Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Insists IE7 is Standards Compliant
ReadWriteWeb writes "Microsoft's Chris Wilson, the Group Program Manager for IE addresses the issue of whether IE7 is CSS and Web standards compliant. Last week a Slashdot post claimed that IE7 was basically non-compliant with CSS standards. But Chris Wilson says that isn't true and that standards improvements is a big part of IE7. He admits that there were a ton of bugs from IE6 that have caused web developers a lot of pain, but says that IE7 will address those and be standards compliant. He goes as far to say that IE7 supports Web standards even at the expense of more backwards compatibility."
In addition to trying to be standards compliant Microsoft is dancing as fast as they can copying and adding the features virtually all other browsers have had around for years now.
From the article, MS (Chris Wilson) spots their compliance progress somewhere between 50 and less than 90%: Tough question, in terms of stating that we really do fully support the CSS 2.1 spec, it's hard to tell because there is a bias to any analysis. We're certainly somewhere between those two... I don't think we're at 90%, I think we're above 50% though...
Not sure where that puts them in terms of compliance compared to the other browsers, but I'm happy to stick with Firefox for many reasons, recommend anything but IE7 to anyone for many reasons, and probably stay that way. IE7 from Microsoft is looking like a little too little too late.
In the meantime, Microsoft almost seems tentative in their position about standards compliance versus backwards compatibility. In parts of the interview, Chris talks about trying not to alienate IE6 users (his mother) with changes to the "standards" behavior making IE6 sites not work or work differently, while in other parts of the interview he discusses being compliant "at the expense of backwards compatibility".
I don't know what they are doing with that, I'm not sure they do either. They made that bed. Now they're sleeping in it.
I wonder if the browser will pass the Acid Test....
"I'll respect you in the morning."
"I won't *** in your mouth."
"I'll pull out in time."
"We're gonna make this the most secure OS ever!"
Even Bush knows, "Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, not gonna happen."
Guaranteed, 100%, that IE7 will be less standards-compliant than either Firefox or Opera.
We will bankrupt ourselves in the vain search for absolute security. -- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Then WTF is http://www.w3.org/Style/CSS/Test/ ??
MS doesn't deserve slack.
There's only one standards compliance test that Microsoft has ever aimed to pass and that's their own.
Microsoft changes Web Standards to comply with IE7.
if they hadn't been retards and used microsoft-hax and used standards compliant multi-browser html/css and javascript they wouldn't have a problem.
in otherwords: it's their own fucking fault, you code to a vendor-specific set in a non-vendor-specific world you're subject to the whims of that vendor
If you cannot keep politics out of your moderation remove yourself from the Mod Lottery.. NOW!
From Chris' Blog...
Last I heard IE7 does not fix the Expanding Box Bug?
This is a troublesome bug when you're populating DIV tags with generated data. You don't even have to be doing anything advanced.
Microsoft knows about the Position Is Everything Explorer bug list. I've seen IE engineers mention it on their blogs. So I don't buy the "we don't know of specific bugs" routine. And if he wants more concrete bug reports after that set, then theres the Comparison of Layout Engines page which goes through the CSS specs in detail. I'm sure Micrsoft has fixed a bunch of those since IE6, but there are outstanding issues in IE7.
Most software engineers would pay large sums of money to have that type of detail in bug reports. Microsoft is getting that for free, but he is complaining that he does not have solid cases.
Based on upvotes, Ageism is the only "-ism" Slashdotters care about and think isn't SJW
Satan insists AntiChrist 50 - 90% like Jesus.... except better.
"We really only did standards improvements - particularly CSS and HTML improvements." Translation: Our work on CSS and HTML is incomplete.
"In IE7 we really are trying to support Web standards." Translation: we are not committing to being compliant with Web standards.
"We certainly spent a bunch of work trying to improve our standards support." Translation: We're over budget on standards support.
"I don't think we're at 90%, I think we're above 50% though." Translation: we're not compliant.
"Well as you saw I got a little frustrated with the Slashdot post." Translation: I can't point to factual inaccuracies in the Slashdot post, but I sure don't like the spin.
"The target for that was not just passing any one particular test." Translation: We don't pass that particular test.
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
IF he is being unfairly blamed, then he has my sympathy on that and that alone. But to turn around and say "hey, we ARE standards-compliant - give or take up to 50% on the standards I even know about" is not a way to win friends and influence people. If he lacks the time to even establish which parts of the specs are implemented, then he might be better spending his time on figuring that out -or- listening to those who have, rather than complaining that the reviews make him look bad.
He should also stop and bear in mind that since he himself states he does not know the actual level of compliance (he only thinks it is over 50%) then he has absolutely no grounds for complaining about other people's estimates. For that matter, the lack of knowledge on compliance would suggest that the browser is improperly tested. Standards compliance tests are not really optional, since they establish a list of well-defined behaviours for well-defined cases. At the very least, you want to be absolutely certain that those cases won't cause the browser to crash or go rogue. The only way to know this is to try them out. And if you're trying them out, you know which standards are met and by what amount.
Ergo, his uncertainty establishes firmly that testing and QA is somewhere between poor and non-existant, AND that Microsoft has no software with which to determine when the standards are met. His complaint of being a lone voice establishes firmly that these are not being fixed and never will be.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)