×

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!

IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the one-small-step-for-ie dept.

555

notamicrosoftlover writes to tell us Channel9 is reporting that Internet Explorer 8 has correctly rendered the Acid2 page in "standards mode". "With respect to standards and interoperability, our goal in developing Internet Explorer 8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementations and do so without breaking the existing web. This second goal refers to the lessons we learned during IE 7. IE7's CSS improvements made IE more compliant with some standards and less compatible with some sites on the web as they were coded. Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards. We have a responsibility to respect the work that sites have already done to work with IE. We must deliver improved standards support and backwards compatibility so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 and (2) makes the development of the next billion pages, in an interoperable way, much easier. We'll blog more, and learn more, about this during the IE8 beta cycle." There's also a video interview regarding IE8 development on Channel9."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

555 comments

So let's geek this out (5, Funny)

smitty_one_each (243267) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757950)

If it takes until version 8 to support Acid 2, or 2^3,
then, when Acid 3 comes out, we can expect conformance by IE27?

Re:So let's geek this out (4, Informative)

hcmtnbiker (925661) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758076)

You might note that only a couple browsers completely pass it. [wikipedia.org] Officially released web browsers that pass there is only Konqueror, Safari 2.02; firefox does not make the list. So ~97% of all browsers don't pass it.

Re:So let's geek this out (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758128)

The page says right now that Firefox 3.0 beta passes it.

Re:So let's geek this out (1)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758280)

He said that the only released browsers that support it are Konqueror and Safari 2.02. A beta is not a final release.

Re:So let's geek this out (2, Informative)

junglee_iitk (651040) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758316)

Actually, right now I am testing Acid Test 2 with Firefox Beta 2 (Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.9b2) Gecko/2007121016 Firefox/3.0b2) and it DOES NOT pass the test.

Here is a screenshot: acid2 [picoodle.com]

Since you had to... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758410)

...google for how to take a screenshot on linux... I do not think I trust your findings... Ad hominem FTW!!!.. ;P ... j/k

Re:So let's geek this out (1)

Kelson (129150) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758348)

Officially released web browsers that pass there is only Konqueror, Safari 2.02

Has someone been removing info from the article? Opera 9 and iCab 3(?) also pass Acid2. Not to mention other WebKit-based browsers.

Appropriate Tag (4, Funny)

DarkHelmet (120004) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757970)

I think the holyshit tag would be appropriate here.

Clippy Says: Tag not politically correct (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758178)

Clippy says...
 

It seems you are trying to use a tag that is not politically correct.
Suggestions: holycrap, holycow, developers cubed, apple.

OK | Make Internet Explorer my default browser

Re:Appropriate Tag (4, Funny)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758416)

How cyclical: first there were tags... then there were people using tags for comments... I've seen tags that said 'dontcommentintags'... and now there are comments suggesting how to tag. :-)

I bet this means... (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21757972)

"standards mode" IE will only be available for vista.

Would anyone mind if.... (5, Insightful)

iknownuttin (1099999) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757974)

...so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7

Would anyone mind if they had rewrite their web pages or at the very least, remove the code that checks for the version of IE and if it is IE in the first place? I wouldn't mind.

ACID (2, Funny)

eneville (745111) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757976)

Acid test? Ok... but can it withstand a chair?

Re:ACID (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758056)

Or a murdered wife... at this rate, loved ones of linux developers are going to be an endangered species.

Re:ACID (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758132)

huh? I'd think they'd see this as a step in the right direction for Microsoft.. why would they have to kill someone for that o_0 and why would they kill a loved one rather than a random person.. are you some kind of psychopath mr anonymous coward? :o

Re:ACID (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758158)

is real doll going out of business?

Cool. (4, Insightful)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 6 years ago | (#21757980)

I guess when Bill Gates asks what the hell is going on [slashdot.org] , he gets results!

Whats the rush to IE8? (2, Insightful)

kharri1073 (1036550) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758090)

No rush Microsoft, Firefox and Opera work just fine for me and everyone that I know.

Re:Whats the rush to IE8? (1, Informative)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758278)

I just checked the Acid 2 Test with firefox it failed. So did Safari 3 (which is odd because Safari 2 passed)

Re:Whats the rush to IE8? (1)

QuantumG (50515) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758406)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid2 [wikipedia.org]

Compliant applications:

        * WebCore-based applications
                    o Safari, the web browser included in Mac OS X
                    o OmniWeb, a web browser for Mac OS X
                    o Shiira, a web browser for Mac OS X
        * Konqueror, a web browser for Linux
        * Prince, an XML-to-PDF converter for Windows and Linux
        * iCab, a web browser for Mac OS and Mac OS X
        * Presto-based browsers
                    o Opera, a web browser for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X, and BSD
                    o Internet Channel, a version of the Opera browser for the Nintendo Wii game console.
        * Gecko-based browsers (1.9 or higher)
                    o Mozilla Firefox 3.0 beta 1
        * Internet Explorer 8

So yeah, I doubt you're running Firefox 3.0 beta 1.

Re:Whats the rush to IE8? (3, Insightful)

p0tat03 (985078) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758328)

Honestly, while I lubs me Firefox, Opera, and Safari, I'd rather have an IE that worked, for the rest of the world. Firefox gains market share, but the majority of the world will never switch - after all, it works fine out of the box, they can check their email and surf the web, right? For the sake of web developers' sanity, a standards-compliant IE can only be a good thing.

Re:Cool. (5, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758322)

Between IE passing a strict CSS test and 3DRealms planning to release Duke Nukem Forever, I'm wondering what alternate universe I woke up in this morning.

I guess I'd better check Google's top execs for goatees again.

Oh crap. [google.com]

Wonder how long (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21757984)

How long will it take for the anti-MS trolls to spin this in a negative light?

Wait for it...3...2...

Re:Wonder how long (1)

Lendrick (314723) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758008)

I'm pretty anti-MS, but this can only be a good thing as far as I can tell.

Re:Wonder how long (-1, Flamebait)

ktappe (747125) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758334)

You two are both kidding, right? Re-read the post. IE requires the user to turn on a special "standards mode" to correctly render STANDARD WEBSITES. That is a blatant admittance by Redmond that IE, by default, does not adhere to standards!! And, no, this is not "spin". It's rather straightforward logic. Only a Microsoft shill could possibly think that IE needing a special mode to comply to standards would be a good thing.

Re:Wonder how long (0, Redundant)

Finallyjoined!!! (1158431) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758398)

How precisely?

It only passes the acid test when switched into "standards mode", which presumably is not "standard" mode.

Re:Wonder how long (1)

leet (1202001) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758428)

I'm pretty anti-MS, but this can only be a good thing as far as I can tell.
So am I and I agree with you. But I've gotten my hopes up before with them. I'm not hopeful anymore. The one interesting thing to watch will be "how they screw this up." I don't believe for a second that they're going to do the right thing as a business strategy. After passing the Acid2 test, how will they leverage market share and vendor lock-in? I'd bet my ass on it. The only question to figure out is how they're going to do it this time.

IE meeting standards? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758000)

The end times have come! Take your suicide pills so you won't suffer.

"standards mode"? (-1, Troll)

taniwha (70410) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758002)

IMHO if it wont do it out-of-the-box then it doesn;t pass

Re:"standards mode"? (5, Informative)

ScytheBlade1 (772156) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758150)

Standards mode is invoked when you specify a strict doctype in the page.

This IS out of the box support. Let's have less false assumptions and cheap shots at Microsoft, okay?

Re:"standards mode"? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758440)

Less cheap shots at Microsoft??? You must be new here!

Re:"standards mode"? (1)

EraserMouseMan (847479) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758424)

Who said "standards mode" is a feature that does not work out of the box? Just because it is a mode does not mean it requires it to be set manually.

any standard will do (0, Troll)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758020)

So in other words, it will be standards compliant but at the same time render all the old crap that wasn't even close to standards compliant??? So what's the point?!! If people can still write crap code, they will. You may as well write IE in 1995 Visual Basic if you are going to be that wishy washy.

Re:any standard will do (1)

tieTYT (989034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758092)

So what's the point?!! If people can still write crap code, they will.

This isn't for them, this is for the serious web developers that currently have to bend over backwards to get their website to render correct on IE and non-IE browsers.

Re:any standard will do (3, Interesting)

bwthomas (796211) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758108)

That's not necessarily true. There are graceful ways to deprecate commonly used design elements, even those specific to IE (read: hacks). It's been my experience that once someone says, "ok, this still works but it's going away" developers shun it like the plague for anything in active development, and rightly so.

Re:any standard will do (1)

daeg (828071) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758436)

Also remember that Microsoft has several HTML rendering engines (Trident, the one used in Office 2007 (sucks)). There's nothing stopping them from developing two separate rendering engines, one that is standards compliant and the other not. Let the developer pick which method to use, tagsoup/crap or 100% standards-compliant, and simply switching between the two.

Re:any standard will do (3, Insightful)

PhxBlue (562201) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758112)

So in other words, it will be standards compliant but at the same time render all the old crap that wasn't even close to standards compliant??? So what's the point?!! If people can still write crap code, they will. You may as well write IE in 1995 Visual Basic if you are going to be that wishy washy.

Wow, talk about moving the goalposts. It's reasonable to expect a Web browser to adhere to standards -- so when IE finally does, the new reason to hate MS is because IE also supports the pages that are on the Web today?

Making IE8 render pages the way IE7 does is the smart way to go for Microsoft. If people woke up one morning and none of their sites looked right, they'd be rightfully pissed off. IE8 will give people the time to make their "crap code" standards-compliant ... though if they haven't done it by IE9, they might be shit out of luck.

Oh, and BTW -- as long as people are coding, there will always be crap code. Standards will not make crap code go away.

Re:any standard will do (1)

Foofoobar (318279) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758302)

as long as people are coding, there will always be crap code...
True but you can limit the amount of crap code by enforcing standards! For instance, with a compiler, it won't let me compile unless my code meets all the requirements. The browser should do the same thing and not render the code unless it meets all critical standards (using the compiler as an example still so don't ask which are critical).

Some developers are more lazy than others and some languages encourage laziness more than others. Scripting languages encourage more laziness because they are less strict. So having a bloated browser that allows for a million variations of the same code seems to me to be not an advantage in the longrun to anyone... just a sidestep to an eventual problem that needed to be answered years ago but Microsoft still refuses to answer.

And this is why Firefox continues to steal it's market share.

Re:any standard will do (1)

BlueCollarCamel (884092) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758190)

Well, I code to standards. Now I can be reasonably assured that I won't need to write an IE8 version of any website I make.

I just need a standards compliant version and an IE6 version!

Re:any standard will do (4, Insightful)

fm6 (162816) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758268)

So in other words, it will be standards compliant but at the same time render all the old crap that wasn't even close to standards compliant??? So what's the point?!!
Because different kinds of pages are rendered with different rendering engines. The rendering engine that handles all the ugly old hand-written crap is known as "quirks mode" and is full of all their weird kludges that make those pages readable. If the page has the right document type declaration [wikipedia.org] , it uses a standards compliance mode. The problem with IE has always been that it didn't implement most of the HTML and CSS specs, so there was little to be gained by forcing it into standards compliance mode. In other words, standards compliance mode wasn't really standards compliant. It didn't help that clueless MS spokespeople would talk about somebody supporting "more CSS features", indicating a nasty lack of understanding of standards issues. Since the specs weren't supported on the #1 browser, there were effectively meaningless.

Apparently that's now changed, and that's a very good thing. Personally, I credit the fact that Gates has given up the role of "software architect" in order to spend more time on his philanthropy. When he left, he seemed to take a lot of organizational arrogance with him.

Somebody is going to point out that ACID2 is not that great an example of real world CSS usage. That's perfectly true (how often do you use CSS to make silly pictures?) but the mere fact that MS has made passing the test a priority indicates a shift in attitude that we should all applaud.

Re:any standard will do (1)

cronot (530669) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758292)

Is that a joke, or are you just a troll? Did you ever develop webpages? I mean, standards-compliant ones? And then tried viewing them with IE6?

The point is not allowing people to write crap code, but having hacky code written because of a crappy browser still render right, while having standards-compliant pages render correctly too.

Re:any standard will do (2, Insightful)

risk one (1013529) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758394)

The point? The point is I can write proper CSS now, without having to worry about how IE will fuck it up. I can use alpha channels in png's and all sorts of things without writing it two different ways, so it will render across all browsers. I don't care about how crappily written the rest of the web is, I can write my little bits of it properly. Standards compliance isn't about punishing content authors that don't adhere to the standard. It perfectly alright to be lenient about non-validating code. But validating code needs to be rendered properly, and Microsoft seems to be getting that point at last.

So support ancient software? (1)

huckda (398277) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758024)

This article is like saying web developers who wrote HTML for Mosaic shouldn't rewrite their code to fit ACTUAL standards, but rather modify their code to work best with Mosaic.
IE is such bloat-ware to begin with, why don't they just have the browser analyze the code, and see which engine it will render with better, IE ...,5,6,7,8,...

Re:So support ancient software? (1)

dave562 (969951) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758206)

The way I read the following comment ...

Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards.

... is...IE was doing things with web pages before there were standard ways to do those things. So IE needs to continue to support the IE way of doing things, in addition to the standard way of doing them. I could be wrong about this one, but I seem to remember the IE had a "mouse over" function before there was a standard for mouse over. I'm sure that there are numerous examples on both sides of the fence where IE either did or did not do something before or after another "standard" way was proposed to do it.

I think a more correct analogy would be... If you write some code in Visual Basic that works should you have to re-write the code in Visual C#, or should Microsoft come up with something like the .Net compiler that will interpret both Basic and C# code?

I think that when all is said and done it will be the application vendors who determine who the winner of the browser war is. "Alternative" browsers are widely available at this point in time. If a vendor wants to write a Web 2.0 or whatever buzzword powered app, they can do so and can realistically expect that their target audience will have access to the requisite browser to run the app. The question then comes down to what technology they want to use, be it Java, ASP or whatever.

Re:So support ancient software? (1)

quanticle (843097) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758222)

Given the prevalence of dirty hacks to use HTML for layout, how do you know which result is "correct"? Heck, how do you know even know who decides what's correct, the user or the web developer?

IE7 = WinME of browsers? (1)

logicassasin (318009) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758026)

I wonder if IE7 will go the way of WinME. In a few years time, will M$ answer the question "What about IE7?" with a resounding "IE7??? There was never an IE7. IE7 is a figment of your imagination. FORGET!!!!... FOOOORGET..."

Re:IE7 = WinME of browsers? (1)

Donniedarkness (895066) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758332)

It's my understanding that IE7 is a MAJOR improvement over IE6... or at least, that's what /. was saying when it came out.

Opera's Lawsuit (2, Insightful)

PissedOper (1205612) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758032)

How well is Opera's lawsuit with M$ going to go over with this news?

Re:Opera's Lawsuit (1)

tieTYT (989034) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758184)

How very insightful. I hope people mod you up.

Microsoft: The next version of IE will be even more standards compliant than Opera!
EU: Oh well... Considering that, I guess it would be pretty ironic and hypocritical to punish you for a lack of standards.
Microsoft: Excellent...

Microsoft: The next version of IE will be even more standards compliant than Opera!

Yawn (0)

CrackPipePls (1205568) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758034)

Yawn, god knows how many new bugs was made in order to make that pass

Re:Yawn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758434)

if Microsoft pays as much attention to their code as you do to grammer, it'll have tons of bugs!

Yawn, your comment sounds like the same pre-manufactured hate-M$ crap coming from every other slash-troll...

Good News/Bad News (5, Insightful)

machineghost (622031) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758038)

Good News:
Web developers will finally be able to develop a page once, according to standards, and have it work on all major browser ...

Bad News:
... in the year 2012 (give or take a few years), when the percentage of web users using IE 5, 6 or 7 finally dips below 5%.

what's so great about this? (3, Insightful)

Migala77 (1179151) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758040)

After all, how hard is it to build a special case for one specific website?

Woooo! (1)

JebusIsLord (566856) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758046)

Woooooo! This is awsome!

But now i'm worried about this whole HTML5 clusterfuck submarining XHTML2, and thus the posibility of using a sane declarative language in the future.

Re:Woooo! (1)

ThePromenader (878501) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758400)

Woooooo indeeed. I'm damn happy for Microsoft if they finally got it right for one of their products -- great move! If it works, how can one bash it? I'm a bit tired of biased bashing, so where credit is due, please give it fairly -- objectively, rather.

I don't think the HTML5 or XHTML2 worries are anywhere near in coming... they're but concepts for the time being. We're not even sure what direction the "project" will take: new or revamped old plus new? Even then, I don't think there's much reason to fear, as if a company gets it right after decades of wrong, I think they will continue -- for the very reason that moved them to (finally) "get it right" in the first place.

ACID alright (-1, Troll)

rubycodez (864176) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758066)

Active Covert Installation Disasters - been Microsoft's specialty ever since they went into the browser business.

Standards Mode? (1, Interesting)

calebt3 (1098475) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758068)

Internet Explorer 8 has correctly rendered the Acid2 page in "standards mode".
Lots of questions raised by this:
How inconvenient is it to switch into and out of standards mode? Do you have to navigate menus or is there a button on the statusbar? Will it automatically switch between the two, based on whether or not the site demands IE7 or not? Is standards mode on by default?

Re:Standards Mode? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758192)

Standards modes are determined by the content of the page, not by the user. Usually based mostly on the DOC tag, but also with automatic fallbacks based on content validation.

Re:Standards Mode? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758194)

I think web sites have to put something in their pages, similar to DOCTYPE switching.

What, No Comments? (5, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758102)

What have we seen recently?

The people behind the Phantom actually releasing a product
A Duke Nukem Forever teaser
Dell promoting Linux
IE8 passing Acid2

What's next?
Dogs living with cats??

What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758404)

Ron Paul wins Republican nomination.

Re:What, No Comments? (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758426)

What's next? Dogs living with cats??
nah, it'll probably turn out that Gates doesn't actually use Windows, he runs Debian of course

IE8 Glitch (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758106)

I think they they will rethink their little announcement once they see this glitch [dwarfurl.com]

Dump the backwards compatibility (2, Insightful)

Ma8thew (861741) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758114)

What's really holding the web back is the quirks mode which still exists in IE7, and will exist in IE8. If Microsoft is serious about standards support, they need to stop supporting 'web designers' who right non-compliant code.

Re:Dump the backwards compatibility (2, Insightful)

JamesRose (1062530) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758392)

So you want microsoft to not support those 'web designers' who have gone out of their way to support microsoft's browser in the past by writing customized non-compliant code just to work with microsoft.

Actually, it doesnt sound that unlikely.

Dec 19? (3, Funny)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758118)

So Taco wants me to believe that:
A) duke nukum might actually see the light of day
B) ie 8 passes Acid 2

Its not april fools day, according to the snow outside. Is Taco trying to create another practical joke day: Dec 19?

Thats so awesomely random, but it sort of upstages my plans of trying to make Dec 20 th a joke day. Oh well pretended to be surprised when crazy things happen tomorrow as well.

Acid2 Website Problems? (2, Interesting)

nerdrew (948236) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758126)

Is anyone else having trouble with the acid2 page? Safari and Firefox 3.0 beta 1 are failing to render it in the same way.

this is a good thing.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758140)

This can only really be a positive thing..

But it make any difference the extensive css hacking required for most site layouts, for quite a number of years after its release.

I'd expect them to dump the old ie behaviour within 3 years of ie8's release.

I wonder how much of css3 it supports.

So they've realized how untrusted they are... (5, Funny)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758154)

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious how thorough the author is in proving that this is really true. There's a screenshot of the test, video, and even a screenshot of the checkin.

It's almost like think we don't trust them or something.

Source code for change (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758170)

if (InUrl("acid2")) Display("happyface.jpg");

code! (1)

rickbliss (830492) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758186)

if ((story != open source)(isM$)(avg(scorepoints) = 3))
{
      return string ("Microsoft did something good, even though it took them a while?");
}

Re:code! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758330)

what kind of weird language is that?

Sour milk (3, Insightful)

TheDarkener (198348) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758220)

With respect to standards and interoperability, our goal in developing Internet Explorer 8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementations and do so without breaking the existing web.

Soooo... since you have created a community of non-standard web development practices in an otherwise open and standards-based world-wide community, you still feel like you should defend those who followed you in your path of non-standard lock-inery. No thanks. Suck it up and admit you made a big mistake by painting yourself into a corner.

This second goal refers to the lessons we learned during IE 7. IE7's CSS improvements made IE more compliant with some standards and less compatible with some sites on the web as they were coded.

Actually, that sounds exactly like your first goal. "As they were coded" really means "As they were coded to work with our non-standards-based web browser". Again, suck it up and just promise to follow the rules of the community, and we might actually start to respect you a bit more.

Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards. We have a responsibility to respect the work that sites have already done to work with IE.

I'd like to hear about the 'pre-dated standards' you speak of. Most likely, You're talking about practices you implemented in IE that wandered from existing standards, which maybe became stabilized post-M$ implementation. You can't defend non-standardization by blaming the standards for being STANDARDS. If you break standards that everyone is supposed to adhere to, its YOUR fault, NOT those who didn't embrace your specific practices as their own, personal standards.

We must deliver improved standards support and backwards compatibility so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 and (2) makes the development of the next billion pages, in an interoperable way, much easier. We'll blog more, and learn more, about this during the IE8 beta cycle."

How about just making IE8 as standards-based as the other players in the field instead of feeling like you are required to ween your followers from your own sour milk?

As far as I'm concerned, the underlying goal is (and always has been for M$) in the very $ at the end of M$ that has become so popular for many. You can't mask the underlying motive with excuses like what you have given.

Suck it up and play by the rules, or you'll eventually be kicked out of the game.

Guess which mode isn't the default? (1, Funny)

spyrochaete (707033) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758240)

Internet Explorer 8 has correctly rendered the Acid2 page in "standards mode".
Guess which mode isn't the default?

Re:Guess which mode isn't the default? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758314)

Meh. Firefox doesn't render it correctly either.

How Long Have I Been Asleep? How Long Have I Been (2, Funny)

Add_Water (1056858) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758308)

asleep? So, I get home really tired and go take a nap... Then, I wake up, log on slashdotm, and that's the headlines I read: - Duke Nukem Forever Teaser Released - IE 8(!) Passes Acid2 Test(!!!!) I'm sure there's an twilight zone episode just like that!

How about decent fscking png support (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758318)

You know, like a real alpha channel instead of pretending it's a fscking 8 bit gif with 1 bit transparent background?

Translation (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758356)

Now that we broke the web with our own version of standards, we're going to break it again with the real standards.

Remember kids... (5, Interesting)

sootman (158191) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758358)

... passing the Acid test doesn't mean the browser's perfect. From http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/guide/ [webstandards.org]

Everything that Acid2 tests is specified in a Web standard, but not all Web standards are tested. Acid2 does not guarantee conformance with any specification.
And, from what I've read before, it tests how browsers handle incorrect code [webstandards.org] as much as anything else--i.e., if it deals with errors correctly. I'd rather have it handle every bit of the spec correctly in the first place, and if it fails gracefully, that's nice too.

It'll also be nice it it handles transparent PNGs properly with nothing more than an <img> tag--like how IE/5 Mac did almost eight fucking years ago. [wikipedia.org] Here's how much progress they had made as of 6/2006. [slashdot.org] (Yeah, it's been a while, and maybe they've fixed that, but c'mon.... it was 2006!) Too bad they lined up the Mac guys against a wall and shot them, ensuring that it would take almost a decade to get that one feature into IE/Win.

Feel free to correct me if I've made any factual errors in this post.* Flame if you want, but nicely worded, verifiable responses are preferred and worth a lot more to readers in general.

* aside from the part about shooting the Mac team--I'm (pretty) sure that didn't happen.

IE8CSS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#21758378)

IE8 + CSS = Yet more JS to detect which browser the user is running + even more CSS.

Looks like a well balanced equation to me.

IE8 CSS. HTML now in hiding....
IE8 bites already

Kludged, probably (0, Flamebait)

unkaggregate (855265) | more than 6 years ago | (#21758418)

In an environment like Microsoft it's more likely they kludged their code around until it worked. It might render the ACID2 face correctly, but still completely screw up other standards. Remember that this is a company composed mostly of software hacks that call themselves programmers.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...