Slashdot Mirror
Details On IE7 CSS Changes
writes "IE development team has released a list of CSS changes for IE7. Some of the notable new features are enabling :hover for all elements, and implementing position:fixed, and PNG transparency support. In addition, there is a long list of fixed bugs that plagued previous IE browsers for years. These changes (except for PNG transparency) only work under the <!DOCTYPE> switch to preserve compatibility with previous versions of IE."
Since IE came out way after this blog post, can anyone confirm that these changes are really in the new version?
stuff |
What's changed in CSS specs for IE7 since August?
Has this been previously reported on slashdot?
What is your time limit on when infornation gets expired?
was Re:Old News
davecb5620@gmail.com
Hi all,
:hover events START BEFORE where the link is rendered and END BEFORE the rendered link ends.
IE7 isn't ready yet; it needs more testing!
For example, create a super basic html page. Within the <body> insert a single <p>aragraph, and within that paragraph, insert a(<a href="#">) link (</a>) - insert it somewhere after the start of the paragraph and before the end. E.g.
<body>
<p>This is a <a href="#foo">test link</a> for checking IE7 links</p>
</body>
Okay, view the page. It looks fine. Now Zoom 125%. The underscore below the link is rendered funny, and even better, if you move the mouse over the link, you'll find the mouse
*I believe* if the link has a background colour, then this background is rendered in the wrong place also.
Quite honestly I don't know how MS could've missed this... but there again....
Z.
Tried to hack the installer (update.inf file, to be correct) in order to install it on Win2k. The process starts, but ends saying that the cryptographic services isn't running... Does someone has an idea to bypass this?
The Alpha filters still work... With the exception that any text rendered over an Alpha filter (e.g. a .png or an Alpha transparency) looks like ragged shit, as for some reason it is not rendered anti-aliased. For .pngs you can remove the Alpha png filter nonsense, but so far I have no solution for text on top of an alpha transparency.
Why am I not surprised that in fixing IE they have broken the previous, non-standard hack crap?
IE7 XSL Transformations are still the same. Writing an XSL stylesheet that transforms the same both in IE and Mozilla is a bit of a paradox. I've figured out ugly workarounds but am still in awe at the level of difficulty when trying to maintain cross-browser compatibility. One thing that I'm wondering about is how IE7 handles a malformed XML document. IE6 has no problem using a document that is not well-formed, whereas Mozilla will complain thoroughly. I guess we'll have to put that to the test.
There is actually a work around for IE's lack of transparency support in PNGs. It depends on some clever tricks with CSS and the fact that IE 6's CSS is broken. The only catch is that it is limited to images defined in divs.
/* IE versions prior to 7.0 do not support transparency, so the following is a workaroundi tem_id=217
/* Mozilla ignores crazy MS image filters, so it will skip the following */g eLoader(enabled=true, sizingMethod=scale src='../images/name.png'); /* IE ignores styles with [attributes], so it will skip the following. */ .site_header_name[class] {
taken from: http://www.daltonlp.com/daltonlp.cgi?item_type=1&
*/
#site_header_name {
height: 100px;
width: 702px;
filter:progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.AlphaIma
}
background-image:url(../images/name.png);
}
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Does anyone know whether IE7 finally supports the application/xhtml+xml MIME type? That would mean we can finally start serving XHTML pages the way they're supposed to get served, with no stupid browser detection. (I know, I know, IE6 will be around for the next six decades or so...)
And? IE6 users should be punished until they accept a browser that does not force web developers to implement all kinds of workarounds. Upgrading to XP may cost money but Firefox is free so they have no excuse. And someone running XP SP1 (or no SP) needs to get a clue and finally patch his system. If someone wants to stay on an old version that's their thing but we aren't going to go an extra mile just to accomodate their outdated software. We aren't writing out websites for Netscape 1.0 and we aren't going to write them for IE6 anymore.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
You're quoting CSS 2.1 Conformance only. The full list of compliance tests (IE6,IE7,FF1.5,Opera 9, impossible to align well):
CSS 2.1 Units 96% 96% Y 97%
CSS 2.1 Importance I I Y Y
CSS 2.1 At-rules 21% 21% 43% Y
CSS 2.1 Basic selectors 23% 64% 86% 77%
CSS 2.1 Pseudo-classes 29% 36% 93% 93%
CSS 2.1 Pseudo-elements 25% 25% 63% 63%
CSS 2.1 Basic properties 55% 58% 97% 97%
CSS 2.1 Print properties 38% 38% 42% 92%
CSS 2.1 Conformance 43% 43% Y 86%
When you look at the grand total at the bottom here you get:
CSS 2.1 support:
IE 6: 51%
IE 7: 57%
Firefox 1.5: 91%
Opera 9: 94%
So, this shows that
a) IE7 is an improvement over IE6 (though admittingly not impressive)
b) Firefox isn't perfect, like you'd be mislead to believe
c) Opera is actually the most standards-compliant browser
But hey, there's lies, damn lies and statistics, but noone would ever use that to try to make closed-source appear worse than it is, and open source better than it is would they?
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
At my company, I had to install the IE7Block company wide. Unfortunately one of our primary applications (Primavera Expedition) will only work with IE 6.0, not Firefox, not IE 5.5, not Opera. They wrote the app in both Java and ActiveX. Running the web app with IE7 (any version) causes a C++ runtime error and immediate abort.
I personally use/have been using Opera for around a year now. I love the browser and recommend it to everyone, however for this particular application IE6 is a must, unless we are willing to flush a major business app down the toilet.
I don't like it but I can't change it.
The greatest good of man is daily to converse about virtue - Socrates
> You'll still have to cater for IE6 or a loong time
I'm not planning on it. Once IE7 hits the automatic updates for fully-patched-up users, I'm giving it a month or two and then dropping IE6 support. I'm not going to deliberately *break* IE6, but I'm not going to cater to it either. Win98 users can get Firefox or Opera, and people who refuse to install service packs can go lick a sidewalk.
I already broke down and started using PNG transparency a year or so ago, and IE6 users can just *see* a funny background color behind the images. The alpha channel is the only way to solve certain layout problems, and I was no longer willing to do without it. By the first of the year I'm not going to be willing to hack around the CSS deficiencies in IE6, either. IE7 is better. It's not perfect, but it's better. So my IE testing will focus on version 7.
I imagine I'm not alone. A lot of web developers are utterly fed up with IE6. The upgrade to IE7 is so compelling to web developers that it will *become* compelling to the users, because without it there are going to be a lot of websites that don't display properly. Ordinarily very few web developers in the past several years (except the crazed and rabid lunatic fringe, of course) have wanted to be first-movers on requiring users to upgrade their browsers, but this one is compelling, and additionally it is going out via automatic update, so most users are going to be left without any very good excuse for refusing it. Even the usual laziness excuse won't cut it on this one; all you've gotta do is leave automatic updates turned on and Bob is your uncle. Webmasters aren't going to have a lot of sympathy for users who refuse.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.