Slashdot Mirror
New IE7 Information Announced
Brandon writes "Looks like the IE team is trying to catch up to some of the major OS browsers. They have finally added proper PNG support and have fixed numerous CSS bugs. The full post is on The Official IEBlog." From the post: "We're doing a lot more than this in IE7, of course, and we're really excited that the beta release is almost here - we're looking forward to the feedback when we release the first beta of IE7 this summer. Stay tuned for more details as we get closer to beta."
Instead of implementing a vendor-specific tag, why not support the proposed CSS3 border-radius property?
there's more than one way to do me.
about open source vs proprietary apps, like IE vs Firefox, here.
Then I probably shouldn't tell you about Maxthon or any of the other IE wrappers that add tabs and retain all the ActiveX holes.
Internet explorer actually treats width and height as min-width and min-height. Very annoying if you don't want it, but you can use it like this:
select {
min-height: 100px;
_height: 100px;
}
IE will (mysteriously) ignore the underscore prefix and parse the second style, while compliant browsers only recognize the min-height style.
This shows that the important question is in fact not "how many CSS bugs will IE7 fix?" but "how many CSS bugs will IE7 keep?". These bugs are currently needed to make IE6 behave properly. If IE7 fixes the rendering bugs but keeps the parsing bugs, we'll have to figure out new bugs to update the IE6-only hacks with.
They may have solved the consistency problems, but the standards supports is in great part unimplemented. IE is still far behind its biggest competitors as can be seen easily by doing a quick comparison. The user might not care, but the developer does.
Anyone know more details about this test and what browsers do pass it (I'm guessing IE6 doesn't, I don't have it so can't test it)? I'm surprised Firefox didn't, not because I'm a fan boy or anything, but because I presumed Firefox was in accordance with most of the standards.
This is the test and this is what it should look like. Here's some info about how it works.
In this IE6 world a webdesigner cannot use transparent pngs.
This is not completely true. PNGs with 8-bit alpha channels render correctly. Google maps uses this trick to create the push pin drop shadow.
SYS 49152
"For people to switch, they'll need a good reason, a major thing that IE can't do. Right now there isn't one. There are little things that annoy the computer geeks and tech nerds but nothing your typical 60 year old grandmother or 16 school girl will care about."
Not true at all. The crowds you mentioned are annoyed but the big ones, they just do not know how to fix the problem or even where to look to find out.
I have found that the tech illiterate never understand why they get spyware. But they DO understand that after they started using firefox they don't need a tech to speed up their computer every couple days/weeks/months (depending on the sites they browse). They also understand pop-up blocking that works. They even recognize flashblock and tabbed browsing if you deliver it as a second installment later since it requires additional learning.
As techs we all take these fundemental benefits for granted, they have been around for awhile and we are looking at the details. But most of the users who know they exist have already switched to a browser that has them. The ones still using IE are using it because they do not know about these benefits.
By the time IE gets to where FF is today, FF will have advanced way beyond what IE can hope to achieve from typical corporate development.
Remember your history; when MS became interested in this new intarweb thang, Netscape was far ahead in features and product quality. MS came from behind to catch up and pass Netscape (and before somebody starts whining about bundling with Windows, I'm talking product quality: remember the difference between IE 4 and especially 5 and the catastrophe that was Navigator 4). You may say that OSS development is quicker than corporate dev, but remember how long it took to get to Mozilla 1.0?
Your assertion is misleading.
Firefox, Opera, Safari, and other "niche" browsers render PNGs correctly, with the use of the 8-bit alpha channel. IE6, on the other hand, ONLY recognizes boolean transparency in PNGs -- in other words, it treats them like GIFs. It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.
got standards? --- http://www.w3.org/
Uhmmm. Wrong. I use FireFox on windows at work exclusively and it most definitely does have the middle click. I don't even remember having to change any settings to enable it. In fact I find no difference in interface between windows at work and Debian at home. Both work exactly the same way with no trouble. MPLayer's plugin even works to play WMV and ASF files with no trouble or tweaking. I may be unique or something but I do know that firefox on windows offers all the same functionality of firefox on linux.
If you see spelling or grammatical errors don't blame me. I tried to preview but IE here at work borked the CSS
> Even if IE7 turns out to be the best product
;) My definition of good product:
:)
> ever created by mortal man, people will
> immediately assume it sux (minus MS zealots of
> course).
If MSIE 7 will be better product I'll use it. What defines better product that it is better for me. So if it is better why I need to use worse? But it will not happen.
1. It actually works.
2. It actually works on my system (X11 and so on).
3. It is actually better.
4. It (as I am developer) is easy to develop against.
I don't think MS will manage with those points.
PS. I am using Opera on Linux and Windows.
I know you're joking, but there is a version of IE for Solaris.
hello dear sirs my name is jamesh i are india (bihar) can u guide me install red had linux 9?
That sounds like a trivial subset of a certain thesis project I did In a nutshell... if you are running Windows I have bad news: malware downloaded via Firefox is still malware. And if you want real security for shit you download, the OS has to have some form of MAC system (Yes, most mean this as SELinux, but it usually means nastier policies than come with most distros)
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
not to be nitpicky, but they didn't exactly buy Spyglass. They licensed the code for IE for a percentage of sales revenue from it, plus a quarterly fee. Since they didn't sell IE seperately from Windows, that revnue stream ended up pretty dry for Spyglass. Check out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spyglass
It is possible to force IE5+ to recognize the full alpha channel, but only with the use of a Direct3D filter command.
It's better (well, worse, actually) than that. You can add a Direct3D filter command to display a transparent PNG on top of an image.
So, for example, an image with transparency in Firefox, Opera, and Safari is simply:
<img src="myTransparentImage.png">
To make IE work, you cannot simply add an attribute or anything simply like that. Because if you do, your transparent image will display behind the Direct3D filter applied over the image, without transparency. So instead you must use:
<img src="infamousTransparentGif.gif" style="width: 32px; height: 32px; filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaImageLoader (src='myTransparentImage.png');">
(Not sure if the above really works due to spaces added to make it format better, but you get the idea.)
Again, this means you can can't simply add the IE-specific "code" to make the image transparency work. Instead you must jump through hoops to get it to display as properly, since you can either make it work in IE (by displaying a completely transparent image with the PNG image draw over that) or work in other browsers. Ultimately, this means either using IE's conditional comments or a JavaScript based solution so that you give the right code to the right browser.
Usually with special code to catch when it's really Opera and not Opera pretending to be IE so you don't screw that up too...
Note that you must provide the width and height of the transparent image you want to display in Internet Explorer, otherwise IE will scale it to whatever size the transparent image you use underneath. Plus, strictly speaking, the above <img> tags aren't HTML compliant, because I left out the ALT attributes.
You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
MS came from behind to catch up and pass Netscape
With no disrespect to you or the other poster(s) in this thread who've made this argument, a comparison of the Netscape Communications of 5 years ago and the Mozilla Foundation of today is asinine. When Microsoft overtook Netscape, it was because Netscape had left its front door wide open and placed a detailed map of its weaknesses in public view. The Netscape of yesteryear was shipping a hugely bloated everything-in-one application that didn't work right, needed constant patching, and failed to support some (even then) very basic rendering guidelines. The Netscape 4 series was a web designer's worst nightmare. It was a massive download (20-30M?) in an era where only a small minority of people had access to broadband. And it didn't fit visually and functionally with the rest of Windows. And of course, its primary competition (IE) was already bundled with the OS. Netscape itself was a for profit company in the dot-com era that, like so many dot-bombs, tried to build a business model out of one niche product when a) comparable or better products existed, and b) an established market presence (Microsoft) could far outstrip it in development and marketing resources. Furthermore, Netscape's focus was divided by its also trying to become a web portal leader and its trying to launch major litigation against a major Fortune 500 company. Bad product + outgunned resources + divided focus = business disaster. The remains of Netscape were eventually scraped off the pavement by AOL. The Mozilla Foundation, by comparison, is a non-profit community-driven organization that ships only a handful of specialized, well-targetted applications whose features equal and surpass its competition. Its products have a loyal following because of their technical superiority; this manifests itself in a massive grassroots marketing juggernaut whose collective weight is the envy of some marketing firms. Microsoft may well have strong competition for Firefox with IE7 (although I suspect they won't), but I think it's demonstrably clear that this isn't an instance of history repeating itself. The two major warring are, this time around, very different entities.
Microsoft vs. the world? This should be interesting.
Will win what exactly? Customers win only when they have choice, not when there is one choice. Redundancy is what kept life going against all odds to this point, and now you're claiming having only one gateway, for yourself as a customer, to view the interweb from is a good thing?
I've been called a zealot or what have you before, but I just don't understand this mentality. At the very least it sounds childish. Here's what I basically picture...
For a significant part of their lives, the majority of the population that frequents sites like /. have relied on their parents for their needs. While this, in itself, is natural, the outside world does not mirror that process. To optimize, as we grow up we create the networks of friends of various statuses so that, ideally, we'll be able to rely on them throughout our lives.
Fundamentally, this is our environment today. It's engraved in us since birth, and it is part of who we are as a result. This creates a very different mental playing field. The very same playing field that corporations invest "R & D" in. The very same playing field where you watch the latest commercial of the newest chick with the biggest breasts, on the biggest car, with the phatest rims..... *ahem*. (Wow... that was so not why I coughed... weird.)
This is very recent. Before the last century, only a minority could actually afford to live like this. Parents were the most influential, sure, but people relied many others very early in their lives, and learned how to coexist in a very different social structure than that we have today.
To top it off, we have the big dogs, for which there are *no alternatives elsewhere. And they will "parent" themselves into population's lives. Creating a sort of "vision", they have us, by the masses, invest in their cause.
*There are, but you have to look for them. A task especially made more difficult by the big dogs.
I don't know about you, to me, this doesn't look sustainable. Frankly, I don't think that this is reality. So why childish? Because of the way we used to mature. Because of how we created our networks before. Today, it's simply a bombardment of messages catered to hit a nerve with the time frame where trust and love were more natural and given. So it is preferable, to various influential entities, to suspend the full human potential for maturation.
Might *seem minor, but just today, I've seen a national geographic. It was a statement about the environment (obviously). But more specifically, global warming. Now we both know that there are intense climate changes taking place as we speak. The cause: the global climate has gone up by 1 degree Celsius in the past 100 years due to carbon burning (mostly), and other miscellaneous causes.
*<tinfoil value="hat">Do you know who your "observers" are?</tinfoil>
IE blends PNG images with an alpha channel against their default background color. When there is no default, it uses one of the system colors that happens to be the default for GDI surfaces.
You can give IE a better (but still solid) color to blend against by having pngcrush write in a bKGD chunk with the desired color. This doesn't help you if you are trying to blend against a texture, but it's handy if, as in your case, the image is blended against a solid background color anyway.
Or instead, you can use this guy's script to apply the filters for you on IE. Include it once and all the PNGs on the page work properly. (Why MS couldn't do this themselves is really puzzling).
Who cares ?
Anyone who doesn't understand that a web browser should NOT be integrated into the guts of an operating system deserves all the problems that IE will give them.
Have they changed this major flaw in this release ? No. So only use it if you're an idiot.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !