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!

IE7 Compatibility a Developer Nightmare

CmdrTaco posted more than 7 years ago | from the one-better-than-six dept.

416

yavori writes "Internet Explorer 7 has kicked in at last on all MS Windows OS running PCs because of the fact M$ decided to force it's users to migrate through update. In fact this has started a IE7 Web Developers Nightmare. The article actually explains that most of the small company B2C sites may just fall from grace because of IE7 incompatibility. One of the coolest thing IE7 is unable to do is actually processing form data when clicked on an INPUT field of TYPE IMG... which is pretty uncool for those using entire payment processes with such INPUT fields."

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

FIRST TROUT! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498446)

I AM A FISH!

The developers fault to begin with... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498448)

The W3 published the specs, MS acquiesced to lazy developers who refused to follow it by rendering non-DTD-compliant content, get reamed for it, start supporting the W3 standards, and get reamed for it again! MS can't win with you people.

Vague FUD (5, Insightful)

telbij (465356) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498458)

I'm gonna grant the author a free pass on the writing since it's obvious English is not his first language. But the rest of the article seems to be vague hand-wavy FUD and anecdotal complaints. To take two of the more cohesive statements:

IE7 was supposed to comply more with the standards what in fact isn't true.

The truth is that standards were not the first priority of IE7 (they are an evil mega-corporation after all), but they did do an awful lot of work on them. Just take a look at the list of CSS improvements [msdn.com] over at the IEBlog. They acknowledge that there's a lot more work to do, but it's clear from this that they've solved a lot of headaches for CSS developers.

And the MOST killer thing was the DISability of IE to submit data through "input type img" which actually was the whole sites data...

I'm assuming the author means forms won't submit with an <input type="image"> tag. Without even testing it, I can't believe for one second this is true. This is a major backbone of HTML going back to at least HTML 2, and used in millions of websites. If this were broken it would have been fixed during beta. Microsoft may not care that much about web standards but they do care about backwards compatibility, and a lot of their decision making process has centered around not breaking things that worked in IE6.

It's likely IE7 is going to be a headache for web developers, but this article doesn't do anything to support that argument. As a web developer IE7 hasn't really taken any of my time. So far it's been more reliable than IE6, and I look forward to the day when IE7 is the standard and IE6 is an afterthought for picky clients.

Just in case it *is* broken (3, Informative)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498518)

The developer could use a bit of javascript to hide the submit button, show the wanted image. Then an OnClick event on the image submits the form as per usual. This way it'll also degrade properly when javascript is disabled, seeing as the non-image submit is defaulted to.

Re:Vague FUD (2, Insightful)

BenoitRen (998927) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498542)

I wonder if he even gave much thought to it:

According to W3C the web browser market share of IE7 for the previous month is: 7.1% and for IE6 is: 49.9%

Since when was the W3C site representative of the world-wide browser market share?

Re:Vague FUD (1)

Oddscurity (1035974) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498590)

Ever since Netcraft confirmed it.

Re:Vague FUD (4, Funny)

dosius (230542) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498580)

I look forward to the day when links is the standard and the browser everyone targets. I use Firefox but I don't think anyone should be forced to use ANY particular browser - if it runs on Links it'll prolly run on just about anything.

-uso.

Re:Vague FUD (0)

wwwillem (253720) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498950)

Make that "Lynx" ..... (www.lynx.org) which is a 'command line only' browser.

Re:Vague FUD (2, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499012)

Make that "Lynx" ..... (www.lynx.org) which is a 'command line only' browser.

No, I think he meant Links [sourceforge.net] , which is a more advanced text based browser.

Re:Vague FUD (1)

jlarocco (851450) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499112)

No, the GP was right. Here. [sourceforge.net] And here. [sourceforge.net]

Re:Vague FUD (1)

ruiner13 (527499) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498600)

I have a site that uses an input type=image element. I just tested in IE7, and it works fine. Perhaps there is some specific onclick method that isn't being called on some sites? I don't know, but it certainly isn't completely broken.

Re:Vague FUD (4, Informative)

ctstone (699147) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499002)

IE does not submit the value attribute of an image input. This makes it a bit difficult to have multiple buttons in the same form with the same name attribute. This means that each image input must have a unique name in order to tell them apart on the server.

Further reading at
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/forms/imagebutton.h tml [cs.tut.fi]
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.infosystems.ww w.authoring.cgi/browse_thread/thread/aca99089127ac f0f?rnum=1 [google.com]

unprofessional (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498464)

Pretty unprofessional to use the "M$" moniker in a submission. But whatever. Also it probably should not say that people were forced since they have to agree to the install and don't need to do it at all. But whatever. Typical biased press you get here from some of the folks. Many folks can be more balanced but lately we hear from a lot of "slashtards".

Mod up!! (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498560)

You are totally spot on, and yet got modded -1 Troll. Figures. Why exactly are the editors here if they leave such childish name calling like "M$" on the front page?

Somehow I doubt if I submitted a story calling Linux "Linsucks" it would be accepted. It's almost pathetic how long lasting the Microsoft hatred has lasted. The editors are in their thirties now for chrissakes. Grow the fuck up.

Re:Mod up!! (2, Funny)

Millenniumman (924859) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498968)

Replacing the G in GNU with a hammer and sickle or peace sign would seem fair as a rebuttal to "M$", but /. doesn't support the character.

10 LET M$ = "Microsoft" (1, Offtopic)

tepples (727027) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499136)

Pretty unprofessional to use the "M$" moniker in a submission.

I see the $ as referring not to capitalism but to Microsoft's heritage as a developer of BASIC language interpreters, from Altair BASIC through Applesoft BASIC, GW-BASIC, QBasic, and Visual Basic to VB.NET. Line numbered BASIC dialects used the $ sigil on string variables:

10 LET M$ = "Microsoft"
20 PRINT "Hello ";M$
30 END
produces
Hello Microsoft

In this way, saying M$ to refer to "random BASIC vendor" is no different from saying $PHB to refer to "random out-of-touch manager" (as described in Jargon File: Hacker Writing Style [catb.org] ).

Using M$ in Slashdot comments' subject lines has another advantage: it abbreviates "Microsoft" to save seven bytes out of the 50 permitted in a subject, without inviting comparison to multiple sclerosis [microsoft.com] .

Re:unprofessional (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499150)

yeah it should NOT say we have to install IE7 on any windows installation because it is simply not true. I do not have IE7 installed on this xp sp2 box, and I never will.

Article is poorly written (1)

asquithea (630068) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498484)

Isn't there a better write-up of this anywhere? This 'article' is just an incoherent rant with very little useful information.

I like my articles that way... (1)

AmazingRuss (555076) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498724)

...so I can fill in the incomprehensible parts with things I would dearly love to be true. Facts are annoying when they run counter to beliefs.

Re:Article is poorly written (0, Redundant)

Total_Wimp (564548) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498886)

Using "M$" for Microsoft removed any questions I may have had about the objectivity of the author. I found it difficult to finish reading after I hit that point. It's like listening to Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken for the news. Why bother? You're only gonna get half of it.

Seriously, you guys that pick out the stories, shouldn't that term be an automatic round-file?

TW

Microsoft does suck (-1, Flamebait)

litewoheat (179018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498502)

Microsoft has just sent out a big "FUCK YOU" to all of its developers. Vista, IE7 and Windows Mobile 5 all introduced changes and additions that break previous software and make it hard to port that software. Gone are the days of backwards compatability. Its as if there's a whole new generation of people at Microsoft who don't give a shit.

Re:Microsoft does suck (5, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498530)

Its as if there's a whole new generation of people at Microsoft who don't give a shit.
But that's exactly what needed to be done! The "backwards compatibility" crap is why web sites still need special hacks to display their pages differently to IE 5 and IE 6 clients than modern browsers that actually follow the standards. These platforms were broken from the get-go but people coded their sites to embrace the broken functionality while many times ignoring the standards-compliant browsers!

Re:Microsoft does suck (3, Insightful)

litewoheat (179018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498618)

Developers now have to support IE5, 6 and 7. There's more work to do. So how does your argument apply? Standards are what the market demands, not what developers do. IE still owns the market and its the de facto standard, like it or not. Just because some academics came up with a "standard" doesn't mean there's a law that says that everyone needs to follow it. They should be called "suggestions".

Re:Microsoft does suck (4, Interesting)

Planesdragon (210349) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498718)

Developers now have to support IE5, 6 and 7.

No, not necessarily. Web Developers are advised to test against all browsers with more than a 3% market share for their site. If your site has 3% share of IE 5, 6, and 7, then you've got your work cut out for you. Most others don't have that problem.

Just because some academics came up with a "standard" doesn't mean there's a law that says that everyone needs to follow it. They should be called "suggestions".

The wonderful thing about standards, when done correctly, is that everyone can support the standard and get essentially the same result.

In all honestly, if your website can't function fine with the minor variations between browsers, then you've got a bad design. (And let's not even get into how bad your site will look in mobile devices, or without images, or for the blind.)

Re:Microsoft does suck (3, Funny)

Afrosheen (42464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498904)

"And let's not even get into how bad your site will look ...for the blind.)"

  I'm guessing it'll look like a series of dots. ;)

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

hr.wien (986516) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498750)

How about "recommendations" [w3.org] ? Anyway, for IE's implementation to be considered an actual standard, and not a buggy mess of badly implemented features, Microsoft would have to publish the details of how their rendering engine works. How am I supposed to code to an undefined standard? Trial and error only gets you thus far.

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498756)

Don't forget they also have to support non-IE browsers.

DAMN those people who use non-IE browsers, just making developers lives harder...

(Sarcasm, if you can't tell.)

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

wonkobeeblebrox (983151) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498782)

> Standards are what the market demands, not what developers do

I think it is clear what standard means. But, since there is apparently some doubt about it, here's a dictionary reference:

Main Entry: 1standard
Pronunciation: 'stan-d&rd
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French estandard banner, standard, of Germanic origin; akin to Old English standan to stand and probably to Old High German hart hard ...
3 : something established by authority, custom, or general consent as a model or example : CRITERION
4 : something set up and established by authority as a rule for the measure of quantity, weight, extent, value, or quality ...

versus:

Main Entry: suggestion
Pronunciation: s&g-'jes-ch&n, s&-'jes-, -'jesh-
Function: noun
1 a : the act or process of suggesting b : something suggested
2 a : the process by which a physical or mental state is influenced by a thought or idea b : the process by which one thought leads to another especially through association of ideas
3 : a slight indication

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

litewoheat (179018) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498814)

And who's the authority? A group of academics who've never developed commercial software in their lives? I cede no authority to them.

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

BOFHelsinki (709551) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499116)

Ah but is that a standard dictionary? ;-) (A Collins COBUILD man here...)

Re:Microsoft does suck (2, Informative)

rfunk (765049) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498798)

I'm a professional web developer, and I stopped worrying about IE 5 about a year ago. None of my clients seem to have noticed or cared. They're happy as long as IE 6 works (and Firefox if I'm lucky, and soon IE7, though they're generally not there yet).

My web stats aren't showing much if any IE 5 traffic either.

Re:Microsoft does suck (2, Insightful)

teslar (706653) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499046)

Standards are what the market demands, not what developers do.
Absolutely not! The market demands features and standards are there to ensure these features can be brought to the market in a consistent fashion by different developers working on different parts (e.g. in this case webpages and browsers to display them).

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

Alien Being (18488) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498570)

"...to all of its developers"

No, MS has sent the FU to its customers and partners. I'm happy to see it.

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

bberens (965711) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498976)

Actually, it's more of a big "FUCK YOU" to small business. Big business had solutions in place before these things left beta. It's a major BOON for developers who now get to fix old apps for contractor rates.

Re:Microsoft does suck (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498998)

I work for a small ISP. I can't count the number of times I had to have people remove this piece of shit just so that they can get internet connectivity back.

First question: Do you have Internet Explorer 7 installed?

Remove it.

Second question: Do you have Windows Live Messenger installed?

Remove it.

Customer: Everything works fine now.

Thanks Microsoft.. once again single handedly reviving the tech industry! What would we do on tech support if we didn't have your help?

Not a useful article, really (4, Interesting)

djkitsch (576853) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498522)

It would be nice to see examples of failing code, for instance. I've not tried it myself yet. The author's English skills leave a lot to be desired, to the point of making his complaints a bit vague.

The upside to this is that the same "forced" upgrade procedure MS are using to roll out IE7 can also be used to roll out bigfixes without user intervention, if IE7 was originally installed transparently anyway.

Anyway, I can't say it a big surprise that IE7 has its own foibles. IE6 was also a developer's nightmare, with the DOM and JS environment behaving differently from Firefox, Opera etc, so it's just another workaround. I'm only disappointed that Microsoft didn't make more of an effort to bring it inline with the competition so we could avoid yet another set of JS and CSS hacks. It's not like they have limited resources!

Re:Not a useful article, really (1)

Richard W.M. Jones (591125) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498568)

I can't see that they've fixed anything very much in IE7. Our IE6 fixes used the "* html" hack, and that was fixed in IE7, but then we found we needed to include all the same fixes anyway. So now we end up having to serve two extra stylesheets.

I ranted about that on our company blog [merjis.com] .

Rich.

Re:Not a useful article, really (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498602)

Just use *+html to serve those same fixes to IE7.

Re:Not a useful article, really (1)

cortana (588495) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499102)

Hm, I thought IE7 implemented adjacent sibling selectors?

Re:Not a useful article, really (2, Informative)

cdwiegand (2267) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498816)

Sure, try using a variable named status or error. In IE7, MS silently makes those reserved words. How do I know? I used them in my AJAX library at my old job. Weirdly, IE7 would break, with IE6/FF wouldn't. After doing some testing, I eventually found out that you can't have a variable named either of those two in IE7's JS. And I found NOTHING on the web anywhere where they (or anyone) said that that wasn't allowed....

Bah (4, Interesting)

F452 (97091) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498526)

And the MOST killer thing was the DISability of IE to submit data through "input type img"

Maybe I'm not understanding what the claim is, but it's easy to demonstrate that this is not true. I just tried with IE7 to submit data on a form that uses an input type of image and see that it works fine.

This article has almost no information and it seems the only reason it was posted here is to stir up anti-Microsoft antagonism. (Now someone will say, "You must be new here.") :-)

In my experience, IE7 is much better at supporting standards than IE6. A huge improvement in CSS support, so that now as I design in Firefox 2.0 and occasionally verify things in IE7, I see that they are very, very close. Most of what I'm doing is working with WordPress blogs so it's very possible I'm not using things that are now broken, but if anything Microsoft should be given some credit for improving their browser.

There's plenty of reason to not like Microsoft, but this article doesn't supply much (if any) ammunition, and it doesn't do the free software crowd much of a service to engage in our own unsupported FUD.

Re:Bah (3, Insightful)

Timesprout (579035) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498790)

Its getting way too typical around here. Some obviously clueless twat cant do something, blames MS and Slashdot post it like its gospel truth. For a site thats supposed to be clued up technically its just fucking embarassing.

Re:Bah (4, Funny)

mtenhagen (450608) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498958)

This article has almost no information and it seems the only reason it was posted here is to stir up anti-Microsoft antagonism.
You must be new here.

more than an incomprehensible rant (4, Interesting)

yagu (721525) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498536)

As some have pointed out, this appears to be an incomprehensible rant. The "article" referenced says little and backs up that little with less.

I also notice the "submitter" seems to be the same person as the blogger for the article. Not saying this shouldn't happen, but this usually shouldn't happen... If it's good enough to get "published", it's good enough to be published by someone other than the author.

Completely and 100% untrue (4, Informative)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498572)

This is just fucking ridiculous. This little rant is not only incoherent, but it's 100% wrong. See for yourself [codetoad.com] .

Jesus, do Slashdot editors actually *do* anything? Seriously. Do any of them actually *read* the articles they're posting, or is it all about pageviews and keywords?

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (0, Redundant)

jlowery (47102) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498688)

> Jesus, do Slashdot editors actually *do* anything?

You must be new here.

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (1, Flamebait)

NineNine (235196) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498760)


You must be new here.


Check out my uid. I've been here a while. What's frustrating is that Slashdot used to be good. After they went public, the quality of the articles have gone downhill dramatically. It seems like half of the articles they post these days are like this one: completely untrue, completely unfounded, and barely literate. It's unfortunate that the Slashdot editors have taken such a massive amount of traffic, and a large amount of inertia, and essentially shit on it. If any of the editors did even a tiny bit of work (spell checking, reading the articles, checking to see if the same article was posted within the past few articles), Slashdot could be what it used to. Now, it's just a rapidly declining brand (like Netscape) that is failing due to gross negligence and neglect of the owners.

I can assure you that if I had a web site with anywhere near this kind of traffic, I wouldn't throw it down the toilet the way these guys are.

What really needs to happen is that the shareholders of VA Software Corp need to sue OSTG to get the current managers (and Slashdot editors) fired, and some responsible ones in their place. The way that OSTG is being managed is quite literally, probably criminal.

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498802)



You must be new here.

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (1)

JoshJ (1009085) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498948)

Would you like some cheese with that whine? It's rather bitter, it's probably a good idea.

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498992)

<snip longwinded comment showing the parent poster didn't get the "you must be new here" joke> You must be new here.

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (0, Redundant)

Briareos (21163) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498706)

Jesus, do Slashdot editors actually *do* anything? Seriously. Do any of them actually *read* the articles they're posting, or is it all about pageviews and keywords?

You must be new here... :P

np: Kaito - We Were Born Here (Hundred Million Light Years)

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (1)

yavori (1048014) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499008)

I posted a COMMENT on my site about this... please don't judge that wrong! I have not submitted this without testing it... and I did test it again. Sorry if the information was not that much and I didn't give some code but if you read my post you will understand. About IE7 not submitting data when INPUT TYPE IMAGE is clicked is still not working on several of the PCs I got and on my fellow developers too... it maybe an APACHE or PHP issue but I REALLY DOUBT THAT IT IS. So it maybe a patch I didn't still apply to my IE7 so sorry if this is old or something wrong for you... FORGIVE ME I am not all known! ----- Human Knowledge Belongs To The World

Re:Completely and 100% untrue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499078)

It's nearly impossible to be both incoherent and provably 100% wrong*. The submitter might actually have meant something true.
I took it to mean that his app was trying to use a VALUE on the tag. And while that may or may not ever have worked (I'm not going to bother checking it out just to make a 1-minute comment be completely correct), the page you linked to doesn't test it. And, for all we know, the incoherent submitter might have meant something else altogether.

*This is why not everyone can agree the president is a complete liar.

I'd like to see IE unbundled from Windows (0, Offtopic)

fishyfool (854019) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498578)

why did the EU have to settle for just Windows Media player?

What a terrible article. (3, Insightful)

tidewaterblues (784797) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498606)

The editors must be desperate today, or else they don't read these things before they post them. I can't find any good reason why I should trust anything this guy is saying on his blog: maybe he has run into a major issue with IE, or maybe he just does not know how to code JavaScript correctly. If his JavaScript is anything like his grammar, error is a high probability.

This is so True (4, Interesting)

Slipgrid (938571) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498608)

It still won't parse the DOM. Stuff that is simple in Firefox, will never work in IE 7.0. I gave up trying to get some features to work.

For instance, I have this js based terminal emulator. I don't want to edit that package, but just use js to read some fields. This is sexy in Firefox, but no chance in IE 7.0.

if (document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'fibfm' || document.Form1.tsprog.value == 'FIBFM'){
var pwrap = document.getElementById("pbsiwrap");
var cells = pbsiwrap.getElementsByTagName("span");
var item = cells[12].textContent;
document.getElementById ("headspot").innerHTML = '';
}

Re:This is so True (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498674)

Instead of text content, you could fetch the text child node. I'm pretty sure that works in IE6 and 7.
And innerHTML is non-standard.
I'm not sure about textContent.

Re:This is so True (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498792)

Hm. Seems textContent is old and in w3 DOM spec?
http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/WD-DOM-Level-3-Core-2001 0913/ecma-script-binding.html [w3.org]
And it *is* true that recursively fetching text data is a bit of a hassle. Not a huge one though.

Re:This is so True (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498850)

You know, I'll bet there are things in DOM level 3 that aren't supported by any browser. But that's beside the point, since you're intent on bashing ie right now.

For what it's worth, you can use innerText to achieve the same result in your sample case.

Re:This is so True (1)

Derek Pomery (2028) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499142)

... um. Why are you answering me? Isn't my sample case. I was suggesting cross-browser methods.
Oh. And using innerText requires annoying browser detection.

Re:This is so True (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498680)

of course, the last line is doing something with the elements i just read... they got striped by the form.

Re:This is so True (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498836)

You haven't been working with JavaScript for very long, have you?

The MSIE equivalent of textContent is innerText, and it's been around since before Firefox was even thought of.

Re:This is so True (4, Interesting)

mollymoo (202721) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498964)

It still won't parse the DOM. Stuff that is simple in Firefox, will never work in IE 7.0. I gave up trying to get some features to work.

The document.FormName.InputName.value form is not part of W3C standards. Try document.forms["FormName"].InputName.value and see if valid code works.

I would hope that with an up-to-date doctype declaration (strict rather than quirks mode) Firefox would barf on that invalid code too.

Re:This is so True (2, Informative)

NickFitz (5849) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499080)

The textContent [w3.org] property is defined in DOM Level 3. Microsoft has never claimed to support that recommendation, and neither Apple nor Opera claim support for it either. Gecko supports it, although the documentation doesn't make it clear that it's from DOM Level 3. If you write code using features supported by only one browser, then you can hardly complain if it doesn't work on other browsers. What you've done is no different from a developer who codes only for IE-specific features, and then whines when they don't work on Firefox.

Coding to standards is important, but you're better off coding to the standards that have been implemented. Otherwise you're just playing with the cool new stuff that you like, and that's not how work gets done in the real world.

Beta testing? (2, Insightful)

mikearthur (888766) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498628)

I'm sorry to sound like a dick, but isn't this what the massive beta testing period is for? Microsoft release beta versions well in advance so websites can be changed BEFORE everyone starts having forceful upgrades. If you wait until these upgrades to do your porting, YOU are at fault, not Microsoft.

TFA was written by a guy who only recently has started porting sites to Firefox, so it's not really surprising he's finding this to be a pain.

Really, the only people this will bite are people who didn't care about standards compliant cross-browser support before, and now are annoyed because IE7 != IE6.

IE7 = Underrated (1)

mattpointblank (936343) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498634)

For the first time ever, I was actually appreciative of IE7 today when I noticed a bug in IE6 was fixed in 7. My site (link's above) just posted "Pass The Mic", a record label feature. I used some CSS to display a div and set background images etc for the headings on each page. On Firefox, if any of the content in my main column is wider than the layout allows, it simply overlaps horizontally. On IE it bumps everything down to below the content in the other columns. IE7 doesn't do this which makes my life a hell of a lot easier (until I come to redesign the site again, argh).

The GUI is still absolutely awful, though.

Breaking news... (4, Funny)

enharmonix (988983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498650)

With easily 50% of the replies to this story in favor of Microsoft and their standards compliance (never thought I'd say that), I feel it's safe to announce that Hell has, in fact, frozen over.

Re:Breaking news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498882)

Don't worry! These comments aren't "for microsoft" but rather against the editors who may or may not have read the article which seems to be patently false, or against the person who wrote the article who seems to have a lack of basic English and a fondness for lies. We here at slashdot at least need a half truth for the fact that the involved party is microsoft to matter in the least.

Affects Apps, too, not just web sites (1, Informative)

transporter_ii (986545) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498682)

I sold a bunch of ebooks created with ebook software that used IE, and has worked with every version of IE since Internet Explorer 4+. The first book I sold after the IE 7 update, wouldn't work. Which means that every person who upgrades to IE 7 that I have sold an ebook too, will not be able to read their books.

Yes, I know the dangers of going with a proprietary solution, and I would love a cross-platform solution that "just worked," but I chose the software because it not only did everything I needed security wise, but was incredibly easy for the end user (e.g. just download it and double-click it).

Emails to the creator of the program have gone unanswered, too. So chalk this up for one more reason to use open source!

On the bright side, I did sell enough ebooks to just about break even on the cost of the software...and it really was an excellent program while it lasted. ;)

Transporter_ii

 

Re:Affects Apps, too, not just web sites (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498796)

Anyone who trusts MS deserves whatever anal raping occurs down the road.

Re:Affects Apps, too, not just web sites (1)

Score Whore (32328) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498888)

So let me see if I understand your problem. You are selling ebooks. That is, not producing a physical product. You want to sell multiple copies so you found a solution that added some kind of security to your documents to prevent duplication and distribution. That is, you added DRM. Now tell me again why anybody around here will give a flying fuck?

Here's why (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498928)

Perhaps some people will care because (a) they have the slightest grasp of economics, (b) they don't support breaking the law and not compensating someone fairly for their work, and/or (c) they're not so blinded by the letters DRM that they can't see it's the people who have paid good money for the e-books who are being screwed the most and not the person who supplied them?

Re:Here's why (1)

F452 (97091) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499130)

That's the problem with DRM. People who pay good money get screwed. This has happened, is happening, and will continue to happen. It's a bad idea for consumers and doesn't work economically, practically, or philosophically.

Re:Affects Apps, too, not just web sites (1)

Jussi K. Kojootti (646145) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498934)

I chose the software because it not only did everything I needed security wise, but was incredibly easy for the end user (e.g. just download it and double-click it).

Judging from your story, it seems it wasn't so easy after all...

This is something we will see a lot in the future, if content owners and users do not start getting a clue about the DRM trap... People will be left with piles of worthless bits.

Re:Affects Apps, too, not just web sites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17499110)

Yes, I know the dangers of going with a proprietary solution, and I would love a cross-platform solution that "just worked," but I chose the software because it not only did everything I needed security wise, but was incredibly easy for the end user (e.g. just download it and double-click it).

...and this partially explains Microsoft's dominance!

They offer these kinds of solutions; it does everything you need, is incredibly easy to use (I won't debate that right now, but, boy, is that debatable for a lot of M$-based products!) and is incredibly easy for the end user. However, what you ignored is the looong history of these products to be broken at the whim of Microsoft! They just don't care about you and your business; they only care about their profit and their business. If that includes shafting the creator of the program you used and, indirectly, you, because both of you trusted Microsoft, well, who cares?

On the bright side, I did sell enough ebooks to just about break even on the cost of the software...and it really was an excellent program while it lasted. ;)

It's a bright side that you didn't quite break even?

Yeah, I'd rush right out and hop on the next M$ bandwagon!

The only thing worse than... (0, Troll)

SuperStretchy (1018064) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498704)

The only thing worse than clients never updating their software is them upgrading to inconceivable excrement 7 and then calling you, their designer, in the wee morning hours with a heated berating for screwing up their website.

I'm up to 3 now.

The biggest problem I've seen so far is the nasty tendency to word-wrap table cells when the overall content text space taken up is greater than what the browser anticipated.

You end with something like this:
Home | Something | something | something more |
last

it hated adultswim.com awile back (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498734)

from my stupid horribly spelt blog
NOTE ie7 now does work at adultswim.com BUT firefox doesn't errr it does if you download this active x plugin for firefox there

Friday, November 03, 2006

i just got home from a night of drinking and i have an email from a co-worker saying adultswim.com is down.
the problem is that my co-worker clicks on watch now on the "fix" page and all it does is open a new browser and loops the commercial over and over and over again..

i in disbelief pull it up in firefox 2.0
see from the glorious background of oglethorpe that there is a new episode available of ATHF!!!!
i go into the site click on the site and after watch a silly commercial of space ghost playing some sort of tony hawk game start watching the new ATHF episode!!!
so it works for me...
i call my co-worker and do the exact same thing while he does it as well on the phone and it keeps looping the commercial for him and not starting the show.
i decide to try in IE to see if it works..
yep it works...
THEN THEN i get the genius idea of asking him if he's using ie7 or ie6.
he says "yep using ie7 it was an update and i want my computer secure" (his words i swear!)
so i having the old outdated IE6 on my computer go to windows update see that it's saying HEY GET IE7 NOW!
i wait the ten mins it takes to do the update and the DAMN! slow update of IE7 and restart my computer since IE7 told me i had to.
so... open adultswim.com in IE7 go to the "fix" section and click watch now under ATHF (aqua teen hunger force) and ..... and....
it doesn't load the episode!!!
all it does when i click on watch the episode is open a new identical page with that damn commercial looping...
even by clicking in the new windows under watch now it still doesn't work.....

those bastards at M$ everyone of the joy of a new ATHF!!! not to mention a new frisky dingo episode!!!

I dunno about this guy... (3, Insightful)

n3tcat (664243) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498768)

FTA: "I recently needed to rewrite a web site so it works on firefox too..."

I'd take what this guy has to say with a large grain of salt if this is how he treats his sites.

Maybe make your pages simpler? (5, Insightful)

Xugumad (39311) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498788)

Okay, firstly, I'd be bloody amazed if the pages in question validate. The guy goesn't give any link to the site, though, so I can't tell.

Secondly... if you're using lots of client side Javascript to make a site work, you're asking for trouble. Google can do this, because they have massive dev and QA teams. If you don't have the manpower to do enough testing (for example, in the beta period) and fix problems, maybe you should make your site simpler.

Every single web application I work on, worked perfectly in IE 7. Even, yes, the ones that use Javascript. This is achieved by:

  • Validating all pages. Okay, they're dynamically generated, so it's possible an error will slip past testing, but this really helps.
  • Testing under multiple browsers. The dev team works with Firefox and Safari, and does a QA pass under IE after any major revisions.
  • Minimising use of Javascript. If Javascript doesn't provide a significant obvious benefit to the user interface, it doesn't get used.

Re:Maybe make your pages simpler? (1)

enharmonix (988983) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498866)

Minimising use of Javascript. If Javascript doesn't provide a significant obvious benefit to the user interface, it doesn't get used.
Right on. Furthering that, if it won't degrade nicely, leave it out instead of putting a "this site requires JavaScript", and many sites don't even bother with that message anymore. Nothing infuriates me more than requiring client-side code to generate somebody else's content. If I have to enable scripting to see somebody's page, I probably don't want to see it.

Perfect example is slashdot - if I don't have scripting enabled, I can still read and even participate without ever running a script on my side. I can't use all of the features like tags or the new commenting system, but the site still works. Try visiting reading a multipage article on Reuters.com without scripting enabled, you won't make it past the first page of any article.

Re:Maybe make your pages simpler? (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498994)

Amazing! Sensible web development practices.

I wish we had done that at the dot com I once worked for.....

News? (2, Informative)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498844)

This is just a fucking whiny blog post. Give me a break.

Re:News? (1)

eldepeche (854916) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498946)

And can I get an internet that blocks any page that refers to Microsoft as "M$?" Please?

What about an old fashion boycott of IE7? (0, Flamebait)

Antony-Kyre (807195) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498864)

Why even bother supporting Microsoft's newer products?

Not A Forced Update (1)

FrankDrebin (238464) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498872)

the fact M$ decided to force it's users to migrate through update

While I personally think MS Windows is lame, I do have a work laptop with XP installed. It is simply untrue that an IE7 upgrade is forced. It may be true that most users will end up with it installed because of their upgrade policies or habits, but IIRC it was as simple as not agreeing to the EULA to avoid its installation.

Re:Not A Forced Update (1)

mrbcs (737902) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499058)

If you just let windows install the updates... you get IE7. If you go actually LOOK at what they want to install, you will see ie7 and you can stop that and tell it not to try again in the future.

If people miss that, they CAN uninstall it through control panel, but if they have installed other programs since the update, they may need to reinstall those programs.

Single Implementation (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498878)

If, despite the assertions in this thread that the article is pure FUD, developers that built their software on MSIE did indeed get their software broken by the forced upgrade to IE7, it's still no big deal. These developers built their software on a single implementation, and then that implementation changed. Well, it happens. Now they just have to update their software to work with the new implementation. There is no faulting Microsoft for this. If, instead of developing for IE, they had developed against some _specification_, it would be a different story.

News? (1)

RAMMS+EIN (578166) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498890)

I thought Internet Explorer had been a compatibility nightmare for years...

I realize that what is meant here is probably compatibility between versions of IE, rather than compatibility between IE and other web browsers, but still. Seeing how badly IE does in the latter, I would not be surprised to see it did badly in the former, too.

Prompts Prompts Prompts (0, Troll)

Tablizer (95088) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498898)

I've been prompted 3 times to download Internet Explorer 7, and if I didn't read the update itiniary carefully, I would have been tricked into it. I even checked the "don't ask again" box, but it made no difference; they kept on comin'. It was very disconcerting. The checkbox was a lie (or sloppy bug).

That's okay, I run two browser brands anyhow. If one zarks up, I try the other brand.
     

My website CRASHES IE7 (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498900)

Seriously, I have no freakin' clue why, but if you hit http://ninja250.kingston.net/ex250f-torque.html [kingston.net] , it crashes HARD. I just had a user point this out to me last night (seldom used page), so I haven't investigated why yet.

The page loads a .csv file with the MS-proprietary tabular data control (TDC.ocx) and uses data binding to display information on the screen. The information may then be manipulated by JavaScript which can convert foot-points to newton-meters, and apply various filters to the data.

It was written this way so that I could take the source .csv and work with it on a non-net-connected laptop eons ago, and never updated. It will work as far back as IE4. ....but I don't understand why it doesn't work with IE7. I mean, sure, I can see them dropping support for MS-proprietary extensions.. but using them shouldn't cause the browser to crash. ARGH!

(If only there was a w3c way to do data binding!!)

... bookmark deleted... bye slashdot (0, Flamebait)

bushboy (112290) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498912)

... and the final straw had been reached for bushboy, as he confirmed the deletion of one of his longest standing bookmarks, slashdot.org ...

So long, thanks for the good times, time to move on, can you digg it ?

what the hell kind of article is that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#17498930)

Kind of a stupid article. You can't fault them for upgrading something. Pretty ridiculous this made a headline.

Err hang on ... (1)

mjdmjd (820194) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498932)

Am I missing something here? surely IE7 has been available for months now, and we all knew that eventually it would replace IE6. Myself and pretty much everyone else I know in the industry have been working to IE7 as a matter of course since at least late last year, so I'm not too sure how people can suddenly be shocked by this "news".

Complacancy... (1)

linebackn (131821) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498940)

Apparently TFA is just a bogus rant, but I can imagine many of the brain-dead monkeys that design for IE-only would be up in arms about this new version of IE. IE 6 was released all the way back in 2001, many of these folks probably "grew up" on IE 6 and never knew or cared about anything else. Now they are finally being reminded that the web is an ever changing place.

And to me the funniest part is that this not only affects actual web content, but also locally installed HTML, help files, and apps that stupidly embed IE.

Forced Upgrade? (4, Interesting)

rudy_wayne (414635) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498942)

"Internet Explorer 7 has kicked in at last on all MS Windows OS running PCs because of the fact M$ decided to force it's users to migrate through update."

Oh really? I still have IE6, although I never use it except when forced to. Who are these people who have been "forced" to upgrade?

Brick And Mortar (5, Funny)

nick_davison (217681) | more than 7 years ago | (#17498956)

Our brick and mortar business went through exactly the same thing. Henry bloody Ford and his evil empire released their latest and greatest product on consumers and it really screwed us businesses that had hitching posts and stables.

One of the worst things about "Model T" was that it belched out carbon monoxide. Seriously! Compare this to a horse where the worst you have to worry about is methane! For brick and mortar store owners who didn't want to pay once again to upgrade from barns for their customers, this caused all kinds of ventilation issues. People could actually die from this stuff!

Some people say that keeping up with the times is part of the cost of doing business. But where will it end?!

awesome! (1)

ILuvRamen (1026668) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499024)

Compare the amount of spyware, adware, malware, badware, annoyware, and whateverthehellelseware to the amount of actually decent software written for IE6 and I think it's pretty obvious that making it harder to work with is a good thing because it will make it a lot harder for the bad people. And as for the good people...they can write firefox plugins cuz all the cool people who want plugins use that (until they wanna buy something or do anything complicated or secure, then they use IE)

Unfortunately, this is false (1)

Don't be a Zealot (1021329) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499100)

I host a website that uses INPUT TYPE=IMG extensively and have no problems with form submission using IE7, Firefox, Opera, et. al. I'm not sure where this "rumor" came from.

how to hang IE7 (1)

josepha48 (13953) | more than 7 years ago | (#17499164)

I found out that if you call appendChild to the body tag in IE7 it will not render the page and then the browser will become unusable.

So do something like: var x = document.createElement("div"); document.getElementsByTagName("body")[0].appendChi ld(x);

Do this right after the body tag and viola, IE7 starts having problems.

It does not render the page ( unless they have fixed this ). Instead it tells you that you have a possible network error. Then, IE7 thinking that the network is down, wont access any more sites, except pages that are in your history. You then have to restart IE7. Funny thing is that even though this is a coding error and the appendChild should be done on the onload event, IE7 does not treat this as a script error, but it treats it as a network error. I spent hours trying to debug this, and firefox it worked fine.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?