Slashdot Mirror
Making IE Standards Compliant
spin2cool writes "Dean Edwards has taken it upon himself to make Internet Explorer W3C compliant. How? Well, it isn't by patching the application, as you might suspect. He's created a stylesheet, dubbed 'IE7' that uses DHTML to load and parse style sheets into a form that IE can understand. Just include the style sheet in your HTML pages, and things should render correctly. The complexity of the CSS transformations is really amazing and shows off the power of this stuff."
This will probably get modded down - but this hack really does show the power of IE that you can deploy a script fix to browser problems.
And before people start attacking ie for saying that mozilla supports xyz css and ie6 doesn't - mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was released 2+ years ago. Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released.
Great to see the css3 support though - removes the need for so hard-to-manage javascript hacks.
SharedID - Single Sign On for web applications
But this is why FireFox still isn't onto release one. I also get problems on my XP box using some sites, especially forms; but there are also still sites that don't work correctly in any release.
IE has the usual MS philosophy in that if something doesn't comply with the way they've done it, who cares because everyone will change to their way of thinking. I agree with those who don't like that someone else has to clean up after MS but what else are you going to do? For better or worse it is, and will be for a while yet, what most non-techy people use.
Perhaps it's slashdot that needs to be made standards compliant! It would seem that someone doesn't want us to know how compliant it is.
It seems WDG had better luck getting through, but look at all those errors!
Go to www.ntk.net and look through the last few editions. They were running a challenge to register the silliest .name domains (such as no.name , so you can host www.the.man.with.no.name)
Flippancy apart, I think using CSS to make IE7 W3C compliant is a really brilliant idea. However, the browser itself is a small part of the equations. Very few websites are W3C compliant. Vast majority of them are geared to a certain browser, depending on the whim and fancy of the designer.
For my part, I run my sites thru Anybrowser to make sure they will render on, well, as the name suggests, any browser.
Nothing to see here
Anyone who cares this much about the company's product should be given serious consideration for employment.
Microsoft should hire him...
That's pretty sad, for /. to mess with their server settings to disable the w3 validator. Their HTML has been terribly broken for years. I don't understand what they do with all that money they have, because they sure haven't been improving the site very much. Makes me glad I don't subscribe and I block their ads.
Gates' Law: Every 18 months, the speed of software halves.
I still don't know why Slashdot doesn't reference non-high bandwidth sites using the freecache service. All that needs to be done is prefix the URL with http://freecache.org/ and follow it with the full regular URL, eg:
g _p ictures.html
http://freecache.org/http://www.slowsite.com/bi
It benefits the site owner by having reduced bandwidth costs and it also benefits Slashdot as we can read the articles.
Want to improve your Karma? Instead of "Post Anonymously", try the "Post Humously" option.
Check those errors a little more carefully. There are a whole bunch of errors about URIs of the type 'http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=2336&alloc_id=5672&sit e_id=1&request'. I'm too lazy to check if this is actually a valid to skip the pagename on an URI with a query, but I belive it is. But no matter what, each such URI generates about a dozen errors, which is bogus. Most of the other errors have to do with rendering hints like 'marginwidth' and 'bgcolor', which where not a part of the HTML 3.2 standard but are noncritical.
Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
I tried adding a trailing slash, worked once, then stopped. I tried taking out the "www." before "slashdot.org", worked a few times, then stopped. Looks like /. has its tinfoil hat firmly on against its users.
Windows is only $500 if your time is worthless.
If what I have seen in the "file list" from the leaked MS code still holds true, all the HTML rendering, CSS, PNG and etc stuff is in DLLs that are totally seperate from the OS and could easily be updated independantly.
When Microsoft says "we cant fix xyz", it usually means "we cant fix xyz because it would cost us more (in money, programmer time etc) than we are going to gain (in sales, PR etc)"
The magazine A List Apart has already redone Slashdot's design with web standards. Look here:
you know microsoft: ignore the standards they don't like while pushing the half-assed replacement they come up with
.net framework (excessivly large, almost useless .net framework must be installed seperatly from this update)
i can see it now...
windows xp recomended update #5946468
css.net:
this update gives IE6 the ability to properly* display css using the
*through emulation only, we're microsoft damnit! we don't bow down to anyone bitch!
The W3C have now changed policy so that in order to get to full Recommendation status, a specification has to have at least two independent implementations. If nobody can implement it, it gets kicked back a stage or two for reevaluation. This should help combat the "nice specs, shame about the real world" problem a little.
The sad thing is that the law does not get applied to the biggest criminal of them all, the Convicted Monopolist.
It would be pretty simple for them to have a local copy of the stylesheet and modify the HTML from the server to include this before rendering.
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
msie crashes because of the p:first-letter and the em in the first paragraph, (p)(em)text
it probably doesn't know how to handle this, maybe tries to applie the style to the em-tag or something, anyway it takes the easy way out and crashes ;)
One a side note, had that document been a proper xhtml1.1 document, which should have been sent as application/xhtml+xml not as text/html as it is. msie wouldn't have displayed it at all, giving you a download dialog when trying to load it. xhtml media types
Space: Does not page down
Page-Down: Does not page down
Cursorkey-Down: Does not scroll down
"Microsofts Invention", the iframe works like a charm in Mozilla, simple W3C CSS fails. Since 2001.
I've read on mozillazine that if you minimize Fx, it's supposed to release most/all of its memory down to only a meg or two
If you can't see the value in jet powered ants you should turn in your nerd card. - Dunbal (464142)
Good theory. Unfortunately, MS has made that very difficult. There are several basic CSS/HTML formating options that work differently under IE than the standard specifies; differently enough that if you were to use them the page would either work in IE or in standards-compliant browsers. (But not both.)
There are work arounds, using semi-legit CSS that fails in one browser or another and lets each browser see what it understands. But that is really just coding to the browser again, and occasionally breaks as groups upgrade their browsers. This promises a one-stop shop for all the main problems.
'Sensible' is a curse word.
Can I feign ignorance? "Sorry, officer. I was just trying to use legitimate stylistic commands that render so nicely in Netscape/Opera/Safari/etc. I had no idea that Microsoft's browser was so buggy."
Constitutionally Correct
Well it is not a stylesheet but this will crash IE nicely. Anywhere in your page include this tag
/>
<input type='crash'
Seems kind of ironic.
steal this sig
It doesn't crash in IE for me. What version of IE are you using, and under what windows?
-=Lothsahn=-
> what if you don't have a windows computer to see how 'it looks' under IE?
Exchange screenshots with another webmaster who does use IE. I've got a couple
of people I trade screenshots with regularly. They like this arrangement,
because my screenshots show some edge cases that most people would miss.
I always take a series of shots showing scalability from 640x480 up through
at least 1280x1024, and I always show what the site looks like with and without
page colors turned on (and my system colors are medium-contrast light-on-dark,
which shows up stuff that gets missed if you use black-on-white). Also I tend
to take screenshots with about three different rendering engines (always Gecko,
plus usually Konqueror and one or more of Opera, W3, Links, Lynx). So my
approach shows up a lot of edge cases that more typical setups (black-text,
white-background, MSIE, 800x600, page colors enabled) won't see.
Yes, it's possible to design a web page that looks "right" under all of the
above settings. (By "right", I mean it looks like it was designed for those
settings.) Eye candy in the graphical browsers, without breaking the text
browsers; client-side scripts that automate things if scripts are enabled,
without breaking the site if scripts aren't enabled. Images that look good
(no jaggy edges) against either a light _or_ dark background. (This is
tricky if you have to support browsers with no proper alpha channel, but
it can be done; the trick is to set the background color when you save your
PNG images, so that non-alpha-channel browsers (*cough* MSIE) will antialias
against that color -- set that to the same color as the surrounding background
and you get to be Bob's nephew. Or use the MSIE PNG-alpha-channel hack, but
not all versions of MSIE support that, and it still leaves old versions of
Opera out in the cold.)
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
Crashes for me..
From IE About:
Version: 6.0.2800.1106.xpsp2.030422-1633
I'm not running XP SP2, however. Which is odd.. Just XP SP1 with all the latest Windows Updates on it.
You've been modded a troll and it's probably right. But it's Friday, and I'm fed up with illiterate morons and I agree with you.
I come across this all the time. People send emails with stuff like:
"Can someone, please look at, this."
What does it mean? By the way, this is a manager. She gets paid more than me and yet she can't string simple written English together.
Sometimes I wonder what goes on in peoples' minds, then I realise I'd rather not know.
Yours Sincerely, Michael.
You're probably doing this, but many other sites (heh, usually IE-only sites) sure as heck aren't. What about 320x480, 400x600, 640x1024?
Not everybody browses with their web browser taking up the full window! Half a window, aligned portrait-style, is easier on the eyes because it requires less horizontal eye movement than "fullscreen". Horizontal scrolling is evil -- doubly so to users who go out of their way to minimize read-speed and comprehension-slowing horizontal eye movement by resizing their browsers to prevent it.