the same information as was presented already before..

Re:Not a dupe! (1)

archen (447353) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986088)

I wonder if we keep submitting the EXACT same articles over and over if this would force the "editors" to pay attention.

Am I the only one sick of "DUPE" comments (-1, Troll)

Bad D.N.A. (753582) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985939)

Go ahead and mod me -1 Flame

Nearly every thread contains posts about dupe-this and dupe-that... and it's getting worse every month. I don't understand why people don't just move-along if they find a posted article uninteresting.

Hey /. Please provide me with a "dupe" filter so I don't have to wade through all of the dupe-pissing-posts.

Re:Am I the only one sick of "DUPE" comments (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986041)

Hey /. Please provide me with a "dupe" filter so I don't have to wade through all of the dupe-pissing-posts.

No.

The Slashdot motto is "if you don't like it fuck off."

... CmdrTaco

Slashdot.org the movie (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986002)

Perhaps someone can make a movie about Slashdot.org... The plotline can be copied from Groundhog Day [imdb.com] .

Re:Dupe support slashdot's weakest link (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986093)

For those not in the know, he speaks of this [slashdot.org] . Posting anonymously.

In other news (0)

Rs_Conqueror (838344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985812)

In other news, bill gates reportedly bit the hand that used to feed him...

firefox is a pretty serious player (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985813)

with that 6 percent browser share

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1)

Rs_Conqueror (838344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985833)

Considering the number of internet users out there, 6% is a rather large number.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985954)

Not really, especially given all the media attention, ads, geek-speak, etc surrounding FF. I'd have thought market penetration would be considerably higher by now, a real disappointment.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1)

beoba (867477) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985962)

But not nearly as large as 90%

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985855)

I'm using it now as my primary browser. Make that 6% + 1

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985936)

If you're reading /. then FF is NOT your primary browser since /. will not render correctly in FF (I've always found that very amusing--that OSTG doesn't care that their premier website doesn't work in the "uber geek browser" and similarly that the FF developers don't care that one of the prominent geek websites doesn't display in their product).

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1)

Penguinshit (591885) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985980)


You're either sorely misinformed, or you are outright lying. I am using FF on a Debian system right now, and /. renders quite fine.

About the ONLY site I have trouble rendering is microsoft.com, and since they last changed the site even that is no problem anymore.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1)

trans_err (606306) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986101)

/.'s design certainly breaks on Gecko based browsers this has been recognized for some time now. To fix the allignment porblem resize the text up and then back down.

Now the next time you put your foot in your mouth, bite down-- after awhile you might stop.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1)

Rs_Conqueror (838344) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985989)

strange, it renders quite well in FF on my computer.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1)

Donatas (803107) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986024)

First of all, bad rendering is not always the case and even when it is it's easily fixed with combination of ctrl++ and ctr+- key strokes. Secondly as someone who follows FF development I can assure you that this bug has been fixed on a trunk long time ago and nightly build users must have alread forgotten about this rendering issue. see bug 217527 [mozilla.org] for more information.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (2, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985904)

6% is quite amazing considering its short life time.

Re:firefox is a pretty serious player (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985923)

Read your history, FF/alternate browsers have been around for years.

Duplicate, you moron editors (4, Informative)

jleq (766550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985815)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/17/152925 8&tid=126&tid=95&tid=113 Pay more attention to your own fucking site.

Re:Duplicate, you moron editors (1)

Ritalin16 (867772) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985829)

http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/17/152925 8

Re:Duplicate, you moron editors (1)

jleq (766550) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985841)

Ok, I'm a moron. I posted my session ID, along with the wrong URL. Remind me not to copy/paste when I'm drunk.

Re:Duplicate, you moron editors (4, Interesting)

Degrees (220395) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985876)

This one was published by Timothy, the weekend editor, where the first was published by Zonk, a weekday editor.

It does seem reasonable that weekend editors like Timothy should, at the beginning of each day, review at least the headlines of the previous three day's articles, before hitting the accept button.

Failing that, maybe someone should whip up a "check for duplicates" perl script for Timothy, and attach it to the Accept button on his edit submissions page. >:-)

Re:Duplicate, you moron editors (1)

thinkninja (606538) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985940)

How about requiring editors to read the fucking site? I don't know why they expect others to read this crap when they can't even be bothered...

Oh, and actually editing poor submissions to make sense would be nice too.

Re:Duplicate, you moron editors (1)

cgenman (325138) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986075)

Done [slashdot.org]

At least we don't have to endure Michael anymore. (1)

Shturmovik (632314) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986092)

Slashdot is way more enjoyable to read now that he's gone.

Timothy's idiotic dupes are almost pleasantly amusing by comparison with Michael's daily dose of scum-baggery.

And isn't it strange that suddenly there are few submissions being accepted from Roland now?

Oh wait, no, it's not strange at all...

Confirmation (5, Funny)

Chris Kamel (813292) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985816)

Do we call this a dupe or a confirmation ?

Don't count on it (5, Insightful)

Ckwop (707653) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985817)

This may have worked when IE was the only game in town, but now that Firefox is a serious player, it won't help them keep market share as they think it will.

Don't count on it, sunshine. The reason IE is losing market share to Firefox is two fold.

  1. The public perception of the IE's security has declined.
  2. It's missing a lot of nice features such as: tabbed browsing, international domain names and a bunch of other stuff.
    1. These are things that matter to the end user. If I'm joe-sixpack I don't give a damn about CSS 2.0 compliance. Hell, I probably don't even know what CSS 2.0 is. The only person who actually cares are the people making the web-sites, and those people are us and in terms of market share we typically sit at the one-percent noise level. To Microsoft, IE not being compatible with other browsers is a good thing. It means people have to design to their feature set and not to the offical standards it simply means we can't ignore their platform.

      So what can Firefox do to take out IE once and for all? It's actually rather simple. Do the thing that IE would never do. Implement something as powerful as Windows Forms (or it's Linux equivelent). It's the thing Microsoft fears the most - that Javascript will evolve into something powerful enough to be able to right a Microsoft Office clone in. As soon as this happens, then we suddenly have a platform independant version of office and that means we don't have to run Windows anymore. In short, they can kiss Goodbye to their market share.

      I'm not saying anything new here. Joel Spolsky has talked about this at great length in a very interesting article that i'm having trouble finding. We all know this day will come it's just a question as to how long Microsoft can stall the process. This CSS 2.0 issue is a single battle in the war Microsoft is waging to prevent their demise.

      Simon.

Re:Don't count on it (5, Funny)

kars (100858) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985869)

The public perception of the IE's security has declined.

You mean it's improved, right?

Re:Don't count on it (1)

aichpvee (631243) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985881)

CSS2 isn't part of "a bunch of other stuff"? The real reason people are switching from IE is that there is so little right with it.

Re:Don't count on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985889)

These are things that matter to the end user.

Not really. Average Joe user doesn't care about security until their computer slows down, goes to the wrong web page, etc. Then they either take the computer in to get "fixed", buy a new computer, live with it (sooner or later a new virus/infection comes along and changes the "strange" behavior to something else--interpreted as "problem fixed"). Your friends/family that count on you for tech support are not the typical user, despite your beliefs.

The features you mentioned, tabbed browsing and IDN again are totally unknown to most users, and for that matter, most couldn't care less.

You can continue to spread FUD, misinformation, or live in your delusional world, but until you get your facts/ideas straight, you will not make an impression on anyone.

Re:Don't count on it (1, Flamebait)

ad0gg (594412) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985897)

Firefox growth is declining [digitalhomecanada.com] Some people I know that switched to firefox switched back to IE mainly because firefox is somewhat unstable and a memory hog. I still use firefox because of tabbed browsing, and if IE gets tabbed browsing I'll probably switch back. Having my web browser use 200 megs of ram is just insane.

Maxthon (2, Interesting)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985972)

and if IE gets tabbed browsing I'll probably switch back.

Then I probably shouldn't tell you about the popular IE wrapper known as Maxthon [maxthon.com] .

Re:Don't count on it (2, Insightful)

Danathar (267989) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985905)

Firefox already does this. It's called XUL.

The amazon browser is a good example. Too bad there arent very many other examples out there...

http://www.faser.net/mab/remote.cfm

Re:Don't count on it (1, Flamebait)

Rylz (868268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985913)

Better web forms will not kill MS Office; OpenOffice will. OpenOffice will have near-perfect .doc compatibility (which is all it needs to convince your average Joe that he should use it rather than pay hundreds of dollars for MS Office) by the time a browser-based Office client is close to possible.

Re:Don't count on it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986005)

Hahahaha you live on a different planet or some in some other astral existence, right? OpenOffice will never be equivalent to MS Office and so long as OO doesn't have a support option, it never will. The ONLY people to claim OO will overtake MS Office are those that can do their own support and those that don't use many of MS Office's features. Document compatiblity IS NOT equal to MS Office equivalency except in the most trivial of documents/presentations/databases/spreadsheets/add -ins.

Re:Don't count on it (2, Insightful)

Coryoth (254751) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986054)

OpenOffice will never be equivalent to MS Office and so long as OO doesn't have a support option, it never will.

OpenOffice does have a support option. It's just that when you buy it with support included it is called StarOffice instead.

The ONLY people to claim OO will overtake MS Office are those that can do their own support and those that don't use many of MS Office's features.

Managing to have perfect MS Office document compatibility is something that may never happen as they're aiming at a moving target that MS can deliberately break if they so choose. The feature race, however, is probably in OpenOffice's favour in the long run. MS is ahead for now, but OpenOffice has been improving and adding features much faster than MS Office has been. Unless MS manages to kick themselves into gear OpenOffice being moe feature complete than MS Office is an inevitability - it's only a matter of time.

Jedidiah.

Re:Don't count on it (1)

Nurgled (63197) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985918)

XUL could almost certainly do what you're describing. However, no-one will actually bother to do it firstly because no-one wants to use a word-processor embedded in a web browser and secondly Mozilla's marketshare isn't big enough for anyone to consider such a product.

A slightly more realistic goal would be to get websites implementing a superior XUL interface in addition to the HTML one. Photo gallery sites could implement a proper GUI for organising arranging pictures, for example.

This would be made much easier if there was a way to transparently provide Mozilla users with a XUL interface while everyone else gets a HTML interface. Until that can be done without any input from the user (who won't necessarily even understand what XUL is) it won't get done. If someone can find a way to do that, I'll certainly push for getting it added to software and sites that I have some influence over.

User agent sniffing (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985999)

This would be made much easier if there was a way to transparently provide Mozilla users with a XUL interface while everyone else gets a HTML interface.

Would this UA-sniffing policy work?

  1. If the cookie expresses a preference for HTML, send HTML 4. Stop.
  2. If the User-agent contains "Gecko/" and does not contain "KHTML" or "Opera", send XUL. Stop.
  3. Otherwise, send HTML 4.

IDNs (1)

joebp (528430) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985926)

You seem to imply that FireFox supports IDNs. This is no longer true.

Firefox and IDN (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986015)

Last time I checked, Mozilla Firefox supported input of internationalized domain names but converted them to their underlying punycode representation when displaying them. This is a temporary strategy intended to stave off homograph attacks until somebody suggests a better strategy.

Re:IDNs (1)

Rylz (868268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986053)

Actually, the punycode for IDNs is simply enabled by default. You can still change it back to unicode in about:config.

Re:Don't count on it (1)

rtaylor (70602) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986055)

The only person who actually cares are the people making the web-sites

That's true, but consider that there is a small but growing number of websites which look just that tiny bit better in FireFox or other modern browsers than in IE.

Firefox and Safari are big enough you cannot easily ignore them anymore (for IE specific web developers); but it's pretty easy to use CSS2 to make things look a touch better, then run IE in a different mode.

My most recent website (I don't make very many) was tested primarily with Epiphany and Konqueror, then tested on Opera, Safari, Firefox and IE6.

The others came out very close to what was intended, then I stuck in a css sheet pulled in by IE only which disables or works around a bunch of stuff that it didn't display properly:

<!--[if lt ie 7]>
<link rel="stylesheet" href="/ie6.css" type="text/css" />
<![endif] -->

IE6 displays it adequately; but the extra touches (display: table-cell instead of inline, etc.) make it come out that much cleaner.

Re:Don't count on it (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986098)

Don't count on it, sunshine. The reason IE is losing market share to Firefox is two fold.

The public perception of the IE's security has declined.
It's missing a lot of nice features such as: tabbed browsing, international domain names and a bunch of other stuff.


Well that's a fucking list and a half aint it, sunshine? HAHAHA! Same old tabbed browing shit, well you know what? It's coming, then what the fuck are you gonna do?

Fucking blind prick bastard.

Dupe... (1)

odaen (766778) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985821)

No shitake mushrooms sherlock!

The Average User (5, Insightful)

glamslam (535995) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985826)

With close to 90% share of the market and a LARGE unsophisticated userbase (who will not change browsers when the one installed works on EVERY website that joe-nascar ever uses), I don't think Microsoft will be losing any sleep over this.

Sad but true....

Its CSS support is so weak.. (5, Funny)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985827)

..That the story had to be posted twice

Re:Its CSS support is so weak.. (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985896)

Okay, then I am not experiencing deja vu :-) /. did f-up!

I've had no problems coding stuff for IE 5/6 and Firefox, using external css. You just have to know how to do it.

I'd really prefer MS to support the XMLHttpRequest object as part of the browser, rather than the Active X object that can be blocked by security settings.

Oh, our documentation person has had only a few problems with CSS, but they are actually minor.

Think of it this way, you don't have to buy that CSS2 / CSS 3 book :-)

Re:Its CSS support is so weak.. (1)

FidelCatsro (861135) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986023)

All i ask is that MS would play fair and stop trying to rewrite standerds just as they have a little supposed problem with some parts of them.
Standerds are so very important for a fair market , and we cant have one company just deciding to make their own rules , and i know MS is not the only company guilty of this , But They are in the lime-light today

With all due respect to Firefox and standards (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985830)

Since when was Competitor B, which holds 6% of the market, considered a "serious player" capable of holding sway over Competitor A, which holds 89% of the market.

Though we might wish it were so, it's time for a reality check.

Re:With all due respect to Firefox and standards (1)

Decaff (42676) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985991)

Since when was Competitor B, which holds 6% of the market, considered a "serious player" capable of holding sway over Competitor A, which holds 89% of the market.

Because if you develop public websites, 6% of visitors to your website is a usually large number of people. That number of complaints because your website is only compatible with IE is a real problem.

If you're MS, why support standards? (4, Insightful)

bigtallmofo (695287) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985831)

In Microsoft's short-term thinking, they're less likely to support standards. Despite losing market share, their browser is still the defacto standard on the Internet.

Supporting standards only makes other browsers a viable alternative. How many people use Firefox but have to continue to use IE at work because of sites that only work in IE?

Re:If you're MS, why support standards? (1)

hu8 (864954) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986067)

Because, one time they will understand that they can have control over anything, but not over the internet and OSS... I think OSS can seen as resistance against M$, like the punks against the system... ;)

Actually... (5, Insightful)

Rylz (868268) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985835)

Actually, this may help MS more than you would think. Sites will continue to be written for a non-standards-compliant browser, which makes them less likely to render correctly in the browsers that do follow standards. If enough pages render incorrectly when somebody is trying out Firefox or some other standards compliant browser, they'll give up and go back to IE.

Re:Actually... (1)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985931)

Bingo! This is exactly what MS is doing.

I can't even count the number of times I have set people up with firefox only to have them to switch back to IE because firefox would not let them view video at msnbc.com or would not let them view their childs school assignment because the website only supports IE.

MS most certaintly wants to prevent the web browser market from being commoditized! Which is exactly what standards do.

The best hope for firefox is to be picked up by some large ISP vendor or be installed by default by some large pc provider.

I have a great comment on this story (2, Funny)

gavri (663286) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985860)

But I think I'll polish it up over the weekend and post in for the next dupe

King Timothy of the Dupe (-1, Redundant)

theolein (316044) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985864)

His Royal highness, King Timothy has decided to grace us with his uncanny ability to post duplicate stories.

Re:King Timothy of the Dupe (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986001)

Dupe, Dupe, Dupe of Earl

Freedom to innovate? Not! (3, Insightful)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985870)

So, Microsoft is exercising their 'freedom to innovate' a crappy non-compliant browser. Way to go boys.

Is there any standard that Microsoft has adhered to and not broken? It seems they're always ignoring or redefining standards.

I hope we're finally getting to the point where they'll keep losing market share by not supporting this stuff; because they've got the worst case of instututional Not Invented Here syndrome I've ever seen.

Re:Freedom to innovate? Not! (1)

OAB_X (818333) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985901)

Microsoft hasnt broken the Windows standard yet. Mostly because it IS the standard but thats not really the point.....

Re:Freedom to innovate? Not! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985911)

While I would love to see all sites rendered the same in all browsers...

don't you think that when a browser has 95% market share others should adapt to it not the other weay around?

Would Firefox, that would render pages exactly like IE, be more usefull then it is now?

Re:Freedom to innovate? Not! (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985966)

don't you think that when a browser has 95% market share others should adapt to it not the other weay around?

What, and simply give up and hand them the rest of their friggin' monolopy so they can finally completely ignore consumers? Why not just give them a law that says all software must be Microsoft and all the money goes to them too?
Would Firefox, that would render pages exactly like IE, be more usefull then it is now?

No, it would be more broken than it is now.

It's the IETF and the W3C that get together and define standards. It's not Microsoft dictating all the standards to the world.

Why extend something that 99% of the time is bloat (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985883)

For every good use of CSS, such as Google Maps, there are a thousand terrible uses. I have no desire to load a 10K frontpage-generated stylesheet to see what would otherwise would be a 2K article.

The usual benefit, if I'm lucky, is rounded corners, background colors and crappy side banners. I have content filtering taking out *.css and rarely does it need to be taken off for a good reason.

This breaking news just in -- (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985885)

Generalíssimo Francisco Franco is still dead.

Odd Rumor Mongers (3, Interesting)

buckhead_buddy (186384) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985891)

What is the real agenda behind these rumors? Normally elusive, unnamed "Microsoft Partners" assure us that in the next release every feature will be fixed, every security hole patched, and every wish list fulfilled. Rarely do the rumor mongers say "It's true, they're only going to make a half-assed effort on this."

Is this CSS 2 people trying to pressure Microsoft into releasing a CSS 2 compliant browser? That's unlikely. Traditionally their focus is spreading rumors that they've seen a beta version of the next big release and that it has "perfect" CSS 2 compliance. Therefore, people will want to be ready to transition to CSS 2 compliance now since its arrival is inevitable.

Is this Microsoft trying to sabotage acceptance of CSS level 2? Possible, but they rarely do this by saying one of their own products is a dog. They fund studies and research and industry pundits to rail against the problems with whatever feature they don't want to implement.

So I'm a bit at a loss of who is left that would actively be trying to diss CSS 2 and also diss Microsoft's development process? Any rumor mongers want to start a rumor?

OMFG (2, Funny)

EEPS (829675) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985894)

This has to be the biggest DUPE in history! .... second to that World War 1 and World War 2 thing... how unoriginal :)

Weakest Link show (1)

alexandreracine (859693) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985916)

CSS Support IE 7.0's Weakest Link

That actually sound like a tv show.

-Sorry for you Bill. You are the weakest link. Good bye.

-Arrrggg, that's not fair! Everybody voted againts me! Linus, even you can think of good competition? Remove your vote!

Here is my fear (1, Troll)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985927)

M$ will provide a "security" patch that will check for the presence of "potentially viral" software (read Firefox) then provide a solution that will cripple Firefox's functionality. This might be in form of FF always crashing or even closing some ports that FF needs to work well. When this happens very few users will dare use Firefox again. Maybe the Europeans will tame M$ this time.

Guess what? they're scared. (1)

powerline22 (515356) | more than 9 years ago | (#11985945)

This whole CSS and IE7 issue has shown that MSFT is worried about the threat that projects like these pose. Even if Firefox has a lot of support, its installed user base is still very small. MSFT has 90% of the market, logically why should they care enough about that small 6% of market that won't use their product? If they thought that the fox doesn't pose a threat, then they wouldn't spend millions of dollars crafting a new browser, spending the time to make sure that it works on all different types of computers, etc. But this just proves that they do.

CSS Support in IS 7.0 is not the weakest link (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985970)

It's the greatest thing since sliced bread, I will be able to legally watch DVDs in Internet Explorer. w007 w007.

So stop coding for other browsers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11985994)

Fucking morons. Diesel gas went out decades ago, you don't hear the hobbyist go-cart drivers whining about it. Get a fucking life, get off of Linus's fucking balls, quit your fucking whining and join the rest of humanity. Fucking losers.

Versions (2, Interesting)

t_allardyce (48447) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986020)

The absolute worse thing about Microsofts CSS support, is that its not even consistent between different versions of IE!! there are really irritating things that differ between 5 and 6 for example and IE for the Mac is just a totally different browser with Microsofts name tacked on the end. Firefox wins hands down - even tho its CSS isn't perfect it still works the same across all platforms (plus Mozilla ;) and version wise i've yet to see a problem - or even see wildly out of date versions in use.

MS doesn't care (4, Insightful)

lawpoop (604919) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986030)

The only thing that can get MS to change their browser is website developers. If they design CSS2 compliant websites that break IE, MS will fix it.

Bet let's get real: MS still controls over 90% of the browser market. Web developers will develop sites that function more or less identically in IE, FF, NS, etc. CSS will not break MS' monopoly on web browsers.

Firefox a major player? (5, Insightful)

Lysol (11150) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986038)

"..when IE was the only game in town, but now that Firefox is a serious player..."

Uh, so don't get me wrong, I loathe IE like the next guy, but how does - at best - 6% of the browser market already make Firefox a major player?? Apple's got around, what, 2%-3% of the desktop market, yet no one's calling them a major player.

Frankly, we should be blaming all those web 'developers' for their lazy and frankly, filthy, coding. I've worked in quite a few places and only those on the outside or real passionate web programmers care much about anything non-IE.

This will become more and more of an issue in the coming months and years as people start catching on to more of the Google halo effect: the DHTML/xmlrpc sorta 'fat' web client app. Customers and company higher-uppers are going to start saying more and more "why can't we do that like Google Suggest or Google Maps?". Be prepared.

I just have to also say it really pisses me off, as a enterprise developer, that I have to deal with a market like this. I mean, we have standards for a reason. And the fact that you IE only guys out there take quiet joy in your coding lazyness is beyond me.
Take a little more pride in your work and look at the bigger picture! Regardless of what Micro$oft may think, the world should not revolve around IE! Hopefully some day, for real, Firefox will change this.

I have 5 mod points.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#11986049)

Where do I mod this story -1 Redundant?

Because MS can't control CSS2??? (1)

Lego-Lad (587117) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986056)

I used to wonder why Microsoft created JScript, since, it's pretty much JavaScript. Actually, I still wonder about that. Perhaps they aren't fully supporting CSS2 because they don't own it? Nuts.

Why does M$ care? (2, Insightful)

uodeltasig (759920) | more than 9 years ago | (#11986099)

This is a question I wanted to ask on the other post so I'm kinda glad it's a duplication...

Besides firefox default for searching on google, how much actual revenue is lost for M$ with alternative browsers? I'm not looking for a figure I just don't quite understand why it would be worth it to have a full-team of developers and testers working on this over the next year/two?

Are they afraid of it just being that much easy to switch to Mac or Linux? MSN search revenues? What outweighs the cost of development and embarrassment of more security problems?
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>