Slashdot Mirror
Update on Standards and CSS in IE7
brajesh writes "Chris Wilson has posted on IEBlog about the Standards and CSS in IE7. According to the post, "In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the standards as well. Though you won't see (most of) these until Beta 2". Further,"we will not pass this (Acid2 browse) test when IE7 ships.""
I thought they had to start with a new code base since the IE6 base had reached its end of fixabilities (like add an extra fix, and something else breaks again, and so on and on and on).
Apparently they went on on the IE6 base anyway???? Well, good luck with Vista, and your updated IE6 browser. I am off to buy a spyware firm & an anti spyware firm and get filthy rich from Vista.
My wife's sketchblog Blob[p]: Gastrono-me
Why? Because they ARE the standard and they know it. In a perfect world, they would conform to the standards that everyone else is striving to hit. But MS knows they own the market. They know that there are a bazillion web pages written specifically for IE. They know there are lazy coders out there that don't bother checking for web standard conformity and only care that their pages work on IE. So why should they rethink their IE development? It's much easier this way (for them). It's a shame, and maybe some day it'll kick 'em in the ass, but for now, they know they're in the driver's seat.
"He uses statistics as a drunken man uses lampposts...for support rather than illumination." - Andrew Lang
They are trying to be standards compliant? Anyway, also keep in mind the rumors that even FF was not acid compliant out of the door...
On a different note, I agree with you, IE ought to toss in the towel on the W3C complience thing, they need to bite the bullet and just admit they plan to march to their own drummer.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Now, open IE up and look at the Acid2 test. IE completely fucks it up beyond recognition. I could render the picture better by shitting out paint.
I'm curious to know how other browsers like Opera and Safari handle the Acid2 test. Are there technically any browsers out there that can pass it?
Why does the CSS test page itself contain bad CSS code? Is this test really valid?
i le=css2&warning=2&uri=http%3A//www.webstandards.or g/act/acid2/test.html%23top
o p
.parser-container div
.parser
.parser
.parser
.parser
.parser
http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?prof
Errors
URI : http://www.webstandards.org/act/acid2/test.html#t
* Line: 44
Parse Error - second two]
* Line: 89 Context :
Invalid number : color orange is not a color value : orange
* Line: 95 Context :
Property error doesn't exist : }
* Line: 98 Context :
Property m rgin doesn't exist : 2em
* Line: 98
Parse error - Unrecognized : };
* Line: 100 Context :
Invalid number : width only 0 can be a length. You must put an unit after your number : 200
* Line: 101 Context :
Parse Error - ! error;
* Line: 101 Context :
Parse error - Unrecognized : }
-Joe
Honestly there's a few fixes thay could make that would solve a whole lot of stuff fairly quickly:
:hover: correctly
- Fix the box model
- Fix inheritance issues
- Implement
Hell, even if they just fixed the box model that would solve the bulk of the problems that people are having now. I'm still curious why they botheres with this "beta" except to show off their awesome new UI that breaks all known UI design conventions for no compelling reason.
Opera doesn't pass. Yet. However, Opera Software knows the test and they bragged recently in a changelog about improvements - quite rightly, they are huge. In 7.5 the test was a mess, now, in 8.02 it looks almost right. I'm not sure if they will be going for full compatibility though. Afterall, the other browsers are not better (yet) in that accept (maybe Konq, I haven't checked).
That's a small box you're living in. Standards complience, as with all software development, is just a topic that new learners latch onto; the professionals have already adapted to the quirks and would definitely rather have new toys to play with than the same old toys painted a different color for prettiness.
iCab passes because they use Webcore from Safari as their rendering engine.
Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?
Ah, so you believe then that the more programmers on a project, the faster and better it gets done?
I don't know what kind of crack I was on, but I suspect it was decaf.
Definately. If not for the existence of IE we'd still be stuck with Netscape 4.x which believe it or not was even worse in regards to Standards.
Competition is good.
That is, as long as it's actually from creative people introducing exciting new products. When you try to instill competition by kneecapping the dominant player back down to the lowest common denominator... you really aren't going to see much improve.
Brings resolution-independence to the GUI with vector-based controls and icons, plus resampling for legacy applications.
Brings 3D acceleration into the GUI, making it easy to use 3D in desktop applications without having to use OpenGL or Direct3D.
Updated kernel, memory manager, etc.
Reduced user permissions (ala Mac OS X or Linux) to increase security.
New network stack.
New printing system with commom document format.
New power management features.
Desktop search.
Vritual folders (e.g. "Music" can organize all music on your computer by artist).
New shell UI (Explorer).
New command shell (MSH).
Completely new install system.
Faster bootup, shutdown, standby, and resume.
Support for external LCD displays on notebooks.
New features for eHome (Media Center) and Tablet PC.
New networking paridigm ("Castle") replaces the outdated "Workgroup" (WINS).
New graphics driver model (LDM) that will serve as the basis for the desktop and the next version of DirectX.
New DRM technologies (ugh) - 'secure' graphics path and 'secure' audio path.
Parental controls for DVDs, games, and potentially TV (eHome) built-in.
Antispyware built-in.
New update mechanism that allows in-memory patching of libraries without requiring a reload or restart.
New Windows Update and automatic update mechanism.
New protection against security exploits through extensive security audits and code-quality tests.
Fewer bugs and crashes through increased regression testing, improved error reporting, and tighter code requirements.
No, Vista isn't going to be Mac OS X. Too many people expect Microsoft to go and duplicate everything that Apple has done. They expect Vista to be the "non-Windows Windows".
That's not going to happen. Vista is still very much the Windows you know. But it is the most significant change since Windows 2000. It will be better in ways that aren't apparent by looking at screenshots - a better network stack, easier patching, and improved security aren't necessarily the kinds of things that are apparent from the UI. But they matter to the user. And they matter to Microsoft.
Expect Vista to deliver in a big way. Not through "150 new features" like every release of Mac OS X, but through a general improvement in security, stability, and performance. And, of course, a much improved platform for developers.
If you get this, we're 10 of a kind.