Slashdot Mirror
IE7 To Support XMLHTTP Requests
Ruliz Galaxor writes "IEBlog posts that Internet Explorer 7 will support a native XMLHTTPRequest object as many other browsers currently do. This will mean no more ActiveX MSXML objects to implement AJAX functionality. It looks like Microsoft is seriously trying to make the lives of us web developers easier. Of course you'll still need to use the Microsoft.XMLHTTP ActiveX object if you want to support IE6 and older."
It's OK, we understand ...
"Of course you'll still need to use the Microsoft.XMLHTTP ActiveX object if you want to support IE6 and older."
Which means that browser type checking will need to remain pretty much for the forseable future. Inclusion of XMLHTTPRequest now is nice, but in practical terms its perfectly meaningless.
StrategyTalk.com, PC Game Forums
Begun the browser war has (again).
How about a decent operating system now?
Yeah, like something other than Windows.
-- Boycott Shell
It looks like Microsoft is seriously trying to make the lives of us web developers easier.
MS deserves credit for this sensible implementation of XMLHTTPRequest, and indeed for innovating XMLHTTPRequest in the first place.
Now if MS is "seriously trying to make the lives of us web developers easier" [when] will they implement the rest of the core W3C web standards?
FF, Opera and Safari and their respective communities are already well advanced with implementations of SVG, DOM, CSS, PNG, JPEG2000 and XForms. These standards are bread and butter for "seriously trying to make the lives of us web developers easier".
When will MS join the inevitable?
Can someone tell me if this means that I no longer have to take my business elsewhere when I encounter a "Sorry, this site only loads in Windows?"
I dig that stuff that requires the DRM WMP still may not let me in, but what about other things?
Can I hope that Safari and friends will no longer be a second class citizen on Exchange WebMail, for example?
--
$tar -xvf
I think it's great what the IE developers are doing. There are, of course, a few features I'd love to see integrated into the latest version, but I'm extremely happy with what they're doing otherwise.
When the IE blog began I was angered that they didn't seem to be worried about the numerous CSS flaws, among other bugs. They seemed like they were just trying to beef up security. As time marched on, though, the developers seemed to be taking notice to what most of the replies were about. The IE developers listened and really went the extra mile where the concerns of web developers everywhere are concerned.
While there are a few things I'd love to see (like the ability to properly deliver XHTML), I'm happy (for now) with the changes they're implementing. It sounds like they're really committed to helping web developers from having to design their website three or more times before they get a version that's decent looking in all browsers.
Let's give the guys some credit where credit is due... who knows, maybe the rest of Micro$oft will take the hint.
This is neat-o, and stuff, but I've been using the ActiveX object for back end services for many years now (4+ years?). I really hope that they keep the COM version up to date. It's been incredibly useful for longer than Firefox has even existed!
I don't respond to AC's.
... embrace and extend.
It's good that MS is supporting web standards, but I doubt the reason is to play nice and make the lives of web developers easier. IMHO, MS realized that they have lost a lot of ground, credibility and following in the browser market. Any new "innovations" coming from MS will NOT be adopted very easily these days unless Firefox, Safari and Opera endorse it. So, before it can repeat what it did to Netscape, MS needs to re-capture its lost browser market share. The easiest way to do that is to come up with a really great browser that supports all the current web technologies, and that is easier to code for than other browsers. Classic 'embrace'. Once it has done that, and it has all the time and money in the world for it to do that, only then can it can start phase 2, the 'extend' phase where it renders all other browsers obsolete.
The only way to combat MS on this front is to keep innovating, staying a step in front of it. Netscape made the mistake of not updating their browser soon enough, and they paid dearly. I hope Opera, Firefox and Safari have learned that lesson.
> XMLHTTPRequest is too important for MS not to try and control it. I wouldn't rule out a good ol' "embrace and extend" move.
What the hell are you talking about ? Microsoft invented the damn thing. Embrace and extend my ass...
It's nice that MS is making this change but I'm more curious about whether their web applications will work without MSIE specific technologies. Example: Outlook Web Access isn't feature full on non-IE browsers. Also live.com and the new hotmail interface are still limited. Project Web Access is another one. Until these applications work without IE it won't be possible for a lot of businesses to move away from IE.
Maybe I'm cynical, and yes I'm a Linux user most of the time; but let's hope they can get it implemented without too many bugs or interface/functionality differences. Embrace and extend by all means (with consideration for other systems and standards), just separate the "extend" from the "existing"...
What's the chance of them getting it right? (not a flamebait, just to make you think).
You might not, but for the millions of IE users who don't know better, this will make their lives (and web developer's lives) a tad easier, even if the users don't directly notice it.
Having an attitude that you don't care simply because you don't use it doesn't mean that it doesn't effect someone else.
I was wondering about this very thing just last week. It's definitely a step in the right direction. Now if only MS would care enough to create a browser that behaves and renders more closely to the already superior browsers like Firefox and Safari. Web designers would no longer have to go through the anguish of browser detection for things as simple as page layouts. There's nothing like spending 2+ hours trying to get a single page template to render the same in IE and Safari/Firefox using only CSS. Next on my list: Could Apple please provide better DOM & XPath support in its Safari Javascript engine?
FireFox doesn't even fully support CSS2. (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/text.html#text-shad ow-props) When will FireFox join the inevitable?
3
https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1071
Note this bug was opened in 1999. Judging from the target milestone (mozilla1.9) and the FireFox roadmap, we will have full CSS2 support in FireFox 3.0 by 2007. Wow, eight years...
This is really news! Great News!
Of course the XMLHTTPRequest object as implemented by Microsoft will have some minor differences from what the others have already done.
And this is not news at all!
Maybe Computers will never be as intelligent as Humans.
For sure they won't ever become so stupid. [VR-1988]
On some level this is cool. Good for them. But as an active web developer, this makes absolutely no difference in my daily life. (Virtually) Everyone who's using AJAX is doing so through the use of some toolkit or framework that abstracts out the browser-specific implementations.
Someone will update my OSS toolkit of choice, in this case Prototype, and life will continue without me even noticing.
corporate America convinced that IE is "just as good"
Except that IE supports BarCode fonts natively whereas Firefox and SeaMonkey (Mozilla) do not.
Well, that is to say you CAN manipulate Firefox to do this, but it is a real pain, and the Firefox installation directories/files need to be massaged.
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
Seriously. IFrame support has been around for quite some time and works well in most major browsers. You just hide the iframe and communicate to the server through it. I've done this lots of times, long before AJAX was around. It even worked in IE 4 and NS 4.7x if I remember right.
Sure, its not as elegant as using XMLHTTPRequest, but when is cross-browser javascript ever elegant? Is it better to have a hidden iframe on your page, or several lines of IE-specific code and dependence on an ActiveX control?
That's just my 2 clams. I've only just started working with XMLHTTPRequest, so I might be missing something. Please enlighten me if there is some major advantage that I'm not seeing.
Hell is other people's code.
What IE really needs right now, if it wants to be taken seriously as a platform for AJAX web applications, is proper DOM/CSS support. The following would be a good start (my current peeve list with IE6):
I've posted this on ieblog before. I sincerely hope that somehow someone on the IE team sees one my numerous implementations of the above list of rants and implements solutions for them. It'll make the professional lives of many AJAX developers quite a bit more pleasant.
Well, this will be a nice change if IE7 is going to play nice.
For work, I guess I will still have to plan workarounds for IE6. However, I generally only support such browsers officially as long as they receive actual support from their publishers. So, as soon as MS drops support for IE6, so will I (unless I'm ordered to keep it up).
Personally, I code to whatever standard I've chosen for the day. If I decided to code to CSS 2.1 and I can see it properly in my browser, well, then I'm happy. Because it's my personal stuff. And if IE7 supports something and IE6 doesn't, well too bad. And same goes for Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, and Opera (although it'll be rare that Opera causes me problems, except when a version has tried to pretend it was IE, but that was work anyway).
Mostly now, since I've grown into being some lazy business analyst with a messy house under renovation, I just blog anyway.
Linux - because it doesn't leave that Steve Ballmer aftertaste.
Firstly, this is not news. This was posted on the IEBlog way back in September.
Secondly, this is one hell of a misleading headline. Internet Explorer has supported this interface since Internet Explorer 5.0, released in the year 2000. All that's different in Internet Explorer 7 is that it's implemented as a native object, rather than with ActiveX.
Finally, this matters to practically nobody. Any decently-written code will work just fine in Internet Explorer 7 with no modification whatsoever. Even code written to use browser detection instead of feature/object detection, (a bad idea) will work just fine, assuming that the ActiveX interface sticks around too.
Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
Yes, but they don't control its implimentation. Heck, they don't even have an implimentation.
useless sig advice - Read Nabokov.
I'm the web architect of gather.com and we use an invisible iframe as a pipe for our AJAX stuff instead of XMLHttpRequest. This works in a uniform way across all browsers we've tested it on with - even way old ones. The Javascript is 1.0-level stuff and IFRAME is standard since HTML 4. I wonder why more people don't use this approach? I know people hate IFRAMEs, but the ones we use are invisible and 0x0 pixels, so they're little more than an offscreen paint buffer (like BitBlt! :) )
The general approach we're taking is described in this years-old posting on Apple Developer Connection. Anyone else have experience with this approach?
What I have run into is companies with websites (especially intranet websites) that rely completely on "the big blue 'e'". Companies may spend extra to make sure that Joe Websurfer sees their internet webpage correctly regardless of browser, but (with one or two exceptions) everywhere I've worked has intranet pages which require IE.
Trust me, that much entrenched technology ain't goin' away soon. As a result, Microsoft hasn't had much reason to improve IE, until recently with the onset of the second Browser War (BW II). Google is slowly morphing into a similar situation - I suspect that they'll become complacent in their own greatness and fall. I put the estimate of that fall at two to five years.
That's something we don't ever want to see again...
Get a clue. They have THE implementation. They invented it. This is one of the rare cases where everyone else is copying Microsoft.
Maybe not
Heck, they don't even have an implimentation.
They had the first implementation.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Does nobody remember the "Samy is my hero" business that took down MySpace?
Story: http://namb.la/popular/
Technical Explanation: http://namb.la/popular/tech.html
He did all of his GETs and POSTs using XML-HTTP
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Ook!
Rare? Seen any Linux desktop recently?
That wasn't an arugment , it was a bitchslap.
[eom]
If everyone in the world used Firefox, Firefox would suck ass. Imagine if every web site had a "designed for Firefox" logo and used vendor-specific CSS properties like "-moz-opacity." Imagine if every web site said, "to continue, click 'Install' when the installation box appears" and a wave of XPI spyware swept over the earth.
A web browser monoculture is bad, whether it's "YOU MUST USE IE" or "YOU MUST USE FIREFOX."
For more information, click here.
Microsoft invented XMLHttpRequest. Not Firefox, not opera, not KHTML. They all copied it from IE.
So it would be Firefox/Opera/KHTML that are doing the "embracing and extending" in this case.
On a side note, I don't see why this is a big deal. They are likely still going to use a COM object underneath. All this is is a coding shortcut, that no one will be able to use anyway because you're still going to have to support IE6 for the next 3 years at least.
Microsoft often moves to support standards, but then tweaks their behavior in such a way that the net result favors their implementation. This behavior even has a name. Yes, I see that the Microsoft employee says their implementation is consistent with other browsers, but for how long? And how consistent is it now, really?
You're welcome to be upbeat about Microsoft's intensions, but history has shown otherwise. Fool me once, fool me twice, and that sort of thing.
>"Of course you'll still need to use the Microsoft.XMLHTTP ActiveX object if you want to support IE6 and older"
Which means developers will likely not find this any easier, as they will still need to support IE6, and they will also need to handle any "oops, not so identical" behavior that might come along in the IE 7+ implementations.
Complaining that Firefox doesn't support a couple minor CSS2 features is like saying "You can still die in a car with crumple zones and air bags, so you may as well drive a 1972 Ford Pinto".
Goatse, is that you?
OMGWTFBBQ!!
God is real unless declared integer.
With Linux growing in popularity and making headway into M$ market share, M$ will have to make their IE work on more than just their own OS.
From Zonk
but I will NEVER go back to IE, simply for the reason that as long as IE has the majority market share, it will be the biggest target for malicious site code. ESPECIALLY right when IE 7 comes out, imagine how buggy it will be? I know everybody, including Firefox had these problems in their beginings, but virtually every bug in IE leads to somebody making a malicious exploit for IE - so until it's been out for a few years, I wont switch back to IE until MS makes Windows opensource (I would say when pigs fly, but since the recent articles on genetics show that to be closer than we all thought, I'm using the opensource statement instead)...
I see a few everyday, they're all running XFCE or Fluxbox ; )
Good point, though.
Maybe not
I work on solution designs for a fairly large ISV, anything that increases browser compatibility is a good thing all around. Most of our end-user interfaces and make use of XML with some XSLT on the client, we also use XMLHTTPRequests..
Due to pure market pressure from our existing userbase we develop for the IE platform. IE isn't for everyone and ideally we'd like to target every browser from a technical standpoint and we know it increases the number of potential customers we have. We move one step closer to genuine cross browser compatibility with this.
Despite this we still need ActiveX right now for a couple of key things:
- File uploading, we used Java already and it went badly. Our customers had real problems with getting correct JRE versions out to their users, the users complained about the lack of standardisation in basic things like the Common Dialog. We've had a lot less problems with ActiveX controls but understandably network admins really don't like it.
- MS Office Automation. Part of our product is business reporting, it has features around automated generation of Powerpoint Presentations and Excel Spreadsheets from the web interface. We can't influence our customers decisions around Office systems but we've never encountered pushback over MS Office from anybody. MS Office automation needs ActiveX and is way outside sandbox (local processes are launched and these have access to all kinds of things).
In short, this helps but we are still a way off from being able to deliver fully functional web-based business systems with this but it helps. As an enthusiast I like it, as a real world solution developer it doesn't quite make a dent.
When IE7 is released, I'm going to stop testing sites with IE. All my sites are standard compliant and work fine in firefox, lynx, konq and Opera. If IE users have problems, they will be encouraged to either file a bug report with Microsoft or download another browser. Enough is enough; I am not a browser developer and browser bugs should not be my problem.
Wowee, IE7? I just can't wait to install that on my Mac!
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
So basically IE7 is going to be Firefox. But slower, less pretty, difficult to configure, insecure, and of course the most widely used. Doesn't this sound stupid when you see it written down?
You feel sleepy. Close your eyes. The opinions stated above are yours. You cannot imagine why you ever felt otherwise.
"They've lost some ground to Firefox et. al.; if they can keep corporate America convinced that IE is "just as good" for what businesses want their browser to do"
While geeks might not wanna confess, IE7 might indeed be just as good for what BUSINESSES want their browsers to do.
And this is tight security, speed (Firefox has to catch up here) and easy installation (i.e. no installation, it's preinstalled).
IE7 is a big step in the right direction, including standards support.
Never ran into the BarCode font issue
:-(
The Web app must have them. They are printed on every Web page to ID the content.
Which makes it a show-stopper as far as Firfox/Mozilla is concerned
- - - - - - - - - - -
I am a programmer. I am paid to produce syntax not grammar. Deal with it.
You can actually force IE 5.5 and IE 6 to parse pages correctly, including CSS. All you have to do is add a few lines to your page that other browsers treat as comments. The script is called IE7, and I've been having good experiences with it. It also fixes the PNG support (yes, alpha transparency).
"It ain't a war against drugs.it's a war against personal freedom" --Bill Hicks
Riiiiight. I just read (and commented on) a comment that says that someone got owned on the 'net by just browsing with IE7, and I believe it (though the plural of anecdote is not data...) Granted, it's in beta, but it's not all that clear that there is any security to speak of. It was probably the WMF back door (I still want to call it this whether it's intentional or not, even though it's technically incorrect if it's not intentional) but even so, that doesn't seem like attention to security to me.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I won't speak to the matter of security - as long as ActiveX is on (see: IE compatibility above), IE will suffer from security problems. ActiveX is getting a lot better, but I know of damned few admins who'll trust it yet. Of course, a good virus/malware scanner can mitigate the risks there, and that's how business has been handling the situation up until now, so the matter of security is sort of moot.
Like a Microsoft version of UNIX? :P
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Imagine if every web site said, "to continue, click 'Install' when the installation box appears" and a wave of XPI spyware swept over the earth.
Except for a long while now you have to manually add a site to the list of allowed sites that can install XPI software. If Firefox were the only browser do you think people who would actually not know better about clicking "Install" would be smart enough to figure that out?
The Anti-Blog
This is like reporting about the 12th man to finish a particular marathon. Not really what I'd call newsworthy.
...And he finished 12th in the marathon.
/Firefox. First Place. Falls to ground laughing and pointing at out-of-breath MS finish.
OK...slightly newsworthy...
The guy's an inbred, with dumb-as-dirt parents.
The guy's an overweight diabetic needing constant dialysis.
The guy's a cripple with glass for bones that can and will break whenever touched.
AND...The guy is the paperboy/newsman (information provider) for hundreds of thousands of people.
Reference4 0730/#text-shadow
http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-WCAG20-CSS-TECHS-200
My point was that FireFox/Gecko is not the paragon of standards compliance, so dragging IE into the "you don't comply" mud is hypocritical. Indeed there are more important things to make work, but nevertheless, compliance is incomplete.
To that effect, since CSS2 came out in 1998, and CSS2.1 in 2005, I would have expected text-shadow (along with the other things you listed) to get fixed in that time frame. What have the FireFox devs been doing?
"Riiiiight."
His IE7 beta was most likely not patched against the WMF exploit. Also don't forget that IE7 is extra secure under Vista (and the XP SP2 release was a compromise from start).
I just heard some good news on Slashdot - beastiality afficianado DogDude was found dead lying next to a violated German Shepherd in his redneck trailer this morning. There weren't any more details. I'm sure no one in the Slashdot community will miss him - even if you enjoyed his amatuerish trolling, there's no denying his contributions to animal cruelty. Truly an icon of evil to canines everywhere.
You mean other than creating the concept that made AJAX possible in the first place?
I'll believe it when I see it. Until then, I will continue to make my judgements based on Microsoft's past history of incompetence and neglect. So far Vista is vaporware and half of its functionality has been yanked out so they could release it only a few months late, which does not give me a warm fuzzy barrel of puppies feeling.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I grow weary of hearing the whole "Embrace and extend, extinguish" chant that ALWAYS comes up in a /. thread regarding Microsoft.
I'm just thankful you didn't link to the Wikipedia article (which is also a paranoid, laughable attempt at discrediting MS)
Tons of people complain about MS not doing something like the other browsers. Tabbed pages, standard support, etc. Then, when MS does something that brings them to bring them up to date with the complaints, they get hit with the EEE (Embrace extend extinguish) attack.
If MS changed something to be more in line with standards the anti-MS chicken littles would be running around screaming MS was about to extend standards (is that such a bad thing?? especially when it goes back into the standard like so many W3C MS contributions?) or that they are going kill something. MS cannot win in this environment. It's too full of technological bigotry.
I think I'm funny...
Stupidity is like nuclear power, it can be used for good or evil. And you don't want to get any on you.
When CSS2.1 did not exist, text-shadow was the standard and FireFox still did not implement the standard. That is my point. Only recently has this not been the case.
Besides, even with CSS2.1, there are things FireFox doesn't comply with (pointed out above).
In other news... Ford Motor Co. to introduce revolutionary rack and pinion steering in all 2007 models.
Heck, even if it is just a simple scripting shortcut, it's well worth it. Most Javascript I write uses wrapper functions and objects that resolve inconsistencies between IE and Everyone Else. The event model, AJAX, positioning, etc.
Anything M$ does to resolve these inconsistencies means less coding/bug fixing and more problem solving on a higher level.
Grammar Lesson: you're is a contraction of "you are"; your means you possess something; yore means days gone by.
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/09/13/465338 .aspx
Announced back in September!
Get your $sys$ camo tees now!
half of its functionality has been yanked out so they could release it only a few months late
At the rate they're going, all Vista is going to be is 8 more butt-ugly skins for WMP, IE7, and a shinier theme for the UI.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
If you haven't used Windows since 1999, how do you know Windows XP isn't good? Furthermore, if you aren't a Windows user, why would you even care?
By what name do you wish to be mourned?
WOW, I'm going to have to ... , er nothing
function activex_based() {
if(!window.ActiveXObject) return;
try { return new ActiveXObject("Msxml2.XMLHTTP"); } catch(e) {}
try { return new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP"); } catch(e) {}
}
function nativexmlhttprequest_based() {
if(!window.XMLHttpRequest) return;
try { return new XMLHttpRequest(); } catch(e) {}
}
var XML_Http_Request = nativexmlhttprequest_based() || activex_based();
if(!XML_Http_Request) alert ('no xml http request available');
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
When IE starts rendering my pages correctly, I'll let you know. Otherwise, don't diss Firefox.
It's never just a game when you're winning. - George Carlin
CSS, anyone?
http://outcampaign.org/
Why "do" oldie active X (IE6 Coding)& open up problems. Oldies are oldies, get with it or view "gibberish".Its not like upgrade costs anything & is updated automatically for most. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTON .html
Signed:PHYSICIAN THOMAS STEWART VON DRASHEK M.D.
WINDOWS XP Service Pack -X- 396 mb. http://www.geocities.com/tsvondrashekmd/WASHINGTO
Riiiiight. I just read (and commented on) a comment that says that someone got owned on the 'net by just browsing with IE7
I am currently using Internet Explorer 7 Beta 1 (version 7.0.5112.0). i've been surfing all sorts of websites, and haven't gotten pwn3d/h4x0r3d/what3v3r3d. Once again, anecdotal, but it's been the only browser on my machine since September of 2005.
It's a pretty nifty browser, by the way, with a much cleaner intwerface than Firefox (in my humble opinion). I used to use Firefox exclusively for the tabbed browsing, although IE7 seems to have implemented that better, too - though far be it from me to start a Kool-Aid drinker's feature list from the sheer, orgasmic joy of using the beta version of a new browser...
DATABASE WOW WOW
arrayOfOptions is an array of string formed like value1=text1.
"Use cases are fairy tales..." I. S. 2005
"At the rate they're going, all Vista is going to be is 8 more butt-ugly skins for WMP, IE7, and a shinier theme for the UI"
You're apparently totally uninformed of the existence of WinFX suit of technologies which were built from the ground up for Vista.
then why does Safari comply more and more with every SMALL point release? I would go so far as to say Safari is more standards compliant than FireFox.
http://webkit.opendarwin.org/blog/?p=32
You're apparently totally uninformed of the existence of WinFX suit of technologies which were built from the ground up for Vista.
No, but you're apparently totally uninformed of the existence of jokes.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
You're apparently totally uninformed of the existence of WinFX suit of technologies which were built from the ground up for Vista.
...
...
No, but you're apparently totally uninformed of the existence of jokes.
I'll save us some posts and continue the series myself here:
Me: No, but you're apparently uninformed that jokes are supposed to be funny.
You: No, but you're apparently uninformed what funny means.
Me: No, but you're apparently having no clue when to stop.
You: No, but you're apparently not bringing yourself to the same standards either.
Me: No, but I have at least something interesting to share.
You: No, you don't, from what I saw so far.
Me: You friggin; #@%*(@*%!!!
You: F*in 2935!$#^*^(#!!!!
The -moz css rules are not vendor-specific in the way MS does vendor-specific, the way Mozilla (and the KHTML guys) does it is in accordance with the W3C, to implement these things so people can find bugs (in the spec and code), and once it works properly rename it to the normal css rule name.
MS could do with with IE right now, with -msie-opacity or -msie-border-radius (for example), and it would be perfectly OK, if they followed the standard.
No, actually I was going to ponder whether WinFX will be used for anything more than making ugly new themes for the UI.
You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.