×

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!

Details On IE7 CSS Changes

Hemos posted more than 7 years ago | from the maybe-slashdot-will-work-better dept.

203

writes "IE development team has released a list of CSS changes for IE7. Some of the notable new features are enabling :hover for all elements, and implementing position:fixed, and PNG transparency support. In addition, there is a long list of fixed bugs that plagued previous IE browsers for years. These changes (except for PNG transparency) only work under the <!DOCTYPE> switch to preserve compatibility with previous versions of IE."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

203 comments

Old News (5, Informative)

thinsoldier (937530) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546912)

that IE blog post is from August.
Old News.

what's change since .. (3, Interesting)

rs232 (849320) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546998)

What's changed in CSS specs for IE7 since August?

Has this been previously reported on slashdot?

What is your time limit on when infornation gets expired?

was Re:Old News

Re:what's change since .. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16547410)

See, slashtards have to bitch about something. It's the first thing that hasn't been duped, so they complain that it's old.

PNG Support (2, Insightful)

Neovanglist (566939) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546934)

It's about damn time. No more having to use crappy file formats to make sure that your websites have to work with IE anymore.

At least, to some extent.

Now if only someone would fix the reverse... (3, Insightful)

Channard (693317) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546986)

.. which is certain websites requiring IE to work.

Re:PNG Support (5, Insightful)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547152)

You'll still have to cater for IE6 or a loong time, especially since IE7 can't be installed on Windows 2000 or Windows XP SP1...

Re:PNG Support (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16547332)

I don't care. Now IE6 is the browser which gets the bare bones styles and Firefox, Safari and IE7 get the nice stylesheet. The site works, if you want form and functionality, get with the times. If you can't install IE7, there are other options aside from upgrading your OS.

There's no need to break existing sites, but new sites will make use of alpha channel PNGs and not provide a visual equivalent to IE6 users. Catering to IE6 is expensive. That is one sick, broken browser.

Re:PNG Support (2, Insightful)

Teilo (91279) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547832)

Just as long as you don't forget that IE7 is >= XP-SP2. There are a massive number of W2K machines out there that are SOL for IE7.

Re:PNG Support (2, Interesting)

KDR_11k (778916) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548796)

And? IE6 users should be punished until they accept a browser that does not force web developers to implement all kinds of workarounds. Upgrading to XP may cost money but Firefox is free so they have no excuse. And someone running XP SP1 (or no SP) needs to get a clue and finally patch his system. If someone wants to stay on an old version that's their thing but we aren't going to go an extra mile just to accomodate their outdated software. We aren't writing out websites for Netscape 1.0 and we aren't going to write them for IE6 anymore.

Re:PNG Support (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547390)

You'll still have to cater for IE6 or a loong time, especially since IE7 can't be installed on Windows 2000
Good thing FireFox 2.0 is coming out soon...

I poked around Google & apparently IE7 needs OS functionality that is only in XP SP2, Vista & 2k3

Re:PNG Support (2, Funny)

Supergibbs (786716) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547460)

at least that is what MS says..... yeah for forced OS updating!

Re:PNG Support (5, Interesting)

Evan Meakyl (762695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547512)

Tried to hack the installer (update.inf file, to be correct) in order to install it on Win2k. The process starts, but ends saying that the cryptographic services isn't running... Does someone has an idea to bypass this?

Re:PNG Support (1)

bcat24 (914105) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548532)

I'm not sure, but maybe it really isn't compatible with W2K. There are new services in every OS iteration, right? If so, I can understand why Microsoft would only want to support the newest platforms.

Re:PNG Support (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16548678)

It involves starting the setup procedure, and then replacing the hacked inf with the original before the cryptographic service (yes, it has to be in manual or automatic) can verify it. This is easier to do with a slow computer, of course (you may need to write a batch file if you run a modern processor). At least, this works to install WMP11 under Server 2003. What'll happen with IE7 under W2K is very much a mystery, though I'd be surprised if your explorer shell still worked after completing setup.

I'd try this in a VM first, if I were you.

Re:PNG Support (1)

jonwil (467024) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547804)

Windows 2000 I can understand but anyone still using Windows XP without SP2 is stupid IMO...

Re:PNG Support (3, Informative)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548646)

SP2 breaks lots of stuff. Besides, on my PC at work I don't go around installing system upgrades... If anything breaks it's my fault for not asking the appropriate department to do it.

Re:PNG Support (4, Interesting)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548244)

There is actually a work around for IE's lack of transparency support in PNGs. It depends on some clever tricks with CSS and the fact that IE 6's CSS is broken. The only catch is that it is limited to images defined in divs.

/* IE versions prior to 7.0 do not support transparency, so the following is a workaround
      taken from: http://www.daltonlp.com/daltonlp.cgi?item_type=1&i tem_id=217 [daltonlp.com]
  */

#site_header_name {
        height: 100px;
        width: 702px; /* Mozilla ignores crazy MS image filters, so it will skip the following */
        filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImag eLoader(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale src='../images/name.png');
} /* IE ignores styles with [attributes], so it will skip the following. */ .site_header_name[class] {
    background-image:url(../images/name.png);
}

PNG Transparency or Opacity? (1)

rHBa (976986) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548142)

I hope they mean that PNG opacity support has been added as PNG transparency support would be almost completely useless (as we can already achieve this with gif).

Re:PNG Transparency or Opacity? (3, Informative)

arose (644256) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548420)

Have you been hiding under a moonrock? :-D IE6 supports PNGs binary transparency, IE7 finaly supports alpha channel as well.

i think firefox should be worried this time (-1, Offtopic)

Asshat_Nazi (946431) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546944)


ENOUGH OF THIS GAY BANTER, ON WITH THE TROLLING!!!

8====D~~



During my years as a councilor at a Boy Scout camp, I have had the chance of many experiences. The chance to see naked boys in the community showers and the sight of sexy bodies going for a dip in the lake but one memory comes back clearer than ever.

First let me introduce myself. My name is Joshua, but friends call me Josh for short, I am 17 years old and about 5 foot 11 with a really toned body. I run 2 mile each morning right after I wake up to keep myself in shape. I had always loved the outdoors and I have plans to be a teacher when I got older so I thought teaching kids is going to be a great experience for me and that's how I became involved in the scouting program.

It was my second year at scout camp being a councilor and that comes with some major seniority, and that was the ability to have the over 21 staff buy me alcohol. One night after a stressful day of working with a bunch of crying whiny little kids I decided its time to crack open my 1/5 of jack. I sit back in my tent relaxed just slowly drinking the night away when Caleb popped his head into my tent. He was 16 years old with a body to die for, he was center for his High School football team and had a six
pack any guy would give his left nut for.

"Hey josh," Caleb muttered, I could tell he had been drinking, " come over to my tent, I cant find my flash light." So I stand to the best of my ability and stumble following him over to his tent, and fall in, shining my light around till he finds his. Then I take the last drink of my jack and lay the bottle down why I lay there looking up into the dark tent ceiling. All of a sudden my dick began to get rock hard as a thought of a plan. I pulled my 8 inch dick out and started jacking off and said "Caleb I am going to masturbate in your tent." "Na you wouldn't dare do anything like that" he replied as he shined his flashlight on my hand as I slowly pumped my cock. He looked at my cock with wide eyes as I began to pump a little faster. I saw him reach over and take off his boxers and began to play with his 5-1/2 inch cock. I laughed at him and said "Wow you really do have a small cock why don't you jack me off and see how it is to hold a real cock on this boy hands."

He looked at me and shook his head no, I reach over and forced his hand away from his cock and began to jack him off he followed suit and began to do the same with me. It feel good because he was going at a fairly fast pace and I began to moan softly. Then he did something I didn't expect he move his mouth over my dick and began to softly suck it. His bobbed his head up and down making sure to please my dick equally with his tongue. He moved his dick over my mouth and I began to suck it, taking it in inch by inch till I hit his pubes then I began to take it in and out slowly. I took my mouth off his dick and used my tongue to pleasure the left ball then the right, then taking them both into my mouth being careful. As we continued to 69 it up, I thought I heard a noise outside so I moved slightly and apparently he took this as a sigh to stop and got off, I was pissed so I grabbed his hand and placed it back on my cock as he began to jerk me off again he got up took off his boxers and said to me Fuck me josh, Fuck me hard"

I couldn't resist this little hot stud so I placed him on the floor and put my cock to his virgin hole and began to softly push inward. I heard him grunt softly as in pain and I stopped; keeping my cock still it was about half way in. Keep going I heard him mutter and I began to put more pressure till my pubes touched his ass. I said here we go as I began to slowly fuck this tight virgin man hole enjoying each pleasure able in and out I took. I began to pump faster and faster letting my balls made contact with his ass.

i am Cumming I muttered as I released 5 huge squirts of my man juice inside his virgin hole. I quickly drew out and turned him over and began to give him a blow job leaving nothing in question and within 30 seconds my mouth was filled full of this studs seed as I drank each gulp that he so graciously gave me. I gave him a firm kiss on the lips and said Good night my Caleb as I walked back to my tent and fell asleep at 2:09.

Re:i think firefox should be worried this time (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16548852)

Ahh those were the days.

      Fast forward to 6 years later. Caleb is dead now. He died last year of Kaposi's Sarcoma, an AIDS related cancer. I miss him so much. If only I had known that I was infected that day at the Boy Scout camp, he might still be alive. At least he is free now, while I still take my medication, day after day. I used to take more, but the insurance companies won't pay anymore and I can't afford it. I lost my job the week my boss found out I had HIV from a co-worker. And to think I trusted that bastard.

      I've lost a lot of weight recently, and I have this cough I can't seem to get rid of. The doc here at the hostel says it's probably pneumonia from a bug called pneumocystis carinii. Anyway he managed to get me some free samples of an antibiotic to try to control it.

      Oh how I regret those days of my youth when I had unprotected sex with anyone I could find. Anyway I have to go, my time is up on the computer here.

Does this mean.. (0, Flamebait)

bigattichouse (527527) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546956)

Will I have to unfix or re-fix all my PNG transaprency Javascript to compensate for the turd that is IE7?

Polish it! Make it Shiny! Microsoft brand turd-polish.

Re:Does this mean.. (2, Insightful)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547238)

Whose fault was it for using a partially-supported standard? Did somebody at MS hold a gun to your hand and demand that you use PNG?

Re:Does this mean.. (4, Funny)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547436)

Did somebody at MS hold a gun to your hand and demand that you use PNG?

Now listen, shee... you're gonna use PNG... and you're gonna like it! Or my six-shooter may have to loose some lead on you, shee? Nyah...

Re:Does this mean.. (4, Insightful)

EvilMonkeySlayer (826044) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547630)

We have a design spec that we're meant to follow, either we do it in flash or we do it in HTML, CSS with a bit of Javascript and some alpha transparency PNG's.

Which site would you rather go to?

I know which i'd prefer.

I was faced with that exact conundrum a couple of years ago, either I can learn Flash and create a site that is unusable in text browsers, unusable to blind users, unusable to non windows and mac os users and an inability to copy text from the website etc. Or code it in HTML, CSS & Javascript (with a few alpha PNG's) which I already knew. Which the MAJORITY of web devs know.

I created it in HTML, CSS and JavaScript.

That said the site which is still up works fine in IE 7 as well as 6, no need to tweak the JS for the alpha png stuff.

Re:Does this mean.. (2, Interesting)

bigbadbuccidaddy (160676) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547580)

The Alpha filters still work... With the exception that any text rendered over an Alpha filter (e.g. a .png or an Alpha transparency) looks like ragged shit, as for some reason it is not rendered anti-aliased. For .pngs you can remove the Alpha png filter nonsense, but so far I have no solution for text on top of an alpha transparency.
Why am I not surprised that in fixing IE they have broken the previous, non-standard hack crap?

Re:Does this mean.. (3, Insightful)

xENoLocO (773565) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548290)

Well, you see, when you fix a bug, you, well, fix the bug. All the CSS hacks out there exploit unfixed bugs, so you see by fixing them, they ruin your hacks. That's why you don't hack. Use conditional comments.

CSS Opacity (2, Informative)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16546962)

It's too bad they couldn't be bothered to add support for CSS opacity then. All the other major browsers have supported that forever, and using filter:alpha(opacity) is getting stupid.
Also the <input type="button"> still renders with tons of extra padding you can't get rid of, even with padding: 0px; so buttons still show up super large in IE compared to all the other browsers.

Re:CSS Opacity (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16547038)

You said almost precisely this comment the day IE 7 came out. I remember laughing at your crying.

Re:CSS Opacity (1)

nacturation (646836) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547386)

You said almost precisely this comment the day IE 7 came out. I remember laughing at your crying.

Indeed, AC is right. Can you get a -1, Redundant for duping your own comment [slashdot.org] from a week ago?
 

Re:CSS Opacity (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16547058)

Just use button tags and put a p in that, you can style that anyway you want and the HTML is still semantically correct ('this "paragraph" is a button').

Re:CSS Opacity (1)

Ark42 (522144) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547438)

Just use button tags and put a p in that, you can style that anyway you want and the HTML is still semantically correct ('this "paragraph" is a button').


That doesn't change anything. For example, a 10pt Tahoma button (input submit, input button, or just button tag) will render with 8 extra horizontal padding and 2 extra vertical padding in IE compared to other browsers. A 20pt button renders with 29x10 extra padding you can't get rid of.
Also, text input boxes always have N+1 margin (in pixels) where the default is 0px and means 0px. If you set it to 1px it renders with 1px margin in Firefox and a 2px margin in IE6 and IE7.
It's about impossible, still, to design a large entry form that looks the same in IE as other browsers still. Things either have to look tiny and cramped in other browsers, or big and stupid in IE.

Re:CSS Opacity (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547130)

I hope they fixed the fact that you can't get anything (like a floating div) to show up on top of a <Select> no matter what you set the z-index as. I'm pretty sure that I heard they fixed it, yet I haven't gotten around to trying it yet.

Re:CSS Opacity (2, Informative)

Intron (870560) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547192)

"Select control: CSS style-able and not always on top"

Looks like they think it's fixed.

Re:CSS Opacity (1)

Yusaku Godai (546058) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547854)

Thank god. I had a rendering bug for a website in IE because of that, and it took like half an hour to explain to my boss that it's a bug in IE and there was really nothing I could do about it.
Okay, if I tried really hard I might have been able to found a workaround, but as I told him "I'm sorry, I can't fix IE."

Re:CSS Opacity (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16548164)

I had that too. Unfortunately the boss made me do the workaround. (I was putting a floating div "hint" for each field on a fairly complex page, and the select entries were blocking the hint.) Workaround was to put an iframe inside of the div, then write a webpage containing the hint into the iframe. Nasty as hell, thanks to:

A) Iframe with no content triggers the "some insecure content" warning on an SSL page. Required loading blank.html in the iframe when the page was loaded.
B) Changing the content in the iframe gets registered in the history, requiring extra "back" presses to move back, since the div is hidden again when the hint is closed, it looks like nothing is happening
C) Original idea was to show the hint on mouseover and close it on mouseout, but the mouse events were screwed up, with the mouse "leaving" the div when it "entered" the iframe on the then-current version of mozilla. IE also had some weirdness "sometimes".
D) Hiding the iframe in a hidden div occasionally caused rendering problems on old versions mozilla.

This was one of the first things I ever did here years ago, now I'd probably try creating the iframe using the DOM rather than having one "hidden" in the top of the page that got moved to wherever it needed to be and the content updated each time. I'd probably also detect IE and use the iframe only for IE.

Re:CSS Opacity (1)

uradu (10768) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548756)

Also, you don't really need to render the DIV inside the IFRAME, simply put the IFRAME underneath the hint DIV. The IFRAME covers the (windowed) SELECT, and the DIV covers the IFRAME--weird, but it works. Doing it this way requires very little code difference between IE6 and the rest.

Re:CSS Opacity (1)

LouisZepher (643097) | more than 7 years ago | (#16549102)

You could also code your page to use text-links for input. Give them a class-name, then in the CSS: .buttonlink {background-image: static.img;} .buttonlink:hover {background-image: url(hover.img);} If you want to scale the image for each "button", simply create a 1px-wide gradient image to match the system style, and apply an x-repeat in the CSS. Of course, until border-radius is implemented, this would result in a square-cornered button. However, it should suffice if all you want is to have your inputs look and feel like an ordinary button without the size issue you describe.

All that with the ability for someone to hax0r (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16546974)

into another machine with one or more of the billions of exploits in Internet Exploder and Mico$oft Winblow$.

Congrats to MS (4, Funny)

TrappedByMyself (861094) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547024)

They still continue to work hard to implement the CSS2 spec which came out 8 and a half years ago.
I'm excited to see if they can implement CSS3 in time for my retirement in 30 years.

Keep your node to the grindstone kids, I know you'll get there!

is it too much to ask? (4, Insightful)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547028)

"In addition, there is a long list of fixed bugs that plagued previous IE browsers for years"

It's be nice if Microsoft provided a list of every single unfixed bug in IE7 as well.

Re:is it too much to ask? (5, Funny)

Lex-Man82 (994679) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547074)

"It's be nice if Microsoft provided a list of every single unfixed bug in IE7 as well." There ain't enough storage space on the Internet for that.

Re:is it too much to ask? (1)

creimer (824291) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547372)

Here's the problem [userfriendly.org] but the fix is easier than fixing IE!

Re:is it too much to ask? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16548004)

That's the kind of geek humor I used to like about UF. Still doesn't seem worth sifting through all the awful dross to get these gems.

Re:is it too much to ask? (5, Informative)

masklinn (823351) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547202)

Why would they when other people [positioniseverything.net] are already [satzansatz.de] doing that [webdevout.net]

Re:is it too much to ask? (1)

a.d.trick (894813) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548688)

  1. They should know their software better than anyone else since they have access to their source code. Ergo, they should be able to make better bug reports.
  2. As a matter of honour. IE is really a buggy POS. Microsoft should own up to it and not rely on other people to document their software.

Re:is it too much to ask? (0, Flamebait)

PsychicX (866028) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547430)

It's be nice if Microsoft provided a list of every single unfixed bug in IE7 as well.
Why bother? People like you would simply claim it's an incomplete or somehow dishonest list anyway.

Re:is it too much to ask? (1)

krell (896769) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548434)

"Why bother? People like you would simply claim it's an incomplete or somehow dishonest list anyway."

People like me meaning "the average user". The MSIE releases have a track record of coming out of the box and producing "Gee, I wonder if someone in Microsoft actually tested it before it was released". I did try the Beta, but got rid of it because they messaged with the usual way to open a new window, and it also happened to kill Visual Studio. (I guess nobody at Microsoft, prior to the beta, ever considered opening a new window with it or seeing whether or not it was fatally incompatible with major Microsoft products).

IE7 zoom is completely borked (5, Interesting)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547240)

Hi all,

IE7 isn't ready yet; it needs more testing!

For example, create a super basic html page. Within the <body> insert a single <p>aragraph, and within that paragraph, insert a(<a href="#">) link (</a>) - insert it somewhere after the start of the paragraph and before the end. E.g.

<body>
<p>This is a <a href="#foo">test link</a> for checking IE7 links</p>
</body>

Okay, view the page. It looks fine. Now Zoom 125%. The underscore below the link is rendered funny, and even better, if you move the mouse over the link, you'll find the mouse :hover events START BEFORE where the link is rendered and END BEFORE the rendered link ends.

*I believe* if the link has a background colour, then this background is rendered in the wrong place also.

Quite honestly I don't know how MS could've missed this... but there again....
Z.

Re:IE7 zoom is completely borked (5, Informative)

gc8005 (733938) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547338)

Installed IE7, found two problems within 10 minutes.

Does not work with SalesForce. Buttons do not render. They'll appear as a thin line without text.

IE7 does not work with our SharePoint / WSS v3 Beta (with R2 patch applied). Excel views crash. Works fine with IE6 and Firefox.

IE7, IMHO, is not ready for prime time. Even uninstalling is somewhat hidden. Hint: Control Panel, Add/Remove software, show Windows Updates, then find IE7, remove.

Re:IE7 zoom is completely borked (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547994)

IE7, IMHO, is not ready for prime time. Even uninstalling is somewhat hidden. Hint: Control Panel, Add/Remove software, show Windows Updates, then find IE7, remove.
I didn't have that problem myself; it was just in Control Panel...Add/Remove software and was listed as "Internet Explorer" I think. That's on a XP Home install and I had previously installed IE7 betas, which I had uninstalled prior to installing a new version.

So even the installer has intermittent bugs?

Re all the other issues, yeah there's plenty of sites that don't look right although without investigating the problem, I tend to give IE7 the benefit of the doubt; I'm all heart aren't I?! :D

The bestest test though is www.microsoft.com in IE7 vs. Opera (current version whatever that is). Since they both have a "zoom" feature, try them both at 125% and then choose which one looks the best AND feels most responsive.

I suspect that the powers that be decided that IE7 has to be out the door by a certain date, bugs or no bugs.... so we've got the bugs!

Re:IE7 zoom is completely borked (1)

adolf (21054) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547792)

Page zooming is horribly broken in every browser I've used, except for Opera, which manages to get it right most of the time.

But, see, it has always been broken.

That it is still broken is really not a problem new to IE 7.

And it's really not a surprise that they didn't catch this variation of brokenness, because this stuff has been so broken for so many years in so many browsers that one could only reasonably be lead to conclude that developers in general have nothing but disdain for the Zoom function.

List of changes (2, Informative)

Rik Sweeney (471717) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547254)

FTA: We also extended our existing implementations to comply with W3C specifications:

Left arm starts tingling

Notable lacking features (4, Informative)

Jugalator (259273) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547376)

Using the QuirksMode CSS compatibility chart [quirksmode.org], some lacking features in IE 7 compared to the competition are:
  • display: table
  • :before and :after
  • :active
  • :focus (IE 5.2 for Mac actually still does a better job)
  • outline (IE 5.2 for Mac has full support)
  • Tables: border-spacing
  • Tables: border-collapse
  • Tables: caption-side
  • Tables: empty-cells

Only listing shortcomings where support is present in all or nearly all of Firefox, Opera, Safari; the majority of its competition.

But it's still a huge improvement over IE 6 standards-wise, and I think Microsoft did a pretty good job taking their ancient IE 6 code and doing something decent out of it. IE 7 adds support for all CSS selectors, and even handles the + selector better than Firefox, applying styles correctly in dynamic updates [quirksmode.org].

Maybe with IE 8 they will be even more competitive with the browsers of today, standards-wise.

Re:Notable lacking features (1)

Dorceon (928997) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548218)

Maybe with IE 8 they will be even more competitive with the browsers of today, standards-wise.
But not, of course, with the browsers of the day IE8 is released.

Re:Notable lacking features (1)

Ant P. (974313) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548302)

In MS's defence (crazy, I know...) they do have "display:inline-block", which IMO is a lot more useful than CSS for making table layouts.

IE7 bug - 100% CPU Usage with Frames (3, Informative)

iONiUM (530420) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547490)

I'm surprised nobody has noticed this yet. If you load any page which contains frames, where the frames contain a large amount of HTML (or just text for that matter), the CPU will spike to 100% for some period of time that is related to the amount of HTML within the frame. I've tested this numerous times and it's a huge problem. IE6 does not show this issue at all. Go ahead, try it out. What's really interesting is while it's at 100% CPU usage, it will yield the CPU to other processes (if another process requires some CPU), but not to itself.

I hope they fix it, but something tells me they won't until I drum up some angry mobs.

Re:IE7 bug - 100% CPU Usage with Frames (1)

Muad'Dib129 (868864) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548086)

The company I work for has an Intranet Site that uses frames, up to 6 to be exact. I've not seen my cpu percentage spike above 25% yet...

Re:IE7 bug - 100% CPU Usage with Frames (1)

hsmith (818216) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548890)

Are you using the PNG hack to get PNG transparency? I experienced this issue using DHTML and rendering lots of images. It killed the CPU, so I had to write a clause to not render the PNG.htc hack for IE7

YES! (1)

Wizzerd911 (1003980) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547500)

FINALLY! Support for transparent PNGs so sites can finally look extra schmancy! I've been waiting for that forever. But too bad now position:fixed divs means evil ads that will follow you around on the page and cannot be closed.

On other news... (5, Informative)

Yuioup (452151) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547544)

... Firefox 2.0 is available on Mozilla's FTP.

(I'm using it right now).

http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefo x/releases/2.0/ [mozilla.org]

Y

Re:On other news... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16547728)

Y

Please stop posting porn on Slashdot

Re:On other news... (1)

Nasarius (593729) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548070)

Were there any changes since RC3, or is it identical?

Re:On other news... (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16548444)

They are exactly the same, md5sum gave me for both: dec219811d989aeed2b8c7e338cc0b03

Re:On other news... (1)

Anal Cock (1016533) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548170)

You should probably point out it's not been officially released yet. You know what some people are like. ;-)

Another thing which is totally cool and I didn't know existed:
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firefo x/releases/2.0/win32/xpi/hu.xpi [mozilla.org] (or 2.0/linux/xpi/whatever.xpi)... Certainly beats downloading a whole new version of firefox. Why don't they make these language packs a bit more obvious? :(

select Z- index also fixed (1)

HighOrbit (631451) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547588)

It also looks like they fixed a problem in IE6 where a select/combo control in the background shows through a div with a greater z-index (i.e. the div should be in front and the combo hidden behind, but the combo was peaking through). I use javascript to change a div's CSS properties to make it into a "popup" by manipulating the position and display properties when certain events were triggered. It didn't work right in IE6 if there was a select element underneath, because the select always showed through. I read somewhere that the problem in IE6 was caused because the select controls were rendered as native windows controls and not rendered by the html engine. Anyway, it looks like they fixed it in version 7. I tried it out and it now seems to be working correctly.

yeah, but when will they fix their damn DOM? (2, Informative)

victorvodka (597971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547610)

How about the fact that you can't change ids on the fly? Or that referring to an object by ID returns one whose name is the ID you're looking for? These two bugs alone are responsible for the loss of two days of my life. Will Microsoft be giving those back to me with this release (which I can't install because I run a pirated copy of XP).

Re:yeah, but when will they fix their damn DOM? (2, Funny)

Z34107 (925136) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548006)

These two bugs alone are responsible for the loss of two days of my life. Will Microsoft be giving those back to me with this release (which I can't install because I run a pirated copy of XP).

They'll give you those days back when you give them their $90. ^.^

Re:yeah, but when will they fix their damn DOM? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16548016)

>>Will Microsoft be giving those back to me with this release (which I can't install because I run a pirated copy of XP).

Boo hoo. Microsoft not giving you support on an illegal copy of their software. Life's so hard on you, isn't it?

Re:yeah, but when will they fix their damn DOM? (1)

victorvodka (597971) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548908)

boo hoo for everyone then, because this shit is broken for people who paid for their dumpy os as well!

Re:yeah, but when will they fix their damn DOM? (1)

dumbo11 (798489) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548220)

"Or that referring to an object by ID returns one whose name is the ID you're looking for" Oh yes, the joy of debugging "document.getElementById('description')" - how I laughed when I found out that on a live site it usually returns a meta tag...

XSLT (3, Interesting)

slummy (887268) | more than 7 years ago | (#16547842)

IE7 XSL Transformations are still the same. Writing an XSL stylesheet that transforms the same both in IE and Mozilla is a bit of a paradox. I've figured out ugly workarounds but am still in awe at the level of difficulty when trying to maintain cross-browser compatibility. One thing that I'm wondering about is how IE7 handles a malformed XML document. IE6 has no problem using a document that is not well-formed, whereas Mozilla will complain thoroughly. I guess we'll have to put that to the test.

Re:XSLT (2, Insightful)

Chatterton (228704) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548260)

One thing that I'm wondering about is how IE7 handles a malformed XML document.

The question is: If having an XSL transformation working the same in the 2 browsers is difficult, why adding more complexity with malformed XML documents ? Only a broken implementation of an XML parser will support mal-formed XML documents...
It is my point of view. I am an XML wellformedness nazi from the simple fact that XML if for interchange of data. If you are lazy at the way you wrote/generate your XML files, the recipients of thoses files will have huge problems to read, interpret and extract useful information from them.

I am now rephrasing my question: Why wondering about how a system handle malformed documents (except by rejecting them) when there is no good reason to have malformed documents in the first place ?

The Freedom to innovate-When market share at ris (1)

crismoj (121205) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548128)

Isn't coincidence just amazing? Microsoft promotes a new browser with new features just as reports come out that IE is losing marketshare to firefox. For their next performance, do you think they'll pass the Acid2 test or do you think they'll join the committee that creates the Acid2 test so that they can pass the Acid2 browser rendering tests?

Re:The Freedom to innovate-When market share at ri (1)

Doctor-Optimal (975263) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548620)

Isn't coincidence just amazing? Microsoft promotes a new browser with new features just as reports come out that IE is losing marketshare to firefox.
Yeah, fuck those assholes!

How dare they adopt popular features like that? Who do they think they are, some sort of business?

application/xhtml+xml support? (2, Interesting)

Logic and Reason (952833) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548652)

Does anyone know whether IE7 finally supports the application/xhtml+xml MIME type? That would mean we can finally start serving XHTML pages the way they're supposed to get served, with no stupid browser detection. (I know, I know, IE6 will be around for the next six decades or so...)

*Yawn* (2, Informative)

Dracos (107777) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548682)

IE7's CSS (and other standards) support hasn't changed since RC1. They've said this.

For a complete report on IE7's support, see WebDevout.com [webdevout.net]. For those thjo lazy (or embarrassed) to click the link, here's a summary of CSS 2.1 support:

  • Firefox: 100%
  • Opera 9: 86%
  • IE6: 43%
  • IE7: 43%

In the grand scheme of things, what they did to improve IE7's CSS support is statistically insignificant. They basically took all the IE7 bug pages on the net and cherry picked what they felt like fixing.

Make no mistake: IE7 is little more than a marketing effort attempting to stave off the rise of other demonstrably better browsers. The few fixes they did put in are going to cause even more problems for developers who decide to support it (I'm not) because of how, which, and in what context the bugs are fixed.

Isn't there a standard for CSS? (1)

KeithH (15061) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548732)

Should we start preparing for a new generation of IE-only sites? Lord, I hope not.

damn I hate that DOCTYPE crap (1)

r00t (33219) | more than 7 years ago | (#16548818)

It's all fine if your HTML is spewed from a GUI editor, assuming the extra bytes don't bother you.


Hand editing is another matter. Back in the old days, none of this nonsense was needed. You always got the best the browser had to offer. If you were neat and tidy about things, you'd add the <html>, <head>, <title>, and <body> markers. If you didn't feel pedantic, you just jumped right in. Starting off with "Hello this is my web page!" was just fine. Closing a <p> tag was unheard of, and even illegal in some web browsers.

It was about the same as writing an HTML formatted Slashdot comment: easy, simple, and fast.

still many bugs to fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16549062)

Read the article How IE causes problems [howtocreate.co.uk] (28 pages). It was written for IE6, but updated for IE7. You can explore the both historic and outstanding problems in detail.

ACID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#16549146)

Until IE can handle the ACID smily face properly, (or FF for that matter) its still broken.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...