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!

IE8 Will Be Standards-Compliant By Default

kdawson posted more than 6 years ago | from the browsers-on-acid dept.

Internet Explorer 383

A number of readers wrote in to make sure we know about Microsoft's change of heart regarding IE8. The new version of the dominant browser will render in full standards mode by default. Developers wishing to use quirks mode for IE6- and IE7-compatible rendering will have to opt in explicitly. We've previously discussed IE8's render mode a few times. Perhaps Opera's complaint to the EU or the EU's record antitrust fine had something to do with Redmond's about-face.

cancel ×

383 comments

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

SLASHDOT SUX0RZ (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631242)

_0_
\''\
'=o='
.|!|
.| |
IE8 will be goatse compliant by default [goatse.ch]

Huge assumption in the title (4, Insightful)

Tumbleweed (3706) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631248)

Let's make one thing clear - IE8 may be in standards-compliant MODE by default, but whether it's *standards-compliant* has yet to be proven. What Microsoft HAS proven (repeatedly) is that it considers compliance with standards to be a relative term. Only time will tell. I sure hope that they actually accomplish it this time; I'm tired.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (5, Insightful)

Your.Master (1088569) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631416)

Compliance to standards is a relative term. No browser exists today that is completely compliant. What we can say is that this one appears to be more compliant than before -- it renders ACID2 at the very least (and probably does right everything IE7 did right).

Re:Huge assumption in the title (2, Insightful)

pembo13 (770295) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631610)

More standard than IE7 isn't really a high bar to aim for though.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631748)

> Compliance to standards is a relative term.

No, this statement is incorrect.

> No browser exists today that is completely compliant.

That is true. But it has no connection with the last statement.

I understand your point, and it's well taken, but you are introducing a tautology. Standards compliance is absolute, by _definition_.
Some attempts to comply with written standards may fail, and as such are not compliant. It may well be true that no browsers exist that are standards compliant, as the standards are written. However, please don't go waving around poisonous ideas like "standards compliance is a relative term".
Americans seem to have adopted a very lax relativism of late, a kind of fuzzy belief that everything is subjective. Some things are not. Some things are just facts that must be heeded. The definition is not up for negotiation, that's what _makes_ it a standard.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (4, Informative)

SEE (7681) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631418)

They've said it already passes Acid2.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (3, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631482)

So does Safari. Yet from my experience it has way more rendering bugs than most other browsers I've used and tested against. Passing Acid2 does not mean that it is standards compliant. For instance. IE doesn't support the :last-child pseudo-class, but that doesn't appear in Acid2. So even if it does pass Acid2, it may still not support this feature.

dude! (0, Troll)

Erris (531066) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631820)

Someone told me they passed Acid 2001. Maui-wowie!

Seeing is believing. IE7 is a piece of shit. The next version of M$ anything always promises whatever people say they want. I'll believe M$ has gone standards compliant when they use ODF, and vorbis formats without discrimination. Until then, they are M$XML, Silverlight pushing assholes who won't play nice with anyone else.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (1)

Secret Rabbit (914973) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631826)

And if you read that blog, they admitted that the only things they fixed were the things required to pass ACID2. Please note that this certainly does NOT mean that it is actually compliant.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (4, Insightful)

Phroggy (441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631508)

What Microsoft HAS proven (repeatedly) is that it considers compliance with standards to be a relative term.
So do all other browser makers. The various standards involved are non-trivial to implement, and as another poster commented, nobody has implemented all of them.

Just because a browser passes Acid2 doesn't mean it's "standards-compliant". It means it complies with the specific parts of the standards that Acid2 tests for, which is only a few things that most browsers (at the time Acid2 was created) got wrong.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (1, Troll)

megaditto (982598) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631514)

E8 may be in standards-compliant MODE by default, but whether it's *standards-compliant* has yet to be proven
You are a pessimist, or a cynic.

Let me inject a little optimism into this thread by saying that IE8 can indeed be standards-complaint because it will be the standard.

Re:Huge assumption in the title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631702)

Wow it's great that everyone (the very few) is into web standards NOW, when Microsoft was going nuts with Active X, which has legacy implications particualrly elsewhere in the world (Korea) they weren't. They were into standards, just not additional functionality. Their apathy is as much responsible as Microsoft's averece and incompetence. So with all due respect to Opera and the EU, fuck you very much, you belated useless bastards. Maybe if Opera was something worthwhile, they'd be beholden to some sort of legacy of use and past choices. But since they're essentially freeware of dubious merit, they're not.

I love how these "conversations" always take place in a vacuume that ignores that Netscape was putting out a horrible product, vastly vastly inverior to IE much less anything like a modern browser like Firefox! Honestly, given the role microsoft had in driving the web (in some ways off and or into a cliff), they probably should have a MS quirks setting in current standards. The Europeans basically abandoned HTML to U of I, and Mosaic closed up shop PREFERING to leave the web in Microsofts and Netscapes far less than capable hands. You want to blame someone? Blame Adam Smith for being so fucking convincing, even in situations where he really isn't.

I don't care about IE at all (0, Offtopic)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631258)

It's not my choice of browser, and it hasn't been since FireFox 2.

What I want to know is why can't Firefox be standards compliant too? I don't want to hear any excuses about IE, I want to know why my browser can't do what the other browser can. Do I need to switch again?

Re:I don't care about IE at all (3, Insightful)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631340)

I'd like to agree with you. Unfortunately, I am occasionally forced to use IE through some lousy developers use of ActiveX or mediaplayer drm.

The day that web developers all reach a "standard" where they refuse to implement these things will be a joyful day for humanity. They all have the power to do that now, but it seems that some developers are not at the same standard as the rest.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (3, Insightful)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631458)

You're not forced to use IE by those people - you choose to. In doing so, you are rewarding them for being crap.

What you should be doing is refusing to use them. Switch bank, don't use the service, or whatever - but make sure you write them an email or letter explaining why.

/mike

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

Arthur B. (806360) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631564)

But I use elinks and no online banking site support it... and and and... don't I deserve that the banks support my favorite browser ? Don't I deserve that people work for me so that I have what I need ?

Funny? 99% of people think that way.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631770)

There are very few banks that don't support non-IE browsers in 2008.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (2, Insightful)

satoshi1 (794000) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631708)

You say this, but would you do this? It is often easier to just put up with the browser bullshit instead of switching banks or finding a new service provider. I can't very well switch schools because my university doesn't support Opera for it's student portal, can I?

Re:I don't care about IE at all (2, Interesting)

jweller (926629) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631738)

I have to use IE to access my companies payroll site, so if I want to get paid, I must use IE. It's one thing to vote with your wallet but I am not a martyr.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (0)

Bottlemaster (449635) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631818)

I have to use IE to access my companies payroll site, so if I want to get paid, I must use IE. It's one thing to vote with your wallet but I am not a martyr.
Not sure about your part of the world, but where I live, employment is voluntary and choice of employers is up to the individual.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (4, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631362)

Firefox 2 is one of the most standards compliant [webdevout.net] browsers around. What other browser does significantly better overall at standards compliance than Firefox? Check out the link I provided to webdevout's information on browser standards support before you reply...

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631502)

Yes, other than not passing Acid2, I can't find any major problems with Firefox's rendering. Other browsers do much better on the Acid2, but do much worse in actual real world web pages.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (3, Insightful)

Firehed (942385) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631600)

Which, in actual terms, means that people code to Firefox just as they code to IE. It just so happens that coding your page to look right in Firefox is a helluva lot closer to the standard (if not it exactly) than when you do the same in IE.

I think some people may be doing tremendously over-complicated things with CSS and page elements though. There are only two things that I generally need to implement a (rather trivial) workaround for when implementing designs - transparent .png files, and IE's utter failure at centering elements with #blockid { margin: 0 auto; }. Maybe my implementations aren't complicated enough. Maybe other people are trying to do unusual things. Maybe I'm willing to give a virtual middle finger to IE users and give them square corners and simplify my life with the -moz-border-radius and -webkit-border-radius half-implemented properties (I think the final border-radius property set is part of CSS3, and we'll be lucky to have most of CSS2 implemented by the time IE8 comes out - in any case, this is a style issue and not specific to IE). But in all seriousness, IE seems to be giving me a lot fewer headaches than it once used to. Maybe it's just dumb luck.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631648)

If you're looking for a way to do rounded borders, you might want to check out my method of creating rounded borders [kibbee.ca] . It seems to be a lot easier than all the other implementations I've found, and doesn't require you to mess with your HTML too much.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631798)

"Your" method (which is fairly widely used) is considered lacking because it requires a number of non-semantic DIV elements to be in your code, where ideally it could be done entirely from CSS.

(And also FYI if you use a circle-shaped PNG, you can use the same image for all 4 corners.)

Re:I don't care about IE at all (4, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631768)

Which, in actual terms, means that people code to Firefox just as they code to IE. It just so happens that coding your page to look right in Firefox is a helluva lot closer to the standard (if not it exactly) than when you do the same in IE.

I disagree. At my last employer I used OmniWeb for a while (a very niche browser). Most of the Web UI developers used Firefox, but a couple used Konquerer. A few used Safari. A few used Camino. A few used Opera. Regardless of what you used, when you found a bug, you tested it with a couple of other browsers and if the remote Windows box was available (or you had an emulator running), you tested it on multiple browsers and multiple platforms.

The upshot of all of this was, when a bug was listed, it was pretty easy to see which bugs were specific to a given browser. Bugs that appeared in some version of IE, but in no other browser at all, were by far the most common occurrence. Realistically our approach boiled down to, "write to standards; then hack for IE. " Make no mistake, we did not code for some other browser then try to make it work on every one, because that was not needed for the most part. We were programmatically generating Web pages and interfaces from XML data and a couple of databases. For the vast majority of the time, all browsers but IE were close enough to the standards we used (HTML3, CSS2, XHTML) so that there were no discrepancies when tested.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (5, Informative)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631574)

What other browser does significantly better overall at standards compliance than Firefox?

Well, since the link you provide is largely question marks for the Webkit based browsers, that's hard to say. Also, the comparison you link to is missing a lot of standards where Firefox is a bit behind. These include:

  • Javascript - Safari, Opera, and Konquerer all have at least some support for Javascript DOM 3, which Firefox lacks in the released versions so far.
  • image formats - Konquerer supports MNG, Tiff, and PDF. Safari supports JPEG 2000, Tiff, and PDF. I know of no standard image formats Firefox supports not supported by both of those (yet).
  • XHTML 1.1 lists Firefox at 63% and question marks for Safari and Konquerer, but wikipedia currently lists both of those as having "full support" and Firefox as "partial."
  • Web Forms 2.0 - Opera supports, Firefox doesn't
  • Voice XML - Opera supports, Firefox doesn't
  • WML - Opera supports, Firefox doesn't

That is not to say Firefox is necessarily behind other browser for standards compliance in general. No one with a clue would cite the Acid tests as proof of anything in that regard, but it does indicate that the link you provide is not particularly strong evidence one way or another. The whole question is probably too vague to be answered. There are a lot of Web standards and what really matters is which ones are most universally supported and what functionality cannot be used because of lacking support in one browser or another.

In summary, I reject your assertion, not because I'm convinced you're wrong, but because you haven't provided enough evidence to support it and there is significant contradictory evidence (cited above).

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

colfer (619105) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631772)

Firefox 3 is in beta, and FF 2 has been feature-frozen for a long time, so it's an unfair comparison. Generally FF is overrated methinks, but pretty good for being so popular. Like the cute chick that will even date you.

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

glwtta (532858) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631742)

Firefox 2 is one of the most standards compliant browsers around.

Given that there's like 3 browsers, isn't "one of" not all that impressive?

Bring on your "I use Browser Foo as do almost 17 other people, you Insensitive Clod"! :)

Re:I don't care about IE at all (1)

mlingojones (919531) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631762)

...except for the fact that it doesn't pass Acid2. What other browser does significantly better at standards compliance? Safari 2 (or really any browser using an up-to-date WebKit), Opera 9... and oh yeah, IE8. IE8 will do better at standards compliance than Firefox. P.S. Your link is outdated. Both Opera 9 and Safari 2 beat Firefox 2. Check here [wikipedia.org] .

The only catch (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631260)

is that new definition of 'full standards mode' means 'requires Silverlight'.

Or perhaps... (3, Insightful)

dedazo (737510) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631278)

They just thought it was the best thing to do. After all, they're going to be breaking a lot of intranet crap, which won't make them lots of fans.

But that doesn't get the juices flowing as effectively as the "they did it because I think they're scared of the EU" editorial byline. Must have those ad impressions.

Windows Versions? (3, Interesting)

Sponge Bath (413667) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631282)

Will this be installable on XP and later or will it only be available for the Vista follow on: Vista ME?

Re:Windows Versions? (-1)

boourns (1180959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631318)

Re:Windows Versions? (2, Informative)

niteice (793961) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631490)

Informative? mods on crack, as usual

That link is from 2004.

fsvo (1, Insightful)

Nimey (114278) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631284)

For small values of "compliant". I'll lay odds that it will still be less compliant than Gecko, KHTML, or Opera.

And we'll still have retarded webmonkeys designing for IE instead of standards, especially if MS gets it really wrong again.

Re:fsvo (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631468)

More accurately, after 3 to 6 months of free beta testing by clients and end users, and when M$ sorts out the 'discoveries', from the 'disclosures' and then the patching, it will really actually start to approach standards compliance, and hence to fit with M$ speak, it will be 'more' standards compliant than the previous version.

Not that I use it but... (1)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631286)

I'll still be interested in how well it handles the Acid2 and Acid3 tests.

Re:Not that I use it but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631404)

IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test [slashdot.org]

Re:Not that I use it but... (3, Interesting)

The Ancients (626689) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631408)

According to various articles linked to from google [google.com] , IE8 beta builds have passed Acid2. As for Acid3, let's start with small miracles, shall we?

Unpossible (-1, Redundant)

Citizen of Earth (569446) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631288)

That is unpossible!

Hmmmm (2, Interesting)

Brian Gordon (987471) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631290)

This could actually be some competition for the unstoppable Firefox.. if IE stops sucking then nobody will switch.. I'm expecting firefox 3 to pack some serious performance and standards-compliance improvements, but if it didn't then I'd have been happy to switch back to IE8. Firefox is an absolute memory whore. I do like the interface though; IE7's was horrid.

Re:Hmmmm (4, Insightful)

garett_spencley (193892) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631382)

Competition is good. If Microsoft actually goes and creates a superior product then IE users get a better browser which forces Firefox to either "up it's game" (giving FF users an even better browser) or remain the same while everyone switches back to IE because it's superior.

Either way everyone gets a better browser. Win-win.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

MeNeXT (200840) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631588)

When IE starts supporting more then windows "current version" then it may start becoming a superior browser.

IE 8 is to move people onto VISTA it most likely won't run on XP... but that's only my experience and my opinion.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631720)

Either way everyone gets a better browser. Win-win.

No kidding! It sounds like IE8 will support both OSes: XP and Vista.

Wonder if my IE7 for Ubuntu will upgrade itself?

Re:Hmmmm (1, Informative)

Apocalypse111 (597674) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631752)

There's still one big reason not to switch back to IE - security. I don't want to go look at the open web using an integral part of my OS, thanks.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

dwater (72834) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631816)

> Either way everyone gets a better browser. Win-win.

Then the number of FF users will drop, making them less significant to content producers so they target IE more and more. Then Microsoft will think they are the standard and stop further IE development, letting it sit stagnant for years on end while the general populous gradually realise how much they're being screwed, meanwhile FF has shrunk to insignificance/etc/etc.

Sounds like a viscous cycle; one that can only be broken by people not either not bothering to use IE at all even if it does get better, or Microsoft changing it's colours and keeping up development/etc/etc. I know which one I'd have money on, if I were a betting man.

Of course, there's a "secret option number 'c'", which is Microsoft don't bundle their browser on their OS so that there's a level playing field on which to complete. You can stop laughing now.

Re:Hmmmm (0, Troll)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631386)

Hmmmmm... Firefox looks like it uses less memory than other browsers [mozillazine.org] to me. How would we see this "memory whore" thing you're talking about? Can you give me a site to go to that causes Firefox to use much more memory than another browser?

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631422)

Firefox at 94 MB???
hahahaha! Maybe if I *just* started it.
My firefox jumps to about 400 MB after about 2 weeks of being open.
Posting AC because I moderated this story already... :(

+1 Informative (2, Informative)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631454)

You may be new around here, so you don't fully get the moderation rules yet.

If you moderate in a thread and then post in it afterwards, all moderation will be erased. This happens even if you are posting anonymously.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

zippthorne (748122) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631630)

It seems to maintains a list of all of the words that it has helpfully suggested corrections for, for you. So, you must be one terrible misspeller.

But, why would you leave your web browser open for weeks at a time? You should be turning the machine off when you go home for the night / leave for work in the morning (depending on home/work status) to save electricity. Only servers need to be on all the time.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631520)

Okay, I'll bite.

First, that page is several years and versions of each browser old.

Second, it's an uptime kind of thing in my experience. If I'm working on an older machine, I typically need to close Firefox every few hours because it's hogging a few hundred meg of memory. IE doesn't, in my experience, bloat over time as bad.

If you're not prone to leaving a browser open for days of browsing at a time, you might not ever notice it. This doesn't invalidate the many good points of Firefox, it's just a little annoying.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631586)

I ran Firefox 3 beta 3 on Windows for a week without closing it just recently. It was using 150 MB of memory, with a peak mem usage of 250 MB. Having to close Firefox every few hours isn't the typical Firefox user's experience. Firefox using 100-150 MB of RAM is typical [mozillazine.org] , even when running for many days. It sounds like you're having an unusual problem if you're having to restart it every few hours. Perhaps you may want to follow some of the suggestions on the page I linked to.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Mongoose Disciple (722373) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631690)

I'll have to check, but I'd bet I'm still running Firefox 2 on the couple of older machines that I've used it on with problems.

If the 3 beta is fairly stable I'll have to give it a try.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631744)

One thing you should do if you've had problems with Firefox 2 is create a new profile [mozillazine.org] , whether you decide to stick with Firefox 2 or update to Firefox 3. In my experience in the MozillaZine forums, that one simple suggestion seems to fix most problems. There's lots of other advice for fixing problems in the MozillaZine Knowledge Base [mozillazine.org] .

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Heir Of The Mess (939658) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631676)

Here's an interesting one off of Microsoft's own live.com A blog entry with pictures [live.com]

IE gets up to 250MB and then doesn't render the page. Yet Firefox works fine. Interestingly though if you save the Firefox content and then load it in IE is also works fine, so maybe not a fair comparison as it seems to be serving up different material to each browser.

Re:Hmmmm (0)

bondsbw (888959) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631392)

Then Firefox and open source is serving its purpose.

Really... does everyone hate IE because Microsoft has a browser monopoly, or because IE has sucked for so long and there was no competition to force them to do anything about it?

Re:Hmmmm (2, Insightful)

eebra82 (907996) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631448)

I think a lot of people use Firefox because it is so easy to modify to your needs. IE can be configured, but not even remotely close to what FF can do with the help of plug-ins and extensions.

Also, I would say that most people who use Firefox are experienced users. Firefox cannot grow beyond this market simply because my inexperienced father is happy with what comes bundled with the computer. I hope you understand that analogy. Most people simply don't see the difference, nor do they care.

Booga booga (2, Interesting)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631492)

Want to get people to switch to Firefox?

Tell them that IE leaks passwords and will run scripts that can read your hard drive and send credit card numbers to malicious servers.

Tell them that FireFox has the "Do Everything" feature too, but it is disabled by default. It can be turned on later, though "in your experience, you've never had any trouble with it off."

Tell them that FireFox is free and is based on Netscape (they will probably remember that name) which turned the browser business over to "Mozilla" when it went out of business. "Mozilla" makes money fixing security holes in FireFox, which is why it is so secure.

Then install it for them.

Re:Booga booga (2, Insightful)

FishWithAHammer (957772) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631626)

That won't really help for the vast majority of users.

people switch because of standards?!? (1)

acidrain (35064) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631554)

if IE stops sucking then nobody will switch.. I'm expecting firefox 3 to pack some serious performance and standards-compliance improvements

Standards compliance in this case will result in broken pages, at least in the short term. Not sure why people would switch for that. Also surprised that you think people when to Firefox for the standards compliance. I thought they went over for the usability the add-ons that didn't suck. Standards are, and always will be a nerd issue. Everyone else just wants you to shut up and make it work.

I just don't see how rolling out automatic updates one day that break working sites is the right thing. Right or wrong, users will blame Microsoft. I guess they deserve it for implementing standards incorrectly, but there really should be a better way.

Re:Hmmmm (4, Funny)

WK2 (1072560) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631606)

Firefox is an absolute memory whore.

OMG WHAT ARE YOU DOING TO YOUR BROWSER!?!? And how? Whatever it is, I don't think Firefox actually wants your memory that badly.

On the other hand, perhaps you meant, "memory hog."

THANK YOU! (1)

theaceoffire (1053556) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631306)

Microsoft, I can honestly say that this is the first version of IE that I have ever looked forward to.

Here's hoping that we can forget the others ever happened!

EPIC WIN (1)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631326)

Firefox 3 will surely be my browser of choice still, but this is still an epic win for developers, and the progression of the WWW.

huge success!

Re:EPIC WIN (1)

mike_sucks (55259) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631366)

Absolutely! Will this be the end of "write using standards, hack to get IE working"?

Of course, the devil will be in the details - let's see how how well they implement the new support.

/mike

Re:EPIC WIN (1)

Chandon Seldon (43083) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631580)

Will this be the end of "write using standards, hack to get IE working"?

Not until users stop using IE7. On a web site I recently did dev work for, IE6 was still considered the primary target.

Re:EPIC WIN (2, Insightful)

yakumo.unr (833476) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631628)

Some places will always be far behind, but this news means there should be a brighter future, instead of endlessly delving further and further into a barrel of hideous hackery.

MS is caving in? again? (1)

rainhill (86347) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631344)

...ummh, I've got a bad feeling, something is not right.

Re: IE8 Will Be Standards-Compliant By Default (1)

rodgerdb (615883) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631356)

"Perhaps Opera's complaint to the EU or the EU's record antitrust fine had something to do with Redmond's about-face."

I would like to think Microsoft reads Slashdot. =)

Put it all on Silverlight!?! (4, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631368)

I wonder if they're serious. Will they really be standards compliant enough so that I don't have to hack around IE8's deficiencies? Will this still be true for IE9? It's possible. Will this include SVG and XHTML and CSS3? What about XUL and HTML 5?

If all of the above work in the next couple of version of IE, do you know what that would indicate to me? That would indicate that Microsoft is betting on Silverlight to lock in users in the next 5 years... because they've pretty much convinced me they will never compete based upon features and the merits of their software, rather than trying to make it as hard as possible for users to switch to anything else.

Re:Put it all on Silverlight!?! (2, Informative)

Bill, Shooter of Bul (629286) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631472)

By standards compliant they pretty much just mean HTML CSS javascript and the DOM. There are many web technologies, but there isn't a single browser that fully supports all of the standards you listed. I wish there was. Feel free to correct me If I'm wrong.

Re:Put it all on Silverlight!?! (2, Insightful)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631680)

There are many web technologies, but there isn't a single browser that fully supports all of the standards you listed. I wish there was. Feel free to correct me If I'm wrong.

No, here is no browser that supports all of those completely. Some of the specifications are still in draft form for some of those technologies. So far, however, Firefox, Safari, Konquerer, and Opera all have at least some support for every one of the specifications I mentioned. Explorer has some support for some of them, but is behind on all of them compared to every other browser.

The difference is which browser teams are committed to implementing standards going forward and advancing the Web technologies as a real goal and which are interested in doing as little to make the Web a more powerful platform as possible while not incurring serious legal problems. I submit that if Microsoft is really serious about implementing the standards they will have at least some support for all of these Web technologies in IE 8, enough so that it shows they are committed to keeping current with Web technologies instead of freezing the Web at a technological level it was at 8 years ago and making sure it is never useful enough so that people can use Windows or some other platform.

Re:Put it all on Silverlight!?! (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631566)

Microsoft is playing some serious catch-up after laying dormant with IE6 for so long. It will be nice if they can get XHTML 1, CSS2, and HTML4 all working respectably well in IE8. It's yet to be seen if they will maintain that momentum and continue to adopt new standards such as HTML5 and CSS3. I personally hope they do, especially with CSS3, as it has lots of really nice features.

Re:Put it all on Silverlight!?! (1)

c0ol (628751) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631714)

Silverlight works on Firefox

Re:Put it all on Silverlight!?! (1)

99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631808)

Silverlight works on Firefox

Of course it does. Likely it will work on OS X too. Every new format or protocol or technology MS pushes that is in a market they have not dominated works on other platforms. The problem is what happens as soon as MS has enough share of that market. That is when incompatibilities or platform support is intentionally broken to lock-in users, force users to move to MS products, and help reinforce their primary monopoly. The solution is to support only open standard formats with trademarked names, so that MS cannot later break compatibility until the courts order them to stop (many years later after the new market has been destroyed).

In other news.. (1)

wellingtonsteve (892855) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631400)

Hell has just frozen over..

I guess the student was wrong.. http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=83;t=000609;p=1 [snopes.com]

Re:In other news.. (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631620)

Hell has just frozen over...
in the silverlight of a blue moon...

Question (1)

jason777 (557591) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631424)

So does this mean that existing sites will be automatically broken, unless you add a tag?

Re:Question (2, Informative)

bunratty (545641) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631498)

Sites that depend on the behavior of IE7 will break unless they add a tag saying they are designed specifically for IE7. Sites that were developed according to standards, and do not rely on the behavior of specific versions of specific browsers, will not break. This is the advantage of designing web sites according to the standards. As a further advantage, they also tend to work in other browsers and on other operating systems.

Re:Question (1)

chiskop (926270) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631518)

Depends how the existing site was made. If it was designed against IE6/7, then yes, it will be at least a little broken, but then it already was.

If it was designed to standards (which the article calls 'IE8 content', roffle) then it seems like ie8 will "interpret web content in the most standards compliant way it can."

It's that last little bit that prevents me from getting all excited just yet.

Re:Question (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631530)

Yes, and the small minority that creates standard-complaint websites see this as good news, because they don't need to add a small, single tag to their pages. At the expense of breaking most of the web.

Certainly good news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631428)

No quirks! No quirks!

Wouldn't it be funny... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631462)

if IE8's default standards mode was directly comparable to firefox, safari, etc. And then, get this, IE8 introduces a new mode that is 100% standards-compliant, better than any other browser on the market. And then... oh get this, get this: then you have to add a meta tag to access the better-than-other-standards-browsers mode!

Oh, I can just see it now. Irony at its best.

Perhaps... (1)

Phroggy (441) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631476)

Perhaps Opera's complaint to the EU or the EU's record antitrust fine had something to do with Redmond's about-face.
Or perhaps Microsoft simply realized that their previous plan was flawed, and they've decided to do the right thing just because it's the right thing to do. Or maybe it occurred to them that encouraging everyone to move to standard code will make development of future versions of IE much easier, so it's in their own interests to do so.

OOXML (0, Offtopic)

Maestro485 (1166937) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631516)

In other news, OOXML will be in compliance with ODF.

Good news (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631524)

I'll believe it when I see it, but this is good news if it's true, and if "standards" means what you'd hope. The best thing for the web is for all of the major browsers to abandon support for decrepit, non-standards-compliant sites and send the message that they're committed to CSS and other modern elements of design. Microsoft has been hesitant to do this for many reasons aside from anticompetitiveness, but the chicken and egg problem of needing to support legacy sites is getting old. If they pull this off I'll stop using my nasty voice when I talk about IE.

Not the EU or Opera... (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631532)

I doubt the decision has anything to do with Opera's complaint or the EU. I think the monkey dancer threw a chair, it him in the head, and the decision came as a result of that.

missing the point (2, Insightful)

BPPG (1181851) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631552)

I much prefer firefox to ie. Hell, I've been into using kazehakase. And lynx comes in handy when I'm unable to run Xorg. But I would be glad to see microsoft finally bringing ie up to standards. It's not about which browser is better. People will use whatever browser they want. The important thing is that if such a widely used browser is up to standards, and if more people starts using, we can actually put those standard to use. If this encourages Mozilla and Opera to meet the standards as well, all the better. The thing is the content! Web developers will less and less have to plan for browsers quirks and contingencies, and focus more on content that everyone will be able to use and view online. So instead of five or six implementations, we can mostly just worry about one.

Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers (1)

rice_burners_suck (243660) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631572)

I doubt this is being done to help the browser platforms of competitors. I think it's being done for much the same reason that the OS has changed in such a vastly incompatible way... to mess with Developers, Developers, Developers, Developers [youtube.com] .

2008 - the end of Slashdot??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631582)

Could 2008 be the year of the end of Slashdot? Microsoft is attempting to become more open source friendly. IE8 is looking to be standards compliant. Duke Nukem Forever is supposedly going to be released. What is there going to be left for us to joke about and hate!?

Re:2008 - the end of Slashdot??? (3, Insightful)

Vexorian (959249) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631616)

Microsoft is attempting to become more open source friendly
No, it isn't.

I did not read it that way at all. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#22631684)

The article says that documents REQUESTING standards-compliant mode will use "IE8 standards" mode instead of "IE7 standards" mode. It does not say the browser will default to standards mode.

This Will Cost MS Dearly (3, Interesting)

rsmith-mac (639075) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631686)

While this is good news for those of us in the geek crowd, I'm extremely surprised MS went this route. When IE8 is pushed out and it breaks a bunch of non-conforming non-tagged pages built for IE7 and IE6, there will be much hell raising to be had. MS will of course be blamed since they're the ones that changed things and I wouldn't be surprised if the backlash was well in excess of IE7's, if not close to the kind of backlash Vista initially got.

Ultimately everything will be worked out as developers fix their pages, but in the short-term period following IE8's release it's going to cost MS dearly. I can't for the life of me figure out why MS would want to put their neck on the line like this, it's not doing them any favors and "benevolent" usually isn't a term we use to describe Microsoft.

Re:This Will Cost MS Dearly (1)

John Jamieson (890438) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631734)

It can't cost more than loosing the user base, which is what is happening now.

I figure they are trying to stem some of the defections to Opera and Firefox. They can always embrace and extend in IE9, if they get some of the user base back.

Re:This Will Cost MS Dearly (4, Informative)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631806)

I can't for the life of me figure out why MS would want to put their neck on the line like this

You must not have read the press release [microsoft.com] !

"While we do not believe there are currently any legal requirements that would dictate which rendering mode must be chosen as the default for a given browser, this step clearly removes this question as a potential legal and regulatory issue"

They aren't putting their neck on the line... it's already there. :)

Things change in 10 years (1)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631712)

It's been nine years since IE5 came out with broken CSS and Web developers have been screaming for it ever since. What's that that Bill Gates says about predicting the future -- that 10 years is just enough time to see paradigm shifts but not so far out that the future cannot be predicted? Does coding to a standard count as a paradigm shift? I guess it is when you're Microsoft and you're coding to someone else's standard.

It's a trap! (5, Funny)

tobiasly (524456) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631754)

It's a trap! First Microsoft lures us all into using interoperable web standards, and then... then.... shit, I can't figure out how they can use this for evil. Gimme a sec...

Developers & the half-life of accumulated cont (4, Insightful)

weston (16146) | more than 6 years ago | (#22631782)

Developers, developers, developers, right?

I think Microsoft has finally genuinely started to realize a very simple fact:

Client-side web developers hate them.

And it's probably the one thing MS has thoroughly earned with all the IE bullsh*t over the last 10 years.

This is a really great gesture, it's a good start if they want to allay any of that and gain back trust. But honestly, nobody gets over 10 years of being treated like crap overnight, and the half-life of contempt isn't short.

Personally, I'd like to offer my congratulations to the IE Product management team, and let them know that in time, I'll probably only wish debilitating terminal illness on them, rather than painful and extended death by torture.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>