Details On IE7 CSS Changes 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."
Old News (Score:5, Informative)
Old News.
Re:Old News (Score:5, Interesting)
what's change since .. (Score:4, Interesting)
Has this been previously reported on slashdot?
What is your time limit on when infornation gets expired?
was Re:Old News
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But, but... old news are sooo exciting
Re:Old News (Score:5, Funny)
Stuff that used to matter.
PNG Support (Score:2, Insightful)
At least, to some extent.
Now if only someone would fix the reverse... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Fortunately, some of these sites require IE6 to work, and their browser compatibility tests will fail on IE7. This will motivate some people to fix the problem.
(It will motivate other people to just upgrade their compatibility tests, but Firefox is big enough now that they might as well deal with it...)
Re:PNG Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I poked around Google & apparently IE7 needs OS functionality that is only in XP SP2, Vista & 2k3
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:PNG Support (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PNG Support (Score:5, Informative)
I'd try this in a VM first, if I were you.
Re:PNG Support (Score:4, Informative)
I did it, but then things started to go wrong.
It had a problem with IEDKCS32.DLL during the post reboot install. Now, explorer.exe crashes in shlwapi.dll, and more mysteriously, when I run iexplore.exe, a message box appears and tell me that iexplore.exe is not a valid win32 application...
So I sum up: no more IE (don't care, use seamonkey), but no more desktop also (for now?)... which is more embarassing!
WINE (does it run on linux?) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
http://www.tatanka.com.br/ies4linux/news/28 [tatanka.com.br]
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't matter at all since the rendering (HTML/CSS) engine is exactly the same as Firefox 1.5'.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PNG Support (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
So I heard, and it kept me from installing it for a good few weeks until I was reasonably confident I knew what the potential dangers were. In practice, when I did install it, it caused me absolutely no problems at all.
There were a handful of major applications that did have problem reports linked to SP2 for a while. However, the developers were generally quick to fix these, and I haven't heard of an SP2-related problem report for any legitimate software other than system tool
Re:PNG Support (Score:5, Interesting)
taken from: http://www.daltonlp.com/daltonlp.cgi?item_type=1&
*/
#site_header_name {
height: 100px;
width: 702px;
filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaIma
}
background-image:url(../images/name.png);
}
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Lame approach to the solution. It invalidates the style sheet. It requires to copy-paste nearly the same code for each image. It requires you to write the dimensions manually for each image. It does not work for embedded images (<img src... /> ).
Be virtuously lazy and reuse the IE7 library [edwards.name] instead. (Not related to the topical web browser.)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not planning on it. Once IE7 hits the automatic updates for fully-patched-up users, I'm giving it a month or two and then dropping IE6 support. I'm not going to deliberately *break* IE6, but I'm not going to cater to it either. Win98 users can get Firefox or Opera, and people who refuse to install service packs can go lick a sidewalk.
I already broke down and started using PNG transparency a year or so ago, and IE6 users can just *see* a funny bac
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:PNG Support (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:PNG Support (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PNG Support (Score:4, Interesting)
At my company, I had to install the IE7Block company wide. Unfortunately one of our primary applications (Primavera Expedition) will only work with IE 6.0, not Firefox, not IE 5.5, not Opera. They wrote the app in both Java and ActiveX. Running the web app with IE7 (any version) causes a C++ runtime error and immediate abort.
I personally use/have been using Opera for around a year now. I love the browser and recommend it to everyone, however for this particular application IE6 is a must, unless we are willing to flush a major business app down the toilet.
I don't like it but I can't change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:PNG Transparency or Opacity? (Score:4, Informative)
CSS Opacity (Score:2, Informative)
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 (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, AC is right. Can you get a -1, Redundant for duping your own comment [slashdot.org] from a week ago?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Looks like they think it's fixed.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"From Internet Explorer 5 to Internet Explorer 6, This element is a windowed control and does not support the z-index attribute or zIndex property.
As of Internet Explorer 7 or later, this element is windowless and supports the z-index attribute and the zIndex property. The SELECT element does not require a strict doctype to enable windowless functionality."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
's in there to make the code tidy...
Re: (Score:2)
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 def
Congrats to MS (Score:5, Funny)
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!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Congrats to MS (Score:4, Funny)
is it too much to ask? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:is it too much to ask? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 consid
IE7 zoom is completely borked (Score:5, Interesting)
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
*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 (Score:4, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Firefox by contrast doesn't have zoom at all. But Opera's zoom is quite considerably better than IE7's!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:IE7 zoom is completely borked (Score:4, Interesting)
The "zoom" feature on IE7 and Opera will resize text and images, which on the one-hand tends to make images look fugly, but on the otherhand does make sense if you want the entire web page to be better visible to people with poor eyesight.
There's a nice short description IE/Firefox/Opera size/zoom features on this page [smackthemouse.com].
List of changes (Score:3, Informative)
Left arm starts tingling
Notable lacking features (Score:5, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
IE7 bug - 100% CPU Usage with Frames (Score:4, Informative)
I hope they fix it, but something tells me they won't until I drum up some angry mobs.
Re: (Score:2)
On other news... (Score:5, Informative)
(I'm using it right now).
http://releases.mozilla.org/pub/mozilla.org/firef
Y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Thanks for FF2 link... (Score:2)
select Z- index also fixed (Score:2)
yeah, but when will they fix their damn DOM? (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
What? Next you'll want database vendors to allow you to change primary keys - which is what ids sorta are. Use name for "business keys".
Re: (Score:2)
XSLT (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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 recipie
Re: (Score:2)
FWIW I've never had any problems with XSLT working in both IE and Firefox; there are differences, but nothing that would make me say one is better than the other.... and furthermore, since I've slagged-off MS in other posts, I should say that I've always found MSXML to be very solid, and fast.
If you want XSLT incompatility (?!), then t
Acid 2 Test (Score:4, Funny)
application/xhtml+xml support? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
*Yawn* (Score:3, Informative)
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:
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.
Re:*Yawn* (Score:5, Interesting)
CSS 2.1 Units 96% 96% Y 97%
CSS 2.1 Importance I I Y Y
CSS 2.1 At-rules 21% 21% 43% Y
CSS 2.1 Basic selectors 23% 64% 86% 77%
CSS 2.1 Pseudo-classes 29% 36% 93% 93%
CSS 2.1 Pseudo-elements 25% 25% 63% 63%
CSS 2.1 Basic properties 55% 58% 97% 97%
CSS 2.1 Print properties 38% 38% 42% 92%
CSS 2.1 Conformance 43% 43% Y 86%
When you look at the grand total at the bottom here [webdevout.net] you get:
CSS 2.1 support:
IE 6: 51%
IE 7: 57%
Firefox 1.5: 91%
Opera 9: 94%
So, this shows that
a) IE7 is an improvement over IE6 (though admittingly not impressive)
b) Firefox isn't perfect, like you'd be mislead to believe
c) Opera is actually the most standards-compliant browser
But hey, there's lies, damn lies and statistics, but noone would ever use that to try to make closed-source appear worse than it is, and open source better than it is would they?
Re: (Score:2)
You must be looking at just the last line of the table. Look at the table itself -- there's stuff there that Firefox doesn't support.
Sorry, but claiming that Firefox has 100% CSS2.1 support is just bullshit. And I should know, since I work on said CSS support in Firefox...
Isn't there a standard for CSS? (Score:2)
damn I hate that DOCTYPE crap (Score:2)
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 unhea
HTTP/1.0 compliance? (Score:2)
I'm sick of having to launch IE to download a special Linux boot CD because the person hosting it is too lazy to configure their server to serve it with the right Content-Type.
Re: (Score:2)
So don't. Right-click on the link and choose "Save Link As...". Or right-click on the ISO-as-text and choose "Save Page As...". Or use wget on the command line. No reason to resort to IE and take advantage of its broken, standards-violating content-type sniffing.
And for the converse case, when someone configures their server to se
:hover ! Yeah! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Does this mean.. (Score:5, Funny)
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.. (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Worst-case scenario, you could use some of that IE-only CSS-ifdef-by-browser-version-shit (I forget the M$ name for it) to disable the
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Why am I not surprised that in fixing IE they have broken the previous, non-standard hack crap?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)