Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

What's New With IE, Firefox, Opera

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the battle-of-the-bloat dept.

prostoalex writes "The Web browser market hasn't seen the competition heat up for a while, but things are getting quite exciting, PC World reports. The magazine looks into the latest features that are incorporated into Microsoft's Internet Explorer, Mozilla Foundation's Firefox and Opera Software's Opera. From the article: "We took Internet Explorer 7 Beta 1, Firefox 1.5 Release Candidate 1, and Opera 9 Preview 1 out for a spin. Both the Firefox beta and the Opera beta are available for download, although Opera isn't publicizing this early testing version; the browsers' final editions should be out around the time you read this. On the other hand, the IE 7 beta will not be available for downloading until early next year.""

5 of 542 comments (clear)

  1. Both Opera And Firefox Support SVG by sysrpl · · Score: 5, Informative

    Both Opera and Firefox are rolling native SVG support into their browser. If you are unfamiliar with SVG, this site.

    http://svg.codebot.org/

  2. Re:Regardless of which..... by Kelson · · Score: 5, Informative

    it really doesn't matter to me, just as long as it's w3c compliant.

    Heh. Hah. HA HAHA HAHAHA!

    *ahem*

    Sorry about that.

    "W3C Compliant" is much easier to define for a website than for a web browser. Why? A compliant website uses only features defined in the W3C specs, or only uses other features in ways that will gracefully degrade in compliant browsers (though some purists will object to the latter definition).

    For a browser, does it mean something that implements every part of a W3C standard? Or one that implements part of a standard but makes sure not to contradict it anywhere? Is it OK if it implements nonstandard features like those used in AJAX? And which standards? HTML, CSS and JavaScript/ECMAScript are a good start, but what about SVG? XHTML? XForms?

    The specs are complex enough that there still is no web browser that implements all of even the current versions of HTML/CSS/JavaScript. At best, you can measure relative compliance, in which case Firefox and company, Opera, and Safari are all well ahead of even IE7. But waiting for a "W3C Compliant" browser is going to take a while.

  3. Re:Regardless of which..... by masklinn · · Score: 5, Informative

    ECMAScript is an ECMA standard, not a W3C standard.

    DOM and Javascript DOM bindings, on the other hand, are W3C standards.

    --
    "The way we can tell it's C# instead of Haskell is because it's nine lines instead of two." -- wadler
  4. Re:Whatever by Dr.Syshalt · · Score: 5, Informative

    By default FF decides itself how much RAM it uses. You can limit the RAM cache either in user.js - add the following string

    user_pref("browser.cache.memory.capacity", 10240);

    ...or just install FasterFox extension - it will allow you to modify RAM amount it uses for cache. I run FF 1.5RC here for several hours (yes, on Windows XP - I didn't even check it memory footprint on Linux since it simply doesn't bother me) - it uses 44MB of RAM which, I guess, is ok for me.

  5. Re:Regardless of which..... by jrumney · · Score: 5, Informative
    The spec only says "it must be in ASCII". Fine. I feed it UTF

    In both cases you did something wrong, and the browsers either did something to try and salvage things, or followed the spec and gave you garbage. If anything, I'd expect non-ASCII text in headers to be encoded as per RFC-2047, but I doubt any browsers implement that.

    What's not explicitly forbidden is allowed, right?

    Non-ASCII text in headers is explicitly forbidden.