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!

Users and Web Developers Vent Over IE7

samzenpus posted more than 6 years ago | from the do-you-feel-better-now dept.

Microsoft 528

Spinlock_1977 writes "ComputerWorld is running a story about developers frustration with IE 7, and Microsoft's upcoming plans (or lack thereof) for it. From the article, "But the most pointed comment came from someone labeled only as dk. You all continue to underestimate the dramatic spillover effect this poor developer experience has had and will continue to have on your other products and services. Let me drive this point home. I am a front-end programmer and a co-founder of a start-up. I can tell you categorically that my team won't download and play with Silverlight ... won't build a Live widget ... won't consider any Microsoft search or ad products in the future.""

cancel ×

528 comments

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

They're finally venting? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21591871)

I heard they had contacts going back and forth for a lot longer than this story representsl [google.com] I dunno.

Stay away from the above GNAA link. (1, Troll)

twitter (104583) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591931)

But yes, web developers are finally fed up with M$'s lack of attention to IE. They turned a M$ blog into a free for all complaint session, kind of like I just turned your fist post troll into a reasonable discussion.

Users of Internet Explorer 7 (IE7) turned a blog post by a Microsoft Corp. program manager into a complaint free-for-all that took the company to task for not following through on browser upgrade promises and alienating Web developers.

Ha ha.

GPP Links to Twitters profile! (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592065)

Twitter is equal to or less than GNAA

Re:Stay away from the above GNAA link. (1, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592073)

reasonable discussion

Does that include the puerile dollar signs and the "ha ha" bit, or should those be ignored?

After all, the troll made a valid point until he linked to a shock site or whatever it is.

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21591973)

It just proves it's old news.

Enough already (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21591889)

Instead of wasting our time with crazy back-patting uselessness, will Microsoft please just admit defeat and close up development of IE and hand it over to people who care about the Web and handle it properly? I have wasted too many hours developing sites to work in IE7 that work without further modification in every other browser.

Re:Enough already (4, Funny)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591907)

Instead of wasting our time with crazy back-patting uselessness, will Microsoft please just admit defeat and close up development of IE and hand it over to people who care about the Web and handle it properly? I have wasted too many hours developing sites to work in IE7 that work without further modification in every other browser.


You must be some sort of Communist.

Re:Enough already (4, Insightful)

Smidge204 (605297) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591975)

Nope, just an AC that copy-pasted a paragraph from the article that far too many mods are not going to read and waste their points thinking he's being original and intelligent.

Nothing to see here, move along...
=Smidge=

Re:Enough already (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592527)

alright, mow that astroturf...

Re:Enough already (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592265)

I hate it, I just hate it. It causes me so much stress. It works in every one except this fucker. Utterly unnecessary. Dear cunting God. AAARGGGGH.

I shoulda learned to play the guitar.

Wouldn't it be nice.... (5, Interesting)

witekr (971989) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592029)

To the web developers reading this: Wouldn't it be nice to be able to write totally standards-compliant markup and code and not have to taint it with all the hacks that are practically a necessity these days? It almost seems like an impossible dream (unless your website design is dead simple).

I'm a web developer by profession, and I must say IE6 and 7 are a frustrating pair of browsers to develop for.

I use the Web Developer toolbar extension for Firefox, which conveniently lets me know if my webpages are following standards and if there are any errors on the page. It's a bit depressing when you've developed a perfectly standards-compliant page, and then are forced to break standards, create Javascript warnings etc just so the page renders properly on the IE browsers.

I don't think Microsoft should leave the browser business, as competition is healthy.. but they have polluted the market with these strange browsers, forcing web developers to have to deal with these issues. It will be a triumphant day for us web developers when we can stick to standards and not have to degrade/hack-up our code in order for the majority of the public to be able to view it as it was intended.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (5, Insightful)

PaulusMagnus (797138) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592143)

I'm a web developer by profession, and I must say IE6 and 7 are a frustrating pair of browsers to develop for.
Agreed. I've found that it's easier to design to Firefox and then test every browser thereafter and IE6 is always last because it's the worst. IE7 is much improved but it's only better because it caught up, it didn't advance the web development cause.

However, I don't honestly believe it's in Microsoft's interests to make a better IE. If IE8 arrived tomorrow with better standards support and better performance, wouldn't we all be able to make use of those "web 2.0" (yuk!) sites. We'd then be able to support a much richer user experience online and in less time. However, this would just give the community developers a way of delivering software that would compete with Office.

Microsoft chose to lessen its support for HTML-based email because it wanted it to render more accurately in Word. Microsoft decided that so much email went through Outlook/Exchange that it was better to use Word as a rendering engine rather than IE. Why on Earth would Microsoft deliver a browser that allowed rich applications to be delivered across the Internet, essentially creating competition for them?

Microsoft will keep delaying IE updates for years to come, always trailing behind the standards-based browsers but they know that as long as the majority of enterprises and businesses keep rolling out Office and sticking with the Microsoft stack, they can delay the inevitable for a long time. It's a very similar tactic that every monopolistic computer company has used and every time it's failed.

In the meantime, I'll carry on promoting Firefox and others so that eventually IE becomes the NS4 of the browser world and I can stop dealing with a minority product.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (1, Insightful)

idiotwithastick (1036612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592297)

In the meantime, I'll carry on promoting Firefox and others so that eventually IE becomes the NS4 of the browser world and I can stop dealing with a minority product.
And this would make Firefox... IE? Something doesn't seem quite right.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592175)

Because, ya know, FireFox follows the standards completely...

Yes, it's more standards compliant, but that doesn't make it the golden child. Every browser has a long way to go, and we really need to SERIOUSLY push all these companies to follow them. DOMs need to be checked into, as well. Try writing rich javascript experiences for all the browsers with one code base. It's doable, but a huge, huge, HUGE pain in the ass.

Frankly, we have a long ways to go and this idle bitching isn't helping.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (4, Informative)

billDCat (448249) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592385)

I don't think that the mods who marked this as flamebait have done web development. The parent is right, all of the browsers have issues of one sort or another, some more, some less. If you don't believe me, try working with JavaScript access to nested object and embed tags in a way that's both standards compliant and works with modern browsers. This is just one example, there are many more.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (1, Troll)

smorken (990019) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592537)

What do you expect? You don't say bad things about Firefox here.

Parent has a halfway decent point (5, Insightful)

mstahl (701501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592533)

Frankly, we have a long ways to go and this idle bitching isn't helping.

We're not bitching idly. We're all working three times as hard as we would have to without IE messing everything up.

While I agree that Firefox has its many flaws (it still fails to render ACID properly, for instance, and still doesn't support a lot of the newer, more interesting CSS selectors and attributes), I have to disagree.

Developing for Firefox is an experience of wishing I could use such-and-such CSS attribute, or wishing it didn't automatically slip padding in such-and-such location. It's quirky. It's definitely NOT buggy the way that IE is, though. IE's layout and rendering are so attrocious that they break things that look just fine in other browsers--something that happens only very rarely in Firefox.

As for javascript, it's like a whole different universe. Firefox has a great, if sluggish, javascript interpreter. It gives me access to a debugging console, too, that is far more functional than that in IE. In addition, I can install extensions like Firebug that make the experience almost as easy as profiling code in an application. Meanwhile, IE provides me with no means whatsoever to inspect how it is operating, no way to determine what the problem is if something goes wrong. This is unbelievably frustrating when I make my living writing web *applications*, not just web sites.

The really sad thing about IE is that it merely takes up space in the web ecosystem; it cannot be said that it improves anything. It raises the bar for frustration tolerance among web developers but that's pretty much it. The only original idea that has come to HTML from Microsoft, sadly, has been the marquee tag, and I'm actually not really sure that it's still supported in IE.

The problem (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592377)

The problem is that we as web developers let them get away with it. The "just make it work" attitude of PHBs is a false economy. The correct way to deal with IE is like this:

Customer: Your web site doesn't work in Microsoft Internet Explorer
Response: The site is standards compliant. Please contact your browser
          vendor with support issues relating to their software.
That wasn't hard was it? I'm all for accessible sites that work in everything from lynx to Fx3 but my days of working my butt off to cover Microsoft's failures and incompetence are over.

Re:The problem (4, Insightful)

longacre (1090157) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592509)

If you build websites for a living, you're going to be homeless pretty soon. I don't know many customers who would agree to throw away 60% of their audience just because their web developer is tired of working harder to make it work for everyone.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (2, Insightful)

diegocgteleline.es (653730) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592447)

Wouldn't be nice if the "web services" were just a graphics protocol that the server uses to display thigns in the client, eliminating the need of care about standards? For example, imagine exporting individual applications through X11, eliminating the need of the "web 2.0"....oh, wait!

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (1)

JohnBailey (1092697) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592473)

The thing to remember is that IE is not a browser. Its a Microsoft product launcher. Thankfully, the products are not always as wonderful as they seem to think.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592575)

I don't think Microsoft should leave the browser business, as competition is healthy

This has my vote for the most ironic thing ever said on Slashdot.

Re:Wouldn't it be nice.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592763)

Yeah! Stick it to the man! Micro$oft products suck ass!

When people stop fearing and actually try other products they will see it for themselves.

Re:Enough already (1)

Frogbert (589961) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592109)

No I have to call bullshit on that.

IE7 Might not be the best browser out there, but it is leaps and bounds better then IE6. I think the real disappointment here is that they aren't going to develop it any further and fix the bugs. There is room enough for IE7, and if they fixed their crap I wouldn't have a problem using it.

Re:Enough already (5, Insightful)

nevali (942731) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592253)

It's better than IE6, that much is true.

It's still very much broken, though. It doesn't have as many major issues as IE6, but it still has its own pile of quirks (some old, quite a few new) that you end up working around in most sites of a reasonable complexity that you build, and it still doesn't support lots of things that every other browser of more than 1% marketshare has had forever.

In other words: IE7 sucks. IE6 sucks significantly more, but IE7 still sucks.

Re:Enough already (2, Informative)

jdeisenberg (37914) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592287)

Having spent several hours today tracking down a CSS interaction between style="vertical-align: middle" and dir="rtl", (works in Mozilla, fails in IE7, fails miserably in IE6), I am in total agreement with your sentiments.

Scary pointed comments! (1)

BladeMelbourne (518866) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591895)

That was a very pointed poignant comment.

Then you will likely go out of business... (2, Insightful)

BenelliShooter (714065) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591901)

Ignore them at your peril.

in other news ... (5, Insightful)

thhamm (764787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591917)

... Users and Web Developers Vent Over IE6 too and any version before that.

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

thhamm (764787) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591949)

http://www.maxconsole.net/content_img/mc_psp_morbo.jpg [maxconsole.net]

'THE WEB' DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY! GOOD NIGHT!

Re:in other news ... (1)

Buran (150348) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592131)

I'm confused. What does a site-logo micro-image have to do with anything?

Keep going. Re:in other news ... (-1, Troll)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592049)

That previous venting is why IE only sites are an endangered species and IE browser share is falling. M$ can't win for losing and Vista brings the OS tipping point very close [slashdot.org] . What do they have to offer besides a hard time buying any other OS? Hardware does not work with Vista, the interface is unfamiliar and painful, Vista is slow, buggy and does less than previous Windoze while both Mac and GNU/Linux run circles around it. M$'s needs a developer and support community more than the community needs them.

Re:Keep going. Re:in other news ... (0, Offtopic)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592103)

You already posted [slashdot.org] in this article.

Is it difficult to keep the sockpuppets straight, or do you just forget?

Oh wait, the other account is in karma hell, so you can only post twice a day with it. I guess that explains it.

CSS support (5, Informative)

gihan_ripper (785510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21591925)

Finally IE7 supports transparent PNGs, but CSS support is still poor at best. Here's a table [quirksmode.org] that lists support of various CSS styles on a per-browser basis. IE doesn't look good.

Re:CSS support (5, Insightful)

MightyMartian (840721) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592055)

Finally IE7 supports transparent PNGs, but CSS support is still poor at best. Here's a table that lists support of various CSS styles on a per-browser basis. IE doesn't look good.


And never will. Microsoft doesn't want to produce a standards-compliant browser. It doesn't want to produce a standards-compliant anything. It is only interested in furthering its monopoly by lock-in. I'm sure the IE7 team is under strict orders never ever ever to produce anything that comes close to being able to run nontrivial CSS, Javascript or anything else "out of the box". It wants developers to abandon competing browsers and push their customers to use IE. That was the strategy behind the mutiliation of Java, the pushing of possibly the most ludicrously insecure plugin system every known in the computing world (better known as ActiveX), and that's its purpose in making sure that IE, no matter the iteration, doesn't play well with CSS.

Now maybe the odd developer will be like the one guy in this article, and vow not to work with MS technologies, but the majority will either go through the countless extra hours of work basically writing two versions of a good chunk of their web apps or going to compatibility libraries (which is insane considering we're dealing usually with interpreted languages at both ends of the connection, so adding yet another layer seems nuts) or will push IE simply because they don't have the time or energy to take the punishment that Microsoft is doling out for being evil and communistic enough not to work strictly with Microsoft's software.

Of course, the irony of this is that when they push out IE8 (whenever the hell that is), Microsoft will bugger those developers again by changing functionality, making sure pages don't display correctly, that objects don't function quite like they did before, and ultimately force developers to in fact support three browsers; IE current, IE last version and everything else. Microsoft's so horrific that it doesn't even attempt to honor its own ad hoc standards.

Re:CSS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592367)

I'm sure the IE7 team is under strict orders never ever ever to produce anything that comes close to being able to run nontrivial CSS, Javascript or anything else "out of the box".
I'm sure they're free to implement some pretty cool and complicated CSS/Javascript...just so long as it's not part of any existing standard. It's important to keep up the appearance that IE7 is an "advanced" browser that has capabilities that the others don't have. It also allows for Microsoft-dependent development houses to put out all the IE-only sites that consistently draw ire here.

Re:CSS support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592389)

2 versions? and they called you Insightful.

Obviously you haven't done much front end web work, or spent hours trying to fix a stupid border.

Bash IE all you like but the rest of the world isn't warm and fuzzy either.

Maybe it is time for someone to come along and relocked into another format that fixes this nightmare!!!

Pixel is a fucking pixel.

The same moral level as spammers. (5, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592471)

For some reason, I resisted the idea that Microsoft's browser incompatibilities were malevolent and intentional.

The kicker for me, though, was seeing people implement Javascript layers that addressed the inconsistencies. In their spare time. For free. It completely demolished the idea that any kind of technical difficulty was in the way. It's been almost four years since Dean Edwards released the IE7 js layer and since then, Microsoft hasn't even managed to roll that much support into their product.

Personally, I put whoever's in charge of Microsoft's IE product development team on the same moral level as spammers. Much in the same way spammers end up wasting your time and gumming a fantastic common resource, Microsoft's product wastes the time of thousands of web devs and holds the web back.

I honestly don't think that anyone's gone far enough in expressing the level of contempt they've earned.

Re:The same moral level as spammers. (5, Interesting)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592511)

What's even worse is that MS removed the * hack from IE6 that people were using to 'rebuild' IE6 to be more standards-compliant. Talk about a slap in the face! Yeesh.

I've not checked to see how Dean's IE7 js thing works with the real IE7 - does it still work?

Re:The same moral level as spammers. (2, Insightful)

peragrin (659227) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592727)

stop resisting the idea that MSFT incompatiblities are malevolent and intentional.

Active X a poor excuse for javascript
Ever changing Document formats, .NET started as MSFT started to lose the Sun Java court case.
MS JAVA a rip off windows only implentation of Java,
Kerebos? nope.

the only Industry standard that MSFT properly supports is ??? TCP/IP And even that is questionable at times. Networking? SMB, nope SMB MSFT way, nope SMB sucks use CIFS. Every time someone gets close to reverse engineering MSFT protocols they change.

Documentation? nope MSFT documents none of their formats. at least according to the sworn statements MSFT made in the EU anti trust case. The only logical reasons are they are lazy and don't have the man power, or they are malevolent in their intentions.

Just plain incompetent (1, Funny)

flyingfsck (986395) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592775)

No, MS developers are just plain incompetent. Malevolence gives them far too much credit. To be malevolent, they would actually have to understand, plan and execute - while they cannot actually do any of those, as proven yet again by the Vista death march project.

Do not underestimate fools. Better ones are born all the time and Microsoft is hiring.

Re:CSS support (5, Interesting)

TheMCP (121589) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592627)

the majority will either go through the countless extra hours of work basically writing two versions of a good chunk of their web apps or going to compatibility libraries (which is insane considering we're dealing usually with interpreted languages at both ends of the connection, so adding yet another layer seems nuts)
Speaking as the author of a compatibility library, I resent being called "insane".

So, I have a compatibility library. Yes, it adds another layer... but that layer *works*, and I don't have to rewrite the code every time I want to know where the scrollbar is or how big a div is. And it's fast enough for anything I've needed to do with it, which has included making calls to it every 100 milliseconds in some instances. And because I have my compatibility library, I can do things in minutes that take other people hours or days or weeks... if they can do them at all.

I've been doing extensive Dynamic HTML work since 1999, so I have to deal frequently with the various browsers' implementations of Javascript and the DOM. And yes, IE sucks. Bad. But you know what? All browsers suck, bad. I have constant problems with Firefox too, and with Safari. Do I have more of them with IE? Yup. If I had a nickel for every time IE made me swear, I could buy Microsoft. But that doesn't make Firefox or Webkit good. They're just less bad.

And, let me point out one case in which IE is the winner, in the hope of embarrassing Firefox (and Webkit?) into doing something useful to me... IE is the only browser with a built in API for replacing the scripting language. You want to replace Javascript with, say, Ruby? IE has the API, you can write a plugin and do it. Firefox doesn't: to write a plugin for it you'd have to extensively muck about in Firefox's internals.

Re:CSS support (-1)

holophrastic (221104) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592753)

You guys seem to forget something critical -- "standards" are supposed to be what most participants do, not what most participants should do, or are being told to do. In this case, there's only one plarey in the game that's been in teh game for more than five years: IE.

You can't, or rather you shouldn't be complaining that IE doesn't support some arbitrary spec from some arbitrary corporation that's never built to their own spec. The W3C had a browser of their own for six seconds, and it never came close to adhering to their own standard. So they've decided to sit back and tell others what to do.

It's nice that FF has come along, and chosen to support much of what the W3C have said. But that too is a copp-out. They've decided to make no decisions, and simply to follow what someone else says -- in this case, someone else who's got absolutely no experience actually doing anything.

You also can't complain that a company has built a product that you don't like -- you don't have to use it, and you don't have to care. It's their product, and their service, and their business. If you don't like it, you're welcome to build your own product any day of the week.

You can go ahead and market it, and support it, and build it, and fix it, and handle it. It's not easy -- I know. I've built my own business, and my own products, and my own suppliers because I couldn't stand someone else's idea of right. But I'll never complain that they shouldn't have done what they did do. It's their business. I've got my own.

So stop complaining, and do it yourself. That's what business is all about.

All of that said, I've got no problem with IE. I've got no problem supporting multiple browsers -- quite frankly, it benefits my business to do so and to have to do so.

But you don't have to. You can build your own browser. You can stop supporting browsers that you don't like. Hey, I did. I don't support Safari, I just don't like it. I don't support Opera either. Until this year, I didn't support FF, and I still don't support FF for backend components. That's my right, it's my business.

So do something. Instead of complaining about what other companies do.

I actually commend Microsoft for IE, both for their innovation in areas that no one else has touched, and for their stubborness to not change things that people may or amy not want changed.

You know, people tend to forget something very simple. Yes there are features that developers continue to emulate via javascript layers. That doesn't mean they should be implimented natively. First off, not every developer layers them the same way and second, if Microsoft builds it in, they become responsible for bugs, and security holes that result. When Microsoft has an issue to deal with, it costs everyone lots of money. When FF has a bug, it costs no one anything, or everyone nothing. Microsoft is actually accountable for problems. Again I know, I pay them to be, and they cover me in more than reasonable ways at minimal costs. I can't pay FF if I tried. That makes FF a useless business associate, and hence completely unreliable.

So stop reaming a company with a successfull product, that we use, and rely upon, and who is comfortable with their own product. You have absolutely no say in what another company does with their own product offerings.

Build you own.

Stop working for someone else, and put your money, your time, your effort, and your blood where your mouth is. Risk your family, your friends, your health, and your future for something that you believe in. Even then you won't be able to yell at other companies, but at least you'll understand why that's the case.

Welcome to the wonderful world of business. You take risks, and you hope for not the worst.

Re:CSS support (1)

Sgt.Modulus (1198753) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592163)

When I was designing my personal web site I came across the decision to add hacks to my work in order to support IE or comply with the W3C standards. I ended up opting to go for standards. Otherwise I would have to fuss with a lot of If user is using IE6 do this. Or make a IE only page and run the IE code when detected. As it is right now FireFox, Konqueror, Opera, and Safari display the web site the best. IE6 not at all and IE7 surprisingly displays it pretty well with some flaws. I noticed differences with FF for Windows and FF for Linux. The site uses lots of CSS. People I know personally that use Windows do not like to use IE7 and have either stuck with IE6 or migrated to another browser. Mostly FF. BTW I'm look forward when Firefox 3 becomes stable and released.

Re:CSS support (1)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592495)

> Finally IE7 supports transparent PNGs

Close. It now supports full alpha transparency in 24-bit PNGs. IE6 hsupports a transparent index colour in 8-bit PNGs. Too bad IE7 also messes up the palette in those fancy 24-bit PNGs, though. :(

Re:CSS support (1)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592747)

You're kind of offtopic. Yeah, IE CSS sucks. But Microsoft's poor support for standards has never prevented their products from being adopted. The developers just grit their teeth and use the non-standard Microsoft equivalent. They have to, because Microsoft technology dominates so many markets. In particular, IE7 still has almost 90% of the browser user base. You can't write a web app and ignore 90% of your potential users!

But in TFA we're talking about lousy Microsoft support for Microsoft technology. It's one thing to tell a developer "my way or the highway;" it's quite another to tell them "sorry, you can't do that with our technology, period." That reminds developers that MS is in the nasty habit of leaving developers high and dry when they lose interest in a technology. That makes it very hard to convince Flash developers that they should switch to Silverlight.

Unfortunately, this disenchantment does not translate to abandonment of IE. The choice of which browser to use is up to the individual user. Who's typically a non-techie who doesn't know or care about standards compliance and such.

IE sucks. (1)

MikeFM (12491) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592811)

It's Javascript support is still somewhat funky too although I admit you see more cross-broweser support issues with Javascript in other browsers too. CSS in Firefox, Safari, and Opera is usually really close on the first try while Javascript can have unexpected errors across them still. Still, IE is still the worse offender and that combined with the pain of getting CSS to work with it is annoying. I make my code work in Firefox, Safari, and Opera then bother with IE7 and finally bother with IE6 last if at all. I still fight with IE7 on a daily basis to work around weird or broken behavior.

Wah (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21591945)

... cried the small open-source company.

Who cares? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21591993)

Why do I need IE 7 when IE 6 already works. I know there are security issues, but I would expect that IE 7 will have security issues too.

You should care, if not a savvy user (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592161)

Why do I need IE 7 when IE 6 already works. I know there are security issues, but I would expect that IE 7 will have security issues too.

Unless you know enough to disable automatic updates on Win XP, you already have IE7 installed, thanks to Microsoft's roll-out of IE7, sneaking it in the normal update. I had to disable auto-update to prevent IE7 install which would have sunk me. I have touchy web-apps which would not run in IE7 so I had to hold off. A lot of people, unknowingly were given IE7 and probably wouldn't have clue number 1 how to roll back to IE6.

Re:You should care, if not a savvy user (1)

SleepyHappyDoc (813919) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592437)

I'd hardly call what they've done 'sneaking it in'. When it finally got pushed down the normal Windows Update, my system popped up an additional dialog box, making it very obvious IE7 wanted to be installed, and giving me the option to not do it. When I put XP SP2 on my Eee this week, it did the same thing. You'd have to either be blind or pathologically incapable of reading to miss the box and have it installed against your will (it's not like one of those EULA boxes...the wording is very clear).

Re:You should care, if not a savvy user (1)

mstahl (701501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592593)

You probably already know this, but you can install IE6 as a standalone app [tredosoft.com] and just run it out of a folder with all its DLLs in it. I do this constantly for testing.

IE8 announced.. (of course with no details) (5, Funny)

ivar (31153) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592013)

Seemingly to combat the hate, Dean Hachamovitch (GM for IE) has posted on the IE blog [msdn.com] an announcement for IE8. The big news ? that IE8 will be called... Internet Explorer 8 !!! huzzah!

Re:IE8 announced.. (of course with no details) (1)

aconbere (802137) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592255)

Except that the microsoft blogs can't take any amount of traffic, Scott Guthery's blog on the MVC framework for ASP.NET has been down since he posted it 2 months ago.

Re:IE8 announced.. (of course with no details) (2, Interesting)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592271)

I'm surprised he hasn't been fired yet for one of the suggestions

: IE Desktop Online Web Browser Live Professional Ultimate Edition for the Internet (the marketing team really pushed for this one ;-)

emoticons aside, that pretty much sums up a lot of problems at microsoft. I guess as director he must have some real pull.

Re:IE8 announced.. (of course with no details) (1)

davecombs (773461) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592405)

As a character in a book I like said at one point, "Geez, grow a sense of humor!" The first 3/4 of the post in his blog is tongue in cheek.

Re:IE8 announced.. (of course with no details) (4, Insightful)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592665)

I'm just really really really surprised that marketing allowed that. More likely they didn't see it as its on a development blog. I mean, Microsoft's marketing is one of the worst parts of the company, or perhaps just the most difficult job trying to convince people to upgrade software that works as good if not better than a new version would. So they have to create all of these product distinctions and names to convince people to do things they wouldn't otherwise.

Does nobody ever learn? (-1, Flamebait)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592019)

Y'know. I despise the tactics that many large businesses use, but frankly some of you are so stupid that you're asking for it. Begging for it. It's like you're bending over saying give it to me hard.

 

Alternative browsers & frameworks? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592021)

This just in - multiple frameworks available that provide the balance that you need between cross-browser/cross-platform compatability and feature set. And what do you know, Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly in that space too, so you're not forced into using any particular one.

Trash IE all you want but.. (1, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592041)

I can tell you categorically that my team won't download and play with Silverlight ... won't build a Live widget ... won't consider any Microsoft search or ad products in the future.
Say all you want about Internet Explorer, but I can't stress how important Silverlight is. Regardless of what you think of Microsoft, the folks at Adobe want the same world domination as the Redmont folks do. A little competition never hurts...the customers. :)

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592155)

A little competition never hurts...the customers.

Yeah, more browser plugins and flashing shit never hurt anybody.

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592217)

If your shit starts flashing...

Well now I don't know how to end that: ...you should upload the video to YouTube! ...you've got a serious problem. ...you should lay off the drugs. ...bison will devour CowboyNeal.

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (4, Funny)

mugnyte (203225) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592179)


"Microsoft Silverlight. How many pieces of flair are YOU coding?"

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592229)

Agreed, although I'm no fan of Microsoft, I will wholeheartedly welcome any serious competitor to Flash.

In order to seriously compete with Flash, Microsoft's going to have to provide some compelling features, and be a wee bit more "open" than Adobe is, which they do appear to be doing.

For one, their video codec doesn't suck up 100% CPU to DECODE a 320x240 video on a decently powerful machine.

Although it's not "open" by any stretch of the imagination if you want to compare it to the GPL, they *are* being considerably more open about it than Adobe are with flash, and there is a serious effort to support [mono-project.com] it on Linux. Mac users should be happy too, because it would be difficult (even for Microsoft) to produce something worse than the OS X Flash Player, and the Silverlight betas look promising.

As long as it's not unnecessarily DRM-encumbered (which it doesn't appear to be), I'm all for Silverlight.

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (1)

Tim Browse (9263) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592489)

For one, their video codec doesn't suck up 100% CPU to DECODE a 320x240 video on a decently powerful machine.

What do you describe as a decently powerful machine? Admittedly I just upgraded my PC, so I have a new Core 2 Duo (6750 I think) which is pretty damn fast, but I'm playing a youtube video here via Flash (natch) and the Windows task manager is showing the CPU usage as alternating between 1% and 0%.

I'm actually quite impressed by that :-)

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (1)

moosesocks (264553) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592701)

Yeah.... I believe Flash on Win32 has hooks into the graphics hardware that lets it get away with that.

No such luck on the mac side of things. Although my machine's not terribly powerful compared to some (Core Duo Mac Mini), a 320x240 video should *not* bring the machine to a crawl. Things are even worse on my "old" G4 Powerbook, and some videos won't even play at the full framerate. (And these are machines that don't have a problem doing H.264 *encoding* at close to real-time!)

Flashblock [mozdev.org] is virtually essential for browsing, so that a full-page Flash ad (or a typical MySpace page) doesn't make the entire browser unresponsive....

Re:Trash IE all you want but.. (1)

alnjmshntr (625401) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592645)

And I would add: What the hell does Silverlight have to do with IE anyway? It sounds like the guy doesn't know what he is talking about. Silverlight runs in a browser called IE, erm yeah that's about it.

Competition? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592807)

You mean we should cheer Microsoft on while they crush yet ANOTHER product? I mean, we already had Windows Desktop Search rammed down our throats to kill Google Desktop Search. Nice thing about that update is that WUS won't let you remove it and it slid by unless you had a fairly hidden checkbox unchecked.

But more to the point, how is Adobe going to give us monopoly lock-in over Flash? PDF is an ISO standard now. Flash has a GPL implementation now. Silverlight? Microsoft will use it to hurt Adobe, then turn to screwing over customers. Yeah, it'll get Linux support... the same way Macs got Microsoft Office "support" (i.e. left to rot on the vine the second the threat to Microsoft's monopoly is neutralized).

No offense, but even if I were to believe that Adobe had some kind of terrible plans for locking us in, they simply don't have the ability to screw people over that Microsoft does. I don't trust Microsoft at all and I don't see anything in their entire corporate history that makes me doubt that decision.

But perhaps you can fill me in? Just what terrible things is Adobe doing or planning to do that make you root for Microsoft? Yes, competition is good. But this isn't "competition", this is Microsoft working to gain monopoly control over yet another market by leveraging their other products. When their only goal in "competing" is to eliminate competition, well, it's just not the sort of thing I'm going to cheer for.

Oh well then (1, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592043)

I am a back-end programmer and a founder of a start-up. I can tell you categorically that my team won't download and play with Google Gears ... won't build a Google widget ... won't consider any Google search or ad products in the future.

The above is actually true, BTW. Replace Google with whatever you want. If "dk" can stick it to Microsoft, then so can I.

Random people posting on teh internets, for great justice.

Re:Oh well then (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592231)

And thus a new copy pasta has been born.

I am a back-end ass raper and a wife beater. I can tell you categorically that my team won't download and play with fleshlights ... won't build a abused womens shelter ... won't consider any lube or masturbation products in the future.

Re:Oh well then (3, Informative)

rgravina (520410) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592579)

But dk made that statement because he/she was fed up with the wasted time and effort they have to go through to develop for Internet Explorer. Believe me, I understand dk's fustration. IE can add tens of hours to front-end website development. I've implemented *very* complex designs (basically, the designer gave me a big Photoshop image and said "code this!") which required almost no tweaking for Firefox, Safari and Opera (in fact I didn't even target Opera, but it worked flawlessly) but required tens of hours of extra work to get working correctly in IE (often a change which fixed IE would break the others, so conditional CSS was needed. etc). Actualy "tens of hours" is a bit of an understatement, it was more like a full-time week for a site that took a month. Someone has to pay for this - either you absorb the cost, or the client pays for it. Either way, Microsoft's incompetence (or unwillingness) to develop a standards compliant browser probably costs the industry MILLIONS per year.

If you haven't expereinced deveoping for IE count yourself lucky. Designers will often complain loudly if some element is a few pixels too far to the left, or if there is a one-pixel gap between a border and image etc. etc. etc. If we only had to develop for standards compliant browsers, this wouldn't be such a problem. But with IE, it's sometimes almost impossible to fix those layout problems in such a way that it works on both standard compiant browsers, the current version of IE AND the previous version of IE. And if you think that these problems are not important, designers see this very differently! And of course they should - just as a good programmer strives for bug free software that performs well and is easy to maintain, designers strive for designs which are attractive, usable and meet the communication goals of the client.

*This* is why dk doesn't want to go near any of Microsoft's other products or services. If you've had a similar experience with Google, then you would he justified in s/Microsoft/Google. Otherwise, your post makes absolutely no sense.

Using IE7 sucks... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592051)

I have yet to develop for IE7 (indeed, most of the time I just try and make sure my websites look alright in the various Linux based browsers I have around, including Lynx fo course). But I've had to use it a lot in the last couple of weeks.

I hate it. There are little things, such as having to tab twice to get from the address bar to the search bar (in Firefox it is only once...), re-arranging all of the buttons (the back and forward buttons are too far away now, the refresh and stop buttons are too small and in an inconvinient place etc.), lack of spell checker (as you can probably tell from my nasty spelling in this post) and other simple UI issuse like those.

As well, often I've noticed that it will freeze the rendering of a page for no apparent reason, or blur the page, so that you can't actually see anything at all... for a time.

This is not to mention the inability to save a page by right clicking it (useful when Javascript hides the menu bar), the persistent attempt at getting me to save pages in "WebArchive" format (MHT), no matter how many times I select something else, and various other things.

Another thing! It refuses to let me go directly to a secure website that has been signed by itself (and not be a 'signing authority')! Again, no matter how many times I go to the website it throws up the same stupid page, we reccomend that you don't go to this website... BUT I HAVE TO TO DO X (check email, whatever).

In short, I've noticed few good things about IE7 as a user (the addition of tabs and the search bar are the only two things), and many bad things.
As a developer, I shall continue to ignore IE unless I happen across a copy of the browser while I'm actually thinking about developing.

Re:Using IE7 sucks... (1)

civilizedINTENSITY (45686) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592153)

A concise list of IE7 interface mistakes. Thank you.

Re:Using IE7 sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592393)

I have yet to develop for IE7
Unfortunately sooo many companies develop solely with just IE in mind and don't give two flying shits about Firefox, Opera, etc. Seriously, it's almost 2008 and companies still build web applications that function correctly only in IE. Case in point, I tried to use a "new" chat functionality feature of my local credit union's website to talk to customer service...completely tanked in FF. No surprise really since I found glaring bugs in the rest of the system that no self respecting company would ever push live.

Either or let's stop building apps that only run in IE. Sprint I am looking in your direction. "This site works best with IE6 or later." Haha, let's get with times.

I say boycott any company that only provides services that run on IE.

Re:Using IE7 sucks... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592515)

Not to comment on my own post but case in point again:

Me: I just need to know why I can't use Firefox with the sprint.com website.
Customer Service Rep: It is not compatible with firefox.
Me: are you kidding me?
Customer Service Rep: I do apologize!

Asshats!

Re:Using IE7 sucks... (2, Informative)

man_of_mr_e (217855) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592637)

There are solutions to most of your complaints. How about, instead of tabbing from address bar, you just use the shortcut key Ctrl-E. When javascript hids the menu bar, just press alt once and the menu appears. IE will save the default save as format, but you have to be careful that another instance of IE doesn't save over this setting later. You can have it go directly to a page by importing it's certificate into IE's default certificates page. A lot of your other arguments are a misunderstanding of what IE is doing and why.

The UI was designed to help make it difficult for phishers to simulate and take over the UI, that's why the UI is fixed and where it is. The buttons were placed and designed by user feedback. The fact that you dislike them just means that you're minority input was not a popular one. Your claim that the back and forward buttons are "too far away" now is kind of odd, since they're in the exact same place as they are in Firefox and Safari. Also, Firefox doesn't come with a spell checker either. There is, however, a free one you can download called IE7Pro that gives you many of the other things you complain about as well.

Again? (1)

kirbysuperstar (1198939) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592057)

Insert generic IE hatred/criticsm here.

Re:Again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592741)

I'll actually add something nice: so far I haven't had any problems with IE7.

On the other hand, I haven't used it yet...

if (document.all) (4, Funny)

SavvyPlayer (774432) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592063)

{ // IE Workaround that we hope we don't have to go back and change the day IE8 ships... ....
}

My IE7 story (1)

usul294 (1163169) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592079)

I have a friend who is unfortunately a very big Microsoft fan. He has a Zune, an Xbox 360, Vista, and anything Microsoft possible. After IE7 comes out, we are hanging out and he asks: "Hey, I just got the new internet explorer, and I don't really like it that much, what do use?" He's used Firefox ever since.

Kinda funny (5, Interesting)

TheSkyIsPurple (901118) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592095)

The last couple sites I built were heavy with more DOM shuffling than I like, and lots of AJAXy goodness.
I developed them in Firefox, tested them with Safari, and didn't give IE a thought.

IE7: All functionality worked fine, with one or two very minor formatting differences. (which I'm not going to do anything about)

IE6: Completely and unusably horked. Fortunately I don't have to care.

Thank goodness for internal only sites.

Another problem... (3, Insightful)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592129)

...is with a 6 year development gap a huge number of casual users have forgotten what it is to upgrade/install a web browser, or simply never known, and don't see it as something they ever need to think about.

building up controversy? (3, Interesting)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592191)

I thought web devs were thoroughly used to IE having its quirks. You think IE fought netscape, opera, and firefox only to comply in the end with somebody else's standards? LOL.

Websites and simple web apps must first be compatible, so the problem is not IE7 more than IE6.

Complex apps might benefit by targeting only "standard browsers" like Firefox and Opera, if you have to use a complex app you're literate enough to install a second browser, and the dev effort to reach compatibility takes resources away and prevents good but not cross platform stuff to be used. I'm not talking only about svg and xform, but little things which make a huge difference when you're behind a web app for hours: IIRC on IE6 you couldn't pick the correct entry in a long drop down menu by typing the first few letters when it's focused.

So this outburst of noise might just make the scheduled revamp of IE7 a "MS listen to us" propaganda stunt.
Does IE7 have a revamp? Well, FF3 is round the corner and opera is fast.

wow (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592193)

a negative post about IE7. must be a slow news day here at slashdot.

Yawn. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592291)

Wow, a bunch of slashdotters bashing MS at the IE blog. This happens weekly. Who gives a shit?

It's cool, ours are doing it for you (1)

stratjakt (596332) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592303)

And so are countless, countless others.

This is just some nerd venting his spleen, and it's news here because it's in accordance with the slashdot world view.

Get Firefox! (1)

linebackn (131821) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592315)

Seriously, there is a way to fix this mess. Get everybody to use Firefox (Ok, Opera and Safari are good too).

There is some holiday involving gift giving coming up. Perhaps somebody would like a nice shiny fiery CD from the Mozilla store?

Firefox is number 1 in W3Schools.com (2, Interesting)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592331)

At the w3schools, [w3schools.com] the top browser is Firefox at 36%. OK, OK it is a techie site not a general site. And yes, if you add IE5, IE6 and IE7 it comes to 57% beating Firefox. But still, for the first time, in Sep 2007, the column for Firefox becomes the king of the hill. Since IE6 is going down, till IE7 overtakes Firefox, it will keep the number 1 spot for sometime to come.

Re:Firefox is number 1 in W3Schools.com (1)

kurokaze (221063) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592789)

Good Lord, people are still using IE5?

Heck, up until a few months ago I was doing front-end development for a multi-million dollar web-based subscription offering. For the business end of things (the site the customers used), it was IE6/7 and FF1/2 compatible. For our internal Admin site, it was IE only, since it was easy for us to dictate which browser we were going to support.

Newsflash... DK irrelevant (1)

sc7 (1141597) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592337)

Unfortunately, DK is irrelevant. Most of the premium content on the web, which makes up for 90% of what average Joe's access is designed/run by large corporations. These corporations know not to isolate a large market share, therefore, those sites that don't work with IE only kill themselves, because the main services work fine with Joe's PC, so he sees the others as inferior.

DK - large turd in a small bowl (2, Interesting)

timmarhy (659436) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592363)

I don't get what people like this developer called DK think their empty threats will achieve. Lets say he is for real about abandoning MS products. This is how his next sales pitch will go.

customer: "We standardise on the MS platform, what can you offer us?"

DK: "No i swore off it on some random blog, can't go back on my word now!"

customer: "Good day to you sir"

I feel sorry for this guy's staff if he thinks he should be the one driving what customers want, not the other way around.

Re:DK - large turd in a small bowl (1)

karlto (883425) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592441)

"We standardise on the MS platform, what can you offer us?"
How about: "something better"?

Organise a no-IE protest day! (4, Interesting)

trawg (308495) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592455)

You know what I was thinking would be cool?

A day organised where all web developers can band together and intentionally not make their sites work for IE, just for one day.

I can't think of anything that would be a more effective protest. A single day where every IE user couldn't access a significant number of sites might make Microsoft sit up and take notice.

Design for a Real Browser (tm) then check IE (1)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592459)

Thats what I tend to do. I produce web pages which are as generically compatible as possible (meaning I have to give up on a lot of nice features sometimes), usually checking them in Firefox, Safari, Opera etc, then if necessary I tweak them to ensure they aren't completely broken under IE. As long as they are readable under IE thats good enough. I really could care less what MS does with IE, its a sub-par product being developed in a haphazard and irresponsible manner for the sole purpose of supporting Microsoft's monopoly further. I don't think anyone seriously in the know uses IE if they have 2 points of IQ to rub together, the security problems alone should be enough to steer most people away from it. Of all my friends and relations I can only think of one who uses IE on a daily basis, the rest use Firefox.

If we all ignore IE, and continue to support the standards that other browsers are working to support, Microsoft will eventually have to develop their browser to support those same standards. Its percentage has been steadily dropping, and I think that each new version will continue that trend.

Re:Design for a Real Browser (tm) then check IE (1)

rgravina (520410) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592687)

As long as they are readable under IE thats good enough.

Try telling that to a designer or customer!

Meh. (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21592543)

Silverlight sounds like it could be something fun to play with.

Then again, I'm horribly sick right now and words don't make all that much since to me right about now so... yeah!

Bring on Sliver Tights!

IE 7 is a good first step.... (1)

Eskarel (565631) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592555)

But only a first step. Microsoft ignored developers for years, and there's a lot of bitterness in the community about that. I've only been developing professionally for a year or so now, and my organization isn't going IE7 on the desktop yet, so I haven't really tested it thoroughly, but as far as I can see IE7 is reasonably standards compliant, probably around the Firefox 1 mark for most things.

As I said, this is a good first step for Microsoft, and a good first step for moving the web into an environment where we can have development again(as opposed to the years of semi stagnantion and work arounds we've had since IE 6.

It is however, not anywhere near enough, and Microsoft has as of yet not shown any real indication that it's changing its ways and treating it's web browser division as a serious part of business.

Part of it of course is that while up to date browsers are vitally important for all sorts of future developments, they're hard to monetize, and they tend to lessen the strength of Microsofts major product.

In the meanwhile, take a look at WPF (2, Funny)

melted (227442) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592693)

It's fucking awesome.

It's sort of like HTML for true apps, except:
1. You have a "real" programming language backing it, you can do whatever you want with it, even processor heavy computations. It's FAST.
2. All HTML niggles are fixed. You don't have to dig around in Google to figure out how to lay out a piece of UI. It's just obvious.
3. You can deploy your apps as *.xbap pages. As simple as that. If the user has .NET Framework 3.5, XBAP link will open a sandboxed instance of a full-blown app. This means you don't have to fake it in HTML anymore.
4. Modern UI things that were a giant pain in the ass now don't require much coding aptitude - you can focus on the guts instead. Reflections, halos and transparency out the wazoo.

All of the above assumes you only want things to run on Windows, however. But the new crop of Microsoft dev technologies (updated ASP.NET AJAX, WPF, WCF) and Visual Studio 2008 are really good. Add to this a blockbuster release of SQL Server, an OS and a web server with fewer vulnerabilities than Linux counterparts (Windows 2003 and IIS 6), and you begin to see a worrisome picture. Worrisome to the open source community, that is.

Why should we be the ones to change? (2, Interesting)

Spittles (670928) | more than 6 years ago | (#21592729)

In a perfect world, we'd stop complaining about how Microsoft are forcing developers to jump through their proprietary hoops in order to render what would otherwise be standards compliant pages. Instead we would continue developing pages that are completely standards compliant, until the public perception of IE was "Oh that browser that makes pages look like crap... what's that Firefox thing you've been telling me about?"
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>