Slashdot Mirror
IE 8 Passes Acid2 Test
notamicrosoftlover writes to tell us Channel9 is reporting that Internet Explorer 8 has correctly rendered the Acid2 page in "standards mode". "With respect to standards and interoperability, our goal in developing Internet Explorer 8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementations and do so without breaking the existing web. This second goal refers to the lessons we learned during IE 7. IE7's CSS improvements made IE more compliant with some standards and less compatible with some sites on the web as they were coded. Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards. We have a responsibility to respect the work that sites have already done to work with IE. We must deliver improved standards support and backwards compatibility so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 and (2) makes the development of the next billion pages, in an interoperable way, much easier. We'll blog more, and learn more, about this during the IE8 beta cycle." There's also a video interview regarding IE8 development on Channel9."
If it takes until version 8 to support Acid 2, or 2^3,
then, when Acid 3 comes out, we can expect conformance by IE27?
Get thee glass eyes, and, like a scurvy politician, seem to see things thou dost not.--King Lear
I think the holyshit tag would be appropriate here.
/^[A-Z0-9._%+-]+@[A-Z0-9.-]+\.[A-Z]{2,4}$/i
"standards mode" IE will only be available for vista.
Would anyone mind if they had rewrite their web pages or at the very least, remove the code that checks for the version of IE and if it is IE in the first place? I wouldn't mind.
I prefer Flambe as apposed flamebait.
Acid test? Ok... but can it withstand a chair?
Why UNIX?
I guess when Bill Gates asks what the hell is going on, he gets results!
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
How long will it take for the anti-MS trolls to spin this in a negative light?
Wait for it...3...2...
welcome our new acid rendering browser evil overlords.
Oh... never mind...
The end times have come! Take your suicide pills so you won't suffer.
So in other words, it will be standards compliant but at the same time render all the old crap that wasn't even close to standards compliant??? So what's the point?!! If people can still write crap code, they will. You may as well write IE in 1995 Visual Basic if you are going to be that wishy washy.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
This article is like saying web developers who wrote HTML for Mosaic shouldn't rewrite their code to fit ACTUAL standards, but rather modify their code to work best with Mosaic. ...,5,6,7,8,...
IE is such bloat-ware to begin with, why don't they just have the browser analyze the code, and see which engine it will render with better, IE
"Just Smile and Nod." --Huck
I wonder if IE7 will go the way of WinME. In a few years time, will M$ answer the question "What about IE7?" with a resounding "IE7??? There was never an IE7. IE7 is a figment of your imagination. FORGET!!!!... FOOOORGET..."
Fifty watts per channel, baby cakes.
How well is Opera's lawsuit with M$ going to go over with this news?
Yawn, god knows how many new bugs was made in order to make that pass
Good News: ...
... in the year 2012 (give or take a few years), when the percentage of web users using IE 5, 6 or 7 finally dips below 5%.
Web developers will finally be able to develop a page once, according to standards, and have it work on all major browser
Bad News:
After all, how hard is it to build a special case for one specific website?
Woooooo! This is awsome!
But now i'm worried about this whole HTML5 clusterfuck submarining XHTML2, and thus the posibility of using a sane declarative language in the future.
Jeremy
How inconvenient is it to switch into and out of standards mode? Do you have to navigate menus or is there a button on the statusbar? Will it automatically switch between the two, based on whether or not the site demands IE7 or not? Is standards mode on by default?
No rush Microsoft, Firefox and Opera work just fine for me and everyone that I know.
What have we seen recently?
The people behind the Phantom actually releasing a product
A Duke Nukem Forever teaser
Dell promoting Linux
IE8 passing Acid2
What's next?
Dogs living with cats??
What's really holding the web back is the quirks mode which still exists in IE7, and will exist in IE8. If Microsoft is serious about standards support, they need to stop supporting 'web designers' who right non-compliant code.
So Taco wants me to believe that:
A) duke nukum might actually see the light of day
B) ie 8 passes Acid 2
Its not april fools day, according to the snow outside. Is Taco trying to create another practical joke day: Dec 19?
Thats so awesomely random, but it sort of upstages my plans of trying to make Dec 20 th a joke day. Oh well pretended to be surprised when crazy things happen tomorrow as well.
Well.. maybe. Or Maybe not. But Definitely not sort of.
IE8's release date has been pushed back 3 months.
Is anyone else having trouble with the acid2 page? Safari and Firefox 3.0 beta 1 are failing to render it in the same way.
This can only really be a positive thing..
But it make any difference the extensive css hacking required for most site layouts, for quite a number of years after its release.
I'd expect them to dump the old ie behaviour within 3 years of ie8's release.
I wonder how much of css3 it supports.
Standards mode is invoked when you specify a strict doctype in the page.
This IS out of the box support. Let's have less false assumptions and cheap shots at Microsoft, okay?
Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious how thorough the author is in proving that this is really true. There's a screenshot of the test, video, and even a screenshot of the checkin.
It's almost like think we don't trust them or something.
"Standards mode" is out-of-the-box, assuming you use a proper doctype in your HTML. More info here.
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
if (InUrl("acid2")) Display("happyface.jpg");
OK | Make Internet Explorer my default browser
if ((story != open source)(isM$)(avg(scorepoints) = 3))
{
return string ("Microsoft did something good, even though it took them a while?");
}
And it only took you two and a half years to do it. Everyone else did it a year (or more) ago.
With respect to standards and interoperability, our goal in developing Internet Explorer 8 is to support the right set of standards with excellent implementations and do so without breaking the existing web.
Soooo... since you have created a community of non-standard web development practices in an otherwise open and standards-based world-wide community, you still feel like you should defend those who followed you in your path of non-standard lock-inery. No thanks. Suck it up and admit you made a big mistake by painting yourself into a corner.
This second goal refers to the lessons we learned during IE 7. IE7's CSS improvements made IE more compliant with some standards and less compatible with some sites on the web as they were coded.
Actually, that sounds exactly like your first goal. "As they were coded" really means "As they were coded to work with our non-standards-based web browser". Again, suck it up and just promise to follow the rules of the community, and we might actually start to respect you a bit more.
Many sites and developers have done special work to work well with IE6, mostly as a result of the evolution of the web and standards since 2001 and the level of support in the various versions of IE that pre-date many standards. We have a responsibility to respect the work that sites have already done to work with IE.
I'd like to hear about the 'pre-dated standards' you speak of. Most likely, You're talking about practices you implemented in IE that wandered from existing standards, which maybe became stabilized post-M$ implementation. You can't defend non-standardization by blaming the standards for being STANDARDS. If you break standards that everyone is supposed to adhere to, its YOUR fault, NOT those who didn't embrace your specific practices as their own, personal standards.
We must deliver improved standards support and backwards compatibility so that IE8 (1) continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 and (2) makes the development of the next billion pages, in an interoperable way, much easier. We'll blog more, and learn more, about this during the IE8 beta cycle."
How about just making IE8 as standards-based as the other players in the field instead of feeling like you are required to ween your followers from your own sour milk?
As far as I'm concerned, the underlying goal is (and always has been for M$) in the very $ at the end of M$ that has become so popular for many. You can't mask the underlying motive with excuses like what you have given.
Suck it up and play by the rules, or you'll eventually be kicked out of the game.
It is pitch black. You are likely to be eaten by a grue.
asleep? So, I get home really tired and go take a nap... Then, I wake up, log on slashdotm, and that's the headlines I read: - Duke Nukem Forever Teaser Released - IE 8(!) Passes Acid2 Test(!!!!) I'm sure there's an twilight zone episode just like that!
You know, like a real alpha channel instead of pretending it's a fscking 8 bit gif with 1 bit transparent background?
Now that we broke the web with our own version of standards, we're going to break it again with the real standards.
It'll also be nice it it handles transparent PNGs properly with nothing more than an <img> tag--like how IE/5 Mac did almost eight fucking years ago. Here's how much progress they had made as of 6/2006. (Yeah, it's been a while, and maybe they've fixed that, but c'mon.... it was 2006!) Too bad they lined up the Mac guys against a wall and shot them, ensuring that it would take almost a decade to get that one feature into IE/Win.
Feel free to correct me if I've made any factual errors in this post.* Flame if you want, but nicely worded, verifiable responses are preferred and worth a lot more to readers in general.
* aside from the part about shooting the Mac team--I'm (pretty) sure that didn't happen.
Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
IE8 + CSS = Yet more JS to detect which browser the user is running + even more CSS.
Looks like a well balanced equation to me.
IE8 CSS. HTML now in hiding....
IE8 bites already
I smell a rat. Everybody, you know what not to do with this new TLD link!
Ron Paul wins Republican nomination.
...google for how to take a screenshot on linux... I do not think I trust your findings... Ad hominem FTW!!!.. ;P ... j/k
In an environment like Microsoft it's more likely they kludged their code around until it worked. It might render the ACID2 face correctly, but still completely screw up other standards. Remember that this is a company composed mostly of software hacks that call themselves programmers.
Who said "standards mode" is a feature that does not work out of the box? Just because it is a mode does not mean it requires it to be set manually.
Less cheap shots at Microsoft??? You must be new here!
Why fix bugs when the bugs worked better than the fixes? With the standard breaking IE6, random "updates" that makes IE7 css hacks useless, and now a new "standard compliant" IE8 that may or may not contain other bugs The task of writing pages to support IE6, IE7, IE8 will become equivalent to travelling on a mine field, a melting glacier and an active volcano in 3 parallel universes in the same car at the same time
Comment removed based on user account deletion
More like: Acid2 was released when IE6 was current, and will be passed in IE8. 6+2=8. So if Acid3 is announced while IE8 is current, version 8+3, or IE 11, will be the first to pass Acid3.
So if we want anything new supported by IE 10, we need to get that Acid3 test developed now!
thats what i thought but just a very bad rendering
IE7 is demonstrably more secure -- at least on Vista and IE8 can pass Acid. What will /.ers complain about next? The UI?
You want to know who isn't running Firefox 2.x? They spell it "definately" and "rediculous".
A reason to install Vista ;-)
Hrrrmm... I always thought Microsoft's philosophy was "Embrace, Extend, Destroy".
But now they're adopting standards?
Either:
1) Someone spiked my coffee.
2) I'm dreaming.
or
3) Steve Ballmer hasn't heard about this yet.
Considering that IE has been doing this for several versions already the answer is pretty easy. It is completely automatic. IE makes the determination whether to use "strict" mode or "quirks" mode depending on the validity of the HTML it receives. The primary trigger is the existance of a well-formed DOCTYPE tag at the beginning of the document. In fact there is no UI method of switching between renderers.
This rendering methodology is actually common across most browsers.
So, how functional will this compatibility mode be? Maybe like user mode in XP? Like the blame-shifting mechanism UAC in Vista?
Allow or Deny this comment?
http://www.maxineudall.com/2010/02/should-economists-be-sued-for-malpractice.html
I meant "for all I know in WebKit as well." Gecko, of course, is the engine used by Firefox.
Why was this modded flamebait btw?
To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
So (serious question here), what is the point of this test?
;-)
If the 2 most common browsers on the planet don't render this page, i'd say the test is at fault
Your point about waiting a bit before getting into cheap-shot territory is well taken, but there is nothing about this announcement IMO that's worth getting excited about.
I don't see how anyone could have fixed all that bloated crap code so fast for starters.
At this point, with no real information forthcoming from MS and all the secrecy blinders closed down tight at MSIE headquarters, the safest assumption to make here is that MS is just using web-kit (or their own ripped-off proprietary version of web-kit) as an *alternative* rendering engine and swapping the rendering engines back and forth depending on the doc type in the header.
If it turns out that this is indeed the case, (or something like it), then this is nothing to praise MS for and in essence just another MS kludge as a sop to those who support standards.
> I don't see how anyone could have fixed all that bloated crap code so fast for starters.
Define fast. IE 7 was released more than year ago.
Also, how well do you know IE code to judge it as bloated crap?
More likely they've had standards support all along, and just have a registry entry they could change to enable real standards mode. Kinda like how NT Workstation could be turned into a pretty close approximation of NT Server by flipping a couple of bits.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
I mean, if you have to turn on a switch to make it work properly, on what is a widely known public test suite, makes one wonder if they aren't engaging some very specific tweaks to the render engine to pass the test. I'd like to see the makers of acid2 modify it a bit, shift things around but still be testing all the same elements, and see if ie8 will still pass it. I think I'd also add a small element (like a freckle on the face) to make sure they're not just dishing us up a fixed pre-rendered image.
It would not completely shock me if someone discovered that with that box ticked, it checks the html somewhat tersely to see if it's acid2, and if so, branches to a totally different bit of code.
I'd leave the box checked and see just how trashed it renders some other pages, and then take a look at THEM and see if their code was correct or not. I think I'd prefer a browser that refused to properly render improperly written code rather than one that makes "best effort". Or at least one that has both options. It looks like there's a chance this is exactly what they are trying to do, which is brilliant.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
IE8 (1) continues to work
/usr/bin/IE8 /usr/bin/IE8: No such file or directory
Oh, cool, let's look that one up.
# man 1 IE8
No manual entry for IE8 in section 1
# ls
ls:
Hmm. Can anyone tell me where I can get an Ubuntu package for this "IE8"?
Kthxbai.
1. Break standards.
2. Release standards-compliant browser, knowing older broken browsers will still be in wide use.
3. For subsequent release, go to step 1.
Just sayin'.
With all the puling about IE not being compliant with the arbitary standards set by a bunch of MS-haters, I've always been amazed at how poorly non-MS browsers do about conforming to IE standards.
Guess there's a little bit of a double standard going on, but of course all the MS-haters would rather complain than think about what's best for their customers. If you want to refer to people leeching free software as customers.
if ( standards mode) {
Load FF 3 renderer
}
else {
Load IE 7 renderer
}
Will it only be available for Vista users? The build path of the project is as follows: //depot/longhorn_ie8/Inetcore/ieframe/shdocvw/hlframe.h
So what will be the installed user base when IE8 comes out? How many of those installation will immediately get the update? Are current trends an indicator of future ones?
If so, I'm not dancing--yet. I suppose this is (finally!) the beginning of getting out of the web development hell of having to develop for a broken browser, but it will be some time until we see some real lift from all this.
We're all hypocrites. We all have hidden parts, it's the contrast between them that make us more a hypocrite than others
Actually I've been here a few years. Half the reason I posted that comment is just so that someone could reply with "you must be new here!" and get the +5 funny karma (however little that may be).
:/
Oh, you posted AC. I'm sorry.
That depends on when IE8 is released. It took them 1.75 years to get from announcing IE7 (Feb 2005) to releasing it (Nov 2006). Presumably they've been working on IE8 for a while, but if it takes them another 21 months, we're looking at fall 2009. Who knows what the Windows install base will look like then?
Personally, I'm hoping it'll be out by the end of 2008, though my current goal is to get people the hell off of IE6. Upgrade to IE7, switch to Firefox, Opera, Safari, whatever, just ditch that aging monstrosity of a browser if you possibly can (and aren't barred by your IT department, or a need to access some critical site that only works in IE6).
But I have hacked the IE8 code base. Here is the code they have added to pass ACID2: if (url.equals("http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top")) { draw("smileyFace"); }
Now I know what they mean by ACID test. Reading that Microsoft's IE passes the test makes me feel I've tested positive for ACID!
Very bad rendering of what, AC?
the acid test is not a standards compliance test... it's a test of how well browsers break on sites that DONT support standards. It's not a measure of standards support for the browser, but it is nice to have.
"The need to build the internet comes from something inside us, something programmed... something we can't resist."
My current Iceweasel/Firefox 2.0.0.11-1 reports gecko version 1.8.1.11 - According to the Wikipedia article cited above, only Gecko 1.9 and above passes. I guess it's time to do some research and find out where/how I'm gonna get me a newer gecko engine...
Graduate students and most professors are no smarter than undergrads.
They're just older.
Do you realize the latest Firefox BETA fails to render the test? Try it. I like Firefox 3 but Microsoft pwned us this time. That is if they release the browser before Firefox 5.
if(URL=="http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top") {
// Draw("%Systempath%\KonquerorRenderedAcid2.png");
Draw("%Systempath%\KonquerorRenderedAcid2.bmp");
return;
}
The MAFIAA is a bunch of mindless jerks who will be the first up against the wall when the revolution comes
Is anyone else having problems with the ACID2 page? It's not rendering correctly for me in either Opera 9.24 or Safari 3.0.4 Beta for Windows on my PC.
I'm fairly sure that they were both rendering correctly a few weeks ago.
GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
Acid came out in, what, 1997? Only taken them 10 years to do a simple css test! Bravo Microsoft...
Now how about that Win 98 memory leak?
Karma Whoring for Fun and Profit.
Good to see data URIs supported, wasn't expecting that one.
The point of the test was to prod browser developers into improving their products to better support the existing specifications. This would increase interoperability (because different browsers would treat these features the same way) and give web developers more tools that they could actually use in practice.
This has worked. Safari/WebKit fixed a bunch of bugs and added a bunch of features until it passed. Then Opera. Firefox will pass it soon: Gecko 1.9 will pass it (beta 1 did, beta 2 doesn't for some reason -- I expect they'll make sure that's fixed by the time 3.0 final is released). Various smaller browsers (iCab, Konqueror before they decided to re-merge KHTML with WebKit, etc.) did as well. Now internal builds of IE8 have the necessary improvements.
This is a great step in the right direction. Maybe one day in the future I will end my 5+ year boycott of Internet Explorer! Probably not... but it will still be healthy for the web.
It's worth pointing out that this announcement is in direct contrast to IE7 announcements. Microsoft employees claimed IE7 not complying with ACID2 was a "design choice" rather than a bug. Wow... what a pathetic way to say "we don't care about web standards."
This is the way IE7 *should* have been. They're continuing support of "past evolving web standards" -- also known as Microsoft's proprietary standards -- while adding current (and hopefully future) standard support. This will enable web developers to be able to create less hacky pages using simpler CSS+HTML code rather than supporting only a subset of browsers.
+5 points for MS supporting healthy open web standards
-10 points for being about a decade late
It's a feature, Not a bug! http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2006/03/24/560095.aspx
There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary and those who do not.
Uh didn't anyone get the memo with IE7 and how it works with quirks mode/correct mode? It's called a doctype, use it!
"During My Service In The United States Congress, I Took The Initiative In Creating The Internet." -Al Gore
VGPowerlord is an alternate pseudonym for Jombeewoof! YOU HAVE BEEN EXPOSED! We, the TrollGoons, have relentlessly pursued Jombeewoof. We will now also relentlessly pursue VGPowerlord. You will be profusely exposed as a deleterious child-raping sex offender and incompetent academian every time you post on Slashdot. Just as we have done with Jombeewoof. You are on McCarthy's list, you pinko commie scum!
The TrollGoons are ubiquitous!!! We are Slashdot police!
Jombeewoof is a bastard who thinks the world owes him a living. http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=267807&cid=202 [slashdot.org] [slashdot.org] 07637 [slashdot.org] Jombeewoof tried to destroy an Internet Service Provider in Massachusetts by expecting large bandwidth without paying anything. Educated alone doesn't pay the bills. Jombeewoof is not worth your mod points and is a MySpace loser. Jombeewoof, give up, get off the Internet. The TrollGoons won't leave you alone.
YOU ARE NOT WANTED ON SLASHDOT!
I don't trust them. They ruined the work life of web designers everywhere. It'll be ten years before we've dug out of the hole created by IE 6 and 7. IE 8 can't solve any of that.
What are they trying to control at this point anyway? Why can't they just pack it in and make IE8 a Gecko based browser? As far as I'm concerned writing another web rendering engine at this point is a colossal waste of time. Wouldn't their customers be happier if they spent their development resources on something else?
Cheers.
It may roll good against acid but what about vs. death magic?
WOHOO
To be fair, any page without a DOCTYPE is not compliant, and can't be rendered in a compliant way. Any page without a DOCTYPE is probably buggy in other ways too. Firefox has a quirks mode too, and tries to fix buggy pages. It identifies a buggy page the same way, by looking at the DOCTYPE.
Everybody is in a pickle when it comes to rendering broken HTML. The only solutions are to do the best you can, or display an error message rather than a page. Also, to be fair, most of this mess is indeed caused by Microsoft, but even they can't fix it in a day.
I think it would be nice if browsers continued to fix spaghetti, but also showed a message somewhere that indicated that the page was buggy. Not a pop-up or anything, but a small, unobtrusive icon that was green and happy for a good page, or red and frowny for a bad. If IE had this by default, I think there would be a lot less bad pages on the internet.
Write your own Choose Your Own Adventure. http://www.freegameengines.org/gamebook-engine/
Sharepoint won't work...
No, you need "Enhanced mode" which is mo' better and of course breaks like the POS versions we are saddled with now.
maybe I am just too cynical
I noticed the same error on Konqueror 3.5.8, Opera 9.5a, & Firefox 3 on Linux, and on Opera 9.24 and Safari 3.04 on Windows -- all of which are supposed to pass the test.
Earlier today I tried to pull up the webstandards.org website, and couldn't. This got me thinking it might be a server problem.
I looked at the code for the test, and at one point it has an OBJECT where it tries to load the url, http://www.webstandards.org/404/. That should fail, causing the browser to display the fallback content inside the OBJECT element instead.
Guess what? That URL is returning a 200 OK code instead of 404 Not Found, so the compliant browsers are doing what they're supposed to do and displaying the content of that page in a little rectangle with scroll bars, and hiding the fallback content that we would normally see.
When their webmaster fixes the server config, the various compliant browsers should start displaying it correctly again.
I used to have a script that would download an unofficial nightly build of Firefox every morning when I logged in. A lot of the "unofficial" nightly builds will use up and coming features like newer Gecko engines, and have some non-standard optimizations turned on.
Look around here, and you should be able to find a frequently updated nightly build that uses Gecko 1.9. If you update frequently you'll definitely want to keep a backup of the last "good" install.
That being said: Konqueror! FTW!
Maybe not
It looks like a server error, since all Acid2-compliant browsers seem to be rendering it with the same exact error. More in this comment.
Again, suck it up and just promise to follow the rules of the community, and we might actually start to respect you a bit more.
Like hell.
*I* will never respect them. It's painfully obvious they've had the resources to do this for years, and for years they chose to treat the entire process with blatant contempt. It probably has cost me literally thousands of hours of my life to deal with their shit and I'm angry enough about it that I doubt I'd be above literally torturing their product managers if I had the chance. Put together the collective web dev time they've wasted with their little games, and you probably have hundreds of human lifetimes washed down the drain. They are on the same moral level of spammers, and that's the amount of respect they deserve.
And they'd do it *again* in a second if they thought it would earn them an advantage. They don't give a flying fig newton for you, for standards, for progress, for anything other than their own marketshare and control. The depth of contempt they deserve hasn't begun to be plumbed even here on slashdot.
ACID test? Great. This is essentially the abusive spouse buying roses for the woman who's just about finally fed up and ready to leave. Promises of good behavior while the fallout from IE 6 and 7 will be lingering for years to come.
Respect. Yeah.
Tweet, tweet.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Exactly.
Dr Ray Stantz: Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies. Rivers and seas boiling.
Dr. Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness. Earthquakes, volcanoes...
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave.
Dr. Peter Venkman: Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together - mass hysteria.
IE8 is redefining IE7's "standards mode" so that it means 'IE7 bug-compatibility mode', and adding a new 'really standards' mode (i.e. IE8 bug-compatibility mode) to trigger the new rendering behaviour. (See e.g. here, suggesting that the trigger might be a meta tag). There are too many important sites which are currently rendered in standards mode and break when IE implements the standards correctly (e.g. because they have UA-sniffing and serve different content to IE than to any other browser), so the compatibility concerns mean that current content will still be rendered with the old IE7 bugs instead of the new improved behaviour.
Haha, 'M$' do something positive and open and your rabid mind just spazzes out, doesn't it, Twitter? Wipe the spittle off your chin and get a grip.
Does it render web pages correctly only when switched from the default mode to a "standards mode"? If so, then in practice its quality in "standards mode" is irrelevant because web developers will still have to make their sites incompatible with standards since 99% of Joe Blows are not going to be in "standards mode" and every web developer knows it. In other words, in reality, IE's disruption of the internet will only be perpetuated.
...mass hysteria!
So, how fictional will this compatibility mode be? Maybe like user mode in XP? Like the blame-shifting mechanism UAC in Vista?
There, fixed it for you.
Will they properly support: display: table
That single piece of CSS will end the whole "3 column problem" , or even "7 column problem" for that matter. Yes, you could do it with standard html tables, but it isn't nearly as powerful and it is bad form. (To get an idea what I mean with not nearly as powerful, consider that CSS can be dependant on the display media, such as printouts. )
FF 3 passes the test. (I downloaded it just to see that, a while back.)
:-)
And it's virtually certain that FF3 will be out before IE8.
In other news, the FIRST major browser to pass the test was Safari, and I just tried it--it no longer passes! WTF, WebKit doodz.
It's rare that you're presented with a knob whose only two positions are Make History and Flee Your Glorious Destiny.
they've spent a long time developing their bad reputation, why let them down?
Wow, it is amazing what a little complaint by a tiny browser company to the EU can do. I hope this is true.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Modes are decided by the web page's developer, not the user. It depends on which declaration you use. Even Firefox works that way.
It doesn't get any better than this. They managed step one, embrace. Now they have to "debug" it. I am pretty sure from here on out all improvements will look like the sort of "improvements" to service that your local noncompetitive cable company regularly offers.
So, IE8 passes acid2. Good.
Now, let's consider the real world.
My customers' websites show IE with a browser share of 50-70%. But, that is typically 50/50 IE6 and IE7.
So, how long will it take for IE8 to completely take over from 6 and 7?
By my guesstimate, about 2 years.
So, IE8 passes acid2, BFD. Wake me when 80+% of IE-using vistors use IE8.
Dave Barnes 9 breweries within walking distance of my house
Haha, 'M$' do something positive and open and your rabid mind just spazzes out
Something positive would have been to have that kind of support in IE7 or before. There's nothing now but an image on a blog page. For all I know, the author downloaded the stock image and reused it. Right now, this is just another promise to be broken and it's not even much of a promise.
The firehose had another, better summary that pointed out the half assed way this "compatibility" was supposed to implemented. They are using some king of "standards mode" instead of just making the thing recognize standards by default. If it's anything like other M$ standard support, it's going to be nothing more than an impossible to fine option that won't really work and will annoy the hell out of users. If you go read the story you will see that others berate the lack of SVG and other crucial standards to end the stupid browser wars. This summary was buried in a hail of cookie cutter submissions and finally moderated out of existence.
You can score one for M$'s PR team there, but it's short term. No one really believes M$ is going to do anything other than make promises and hype stuff they don't have yet.
I see lots of comments slamming M$ while our beloved FireFox still can't pass the test. WTF??
For all we know the IE 8 pre-alpha is actually Safari Windows with a new skin. Until they release it, it only exists as hype.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
It doesn't require a Strict doctype: http://gutfeldt.ch/matthias/articles/doctypeswitch/table.html for a chart.
a small, unobtrusive icon that was green and happy for a good page, or red and frowny for a bad.
Assuming you run Firefox, check out the HTML Validator extension, which appears to do exactly what you want.
If only it came standard! =)
Firefox has Standards Mode, too (right-click anywhere on a page->View Page Info). It differentiates between "Quirks" mode and Standards-compliance mode. "Quirks" mode is used when invalid markup is detected, or if there's no DOM declared; Standards-compliance mode simply means that the site is being displayed to spec, instead of being cleaned up by the browser's interpretation as to what way it should look. Standards-compliance mode, in theory, should always look the same on every browser (it's why standards *exist*), but as everyone who's done web design knows, that's not the case. That's not to say I support Microsoft, but as a web developer, I have to look forward to the day when most of the audience on the web can view my pages properly, without the need for time-consuming workarounds. In actuality, IE7 really has impacted me to an extent, since none of the old workarounds for IE6 work for it any more, and it still doesn't get things right. So I have to work around IE6, IE7, and any differences that those workarounds cause in browsers like Opera and Firefox who display it right the first time, which is a major headache and waste of time considering there's standards for these browsers to follow.
Screw the rules, I have green hair!
I tried FireFox 3 Beta 2 and it fails Acid2.
Safari 3 also fails Acid2 (even though Safari 2 passed it!)
Opera only just recently passed Acid 2 (the recently released Opera 9.25 passes but Opera 9.20 didn't).
Not sure why only MS is being slammed for not passing Acid2 until now.
Acid2 Test aside, didn't they claim that IE 7 would match or beat supporting standards of any existing browsers? And didn't they claim that all of IE 7's development would be on bug/security fixes and standard's compliance and not waste time on new features (yet oh look, they added tabbed browser, etc. etc.). I understand that they have a product to sell, but from my perspective Microsoft is more interested in marketing spin than the quality of the actual product, because let's face it, IE 7 only wins when compared with IE 6, which only won compared to Netscape 4. =P
Seems like a whole lot of too little too late. They've got the market for one reason and one reason only: it's bundled and updated with Windows. They don't deserve a single penny for delivering such a sorry product.
Of course, it doesn't matter, because I for one don't bother with IE workarounds anymore. Either their browser works, or it's broken. Up to them to fix it and stop costing web developers extra grief and costs. When they finally fix it, so it works, so what. Many of us are beyond caring about the crap they make.
I can't believe anyone would believe IE8 properly renders Acid2 without evidence. If this were Firefox we'd have nightlies, betas, and other code to verify and learn from, inspect, share, and modify because Firefox respects our software freedom. If this news were about Firefox I'd be able to verify this myself without signing an NDA or being part of an organization that has lost the biggest antitrust case in US history. And respecting my software freedom is worth being excited about.
Digital Citizen
Why does Microsoft keep bringing up this 'backwards compatibility" comment to justify their lack of standards support. If they would just develop a standards complaint browser then all these websites that run on Firefox, Safari, etc., should run just fine. If it's the problem of a site seeing IE8 and then running IE6 code hacks, then they could just rename the whole browser to something cool like Expanse 1.0 or something (going along with the "Vista" concept there). Surely they aren't saying that there are a bunch of sites compatible with only IE and nothing else? If such a thing does exist it needs to die and be rebuilt.
does anyone with firefox 3 beta 2 notice that it doesnt pass the acid2 test???
if you have firefox 3 beta 2 please go to:
http://www.webstandards.org/files/acid2/test.html#top
and let me know
Yeah I agree we have something that was made to switch between windows, instead we use an inferior interface builtinto the browser. But I'm using tabs anyways, strange isn't it..
Think about it why should we use tabs, really?
Netscape started it!
I use Firefox ...
Basicaly, MDI (and tabs are a kind of MDI) UIs were invented for a reason, and have their use cases
And i find it irritating that many other applycations switched from MDI to SDI in the last years (eg: ms office, nero)
iCab is a browser with just such a buggy-page indicator. It's had this feature for years. A smiley green face, or a grumpy red one!
I find this a really odd mistake for a standards organization to be making!
If I were to allow myself the luxury of a Tin hat, I'd believe Bizarro Land.
One of the Mozilla developers hosts the test, whereupon the Fox3b2 plays nicely.
http://www.hixie.ch/tests/evil/acid/002/#top
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
It tests for borderline cases which shouldn't happen in practice, such as invalid CSS. Who cares if your browser doesn't respect the standard for invalid data? I know I don't, and you shouldn't.
I have a more pertinent question: why doesn't IE7 handle XHTML? It's been out for 8 years now!
Maybe MS operates with Non-Euclidian principles.
Would Hyperbolic Geometry explain everything? "Cairo is coming! Longhorn is coming! Compliance is coming!" Then their parallel lines veer off into the next galaxy.
My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
Directly opposite me there works a man who is tasked with making a web page on an embedded system run on any browser he can think of.
He has tested various versions of Firefox, Opera, Safari and all versions of IE since 4 on various operating systems. He has also tested on a number of other devices - a Wii, an iPod Touch, an HTC Touch (Windows Mobile based smartphone) and a Nintendo DS.
He was delighted to discover that he had to make virtually no changes to his original design - it was reasonably standards based and all the browsers rendered it in a broadly similar fashion. Until, that is, he started using Microsoft browsers - particularly the smartphone based ones.
The obvious solution would be to render pages with a doctype declaration correctly, and render pages without one IE6-style.
# cat
Damn, my RAM is full of llamas.
What MS actually means to say is "backward" compatibility (i.e. being compatible with earlier mishaps called 'IE' which introduced the very non-standards compliant ways of doing things). It's just that AutoFill keeps adding the "s"..
I think it's fantastic. First you break the standards because you like to screw up web standards and force a proprietary world on the Net, and then when that doesn't work you trumpet to all that you are now "fully compliant" as if you weren't the company that made this mess in the first place. Impressive.
Insert
They wanted to preserve rendering of "broken" pages hacked for IE6 and 7, while rendering standards-compliant pages correctly. This means that web developers that use a proper doctype will get something that renders the same in IE8 as it does in other browsers. Pages with tag soup targeted at IE6 are the most likely to have an incomplete (or no) doctype anyway.
Being able to force it to render things correctly is a good thing. Additionally, most other browsers (including Firefox and Opera) do essentially the same thing, deciding (Google cache because page had trouble loading for me) whether to use "standards mode", "quirks mode", or "almost standards mode" based entirely on the doctype.
This is the best way to preserve compatibility with pages targeted at IE6 (of which there are lots) while making life easier for web developers pissed at having to jump through hoops for IE (of which there are lots).
Never mistake "can" for "should".
The acid2 test on webstandards.org is currently broken. ( see Mozilla Bugzilla [ you might need to copy and paste that])
A reference to http://www.webstandards.org/404/ which must fail now returns 200.
while (!asleep()) sheep++
Am I the only one that noticed that?
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
If you read the blog posting, you would know that the html and xml files are for testing purposes
Ah, thanks. I did read the blog posting, but only up until the postscript. Oops!
Copyrights, Patents, Trademarks: temporary loans from the Public Domain, not real property ("intellectual" or otherwise)
Opera sues MS mainly for Standards compliance just a week ago and this "We pass Acid test" story comes out.
http://www.opera.com/pressreleases/en/2007/12/13/
Too much for co-incidence. Also, it seems a billion dollar company who has more people to make coffee than Opera+Mozilla developers combined CAN produce a standards compliant browser down to Acid2 test. Why IE 8 and not IE 7? Why now?
For designers, it doesn't matter if they ripped off web-kit or even Gecko. As long as there's support for standards, coding a web interface becomes less of a hassle.
In short, you agree that IE sucks.
Standards-compliance mode, in theory, should always look the same on every browser (it's why standards *exist*), but as everyone who's done web design knows, that's not the case.
Because M$ has steadfastly refused to use real standards?
In actuality, IE7 really has impacted me to an extent, since none of the old workarounds for IE6 work for it any more, and it still doesn't get things right. So I have to work around IE6, IE7, and any differences that those workarounds cause in browsers like Opera and Firefox who display it right the first time, which is a major headache and waste of time considering there's standards for these browsers to follow
Yep. It would be nice if you could just follow standards and not worry about IE6 and 7's quirks and how "workarounds" to that broken garbage won't work with reasonable browsers.
Now, perhaps you will address the other points made by these so called trolls. How will users have control of access to IE8's supposed "standards mode"? Is IE8 really anything more than a list of marketing promisses now? I'm sick of the M$ game, "Our product is better than theirs because our next version will have their features but better." How many times can you fall for that one? The real troll here is M$. You know M$ is never going to support real standards and chasing their tail is never going to get any easier. It's time to drop support for IE and let their users see the shit they are using. Why waste your life making up for their shortfalls, especially when your efforts harm people who could make your life much easier.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
CONDCOMS.
I may be wrong, but the view I have of Microsoft is this: There's a lot of really cool and talented developers there who would like to do things like make IE better (and standards compliant) and be more friendly to things like open source. But there's a lot of management at MS that just won't allow it.
Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
Have you not learned from the nightmare of continuing to support buggy legacy programs under Windows, like making sure that old programs that would free memory and then immediately access it still worked? As long as there are sites that require your compatibility mode instead of standards mode, users will have little reason to switch modes, and they'll be out there forever.
Paraphrasing: When that browser goes out it'll support a thousand mutations of the standard! Non-compliant pages will spread everywhere! We'll never be rid of them!
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
IE6 is the bane of my existence. IE8 could render everything perfectly, clean floors, and bring chicks home to me, and I'd still hold a grudge.
If they keep including the support for old, poorly written IE only websites, then those websites will never change.. And moreso, people will keep coding to the old IE "standard" (if it can be called that) and nothing will improve..
Why? If we do, our enterprise-wide custom-programmed Online Timesheet application will cease to function. It's a custom Java app, running on top of something from PeopleSoft and apparently using some obscure IE6 "feature". No, I'm not from IT, I can't tell you which feature. All I know is, that's the official explanation from the IT department for staying with IE6, essentially forever.
Proof? One frustrated tech-savvy colleague installed IE7, and lost all access to his timesheet. Of course, you cannot back-install to IE6, so he's trapped.
But here's the larger irony. That timesheet app works perfectly in Opera's default install. And keeps working through Opera upgrades.
So the said colleague has installed Opera (against corporate policy, which is Microsoft exclusively) to regain access to his timesheet.
Sigh... at least our IT department uses other means to keep us secure from all the nasties which could exploit IE6. But I sure miss those tabs...
If my grandma sees an active x window, she would click PERMIT, right away, only so the page will just reload!
:)
If ActiveX is not disabled by default so it would take more then a click to enable it, we'll see less malware on my grandma's computer.
Now I only need to teach my grandma how to click on the boot-up button so the computer will start after a shutdown
Read and Comment at my BLOG
!!!
GET THE FUCK OFF OF THE INTERNET!
You are like Roland; you are unwanted!!!!
TrollGoons attack again, you pinko commie scum!
Where are you coming from? This is from the about page:
While true that it does not test the entire standard and it is not meant as such, it does test certain parts of the standards (or proposed standards) and how well the browsers support them, not how well they break on sites that aren't standards compliant.
From the slashdot summary I was thinking Microsoft turned over a new leaf and was going to support the standards better than any other browser out there. While the fact that they can pass ACID2 is great, I find it intensely disturbing that the page is peppered with anti-standards language.
For one, you apparently have to put IE8 into a "standards mode". Basically no one that will be using IE8 will ever see this experience since the only people that would probably bother to put it into standards mode are web developers. Therefore you will have the same complaints you always had, 'the page doesn't look right' and you can't force your customers to switch to standards mode because their MSN home page won't look right.
So this doesn't really mean anything, we just did it for fun...
Standards are confusing, we cannot support them all. It's too confusing for the user to even think about so just use IE8 and when we don't support standards it is because there are too many... 'de facto' standards are things that WE make work in IE becaue most of the web users use IE so whatever we do is by definition standards compliant...
CSS 2.1 isn't "finalized" so why bother planning on supporting a proposed standard. The IMG tag is there because of 'embrace and extend' just like Microsoft is famous for (this was actually from when 'html' wasn't a standard yet in 1993, the first HTML RFC was in November 1995). Oh yeah, "opinions" must matter in standards...
So 'lookie here at this standards compliance test we passed' while they completely ignore it to keep from "breaking the existing web".
Sorry for this rant. I basically was excited to have IE actually render pages how they should look. I expected the article to say "We are excited to be making IE8 the most standards compliance browser because standards are important and we will be focusing on them". Most of the language though is hemming and hawing on standards, it's a very unclear message.
> If it's the problem of a site seeing IE8 and then running IE6 code hacks, then they could
> just rename the whole browser to something cool like Expanse 1.0 or something
I wonder about this too. If IE8's interoperable rendering is as much better as they indicate, wouldn't it be an opportune time to (finally) update the user-agent string? IE has been spoofing Mozilla for pretty much its entire history, but is that really still desirable? In the early days spoofing Mozilla meant you got the "enhanced" content intended for Netscape browsers (with, you know, cool colors and stuff). Later other browsers started to spoof the "IE spoofing Mozilla" combination, because that typically meant you got the spiffy DHTML content intended for IE5. Now most other browsers have largely _quit_ doing that, so they can get the more standards-compliant content (and here I'm using the term loosely; said content is seldom fully compliant) typically intended for Firefox. If I were the IE8 team, I'd be taking the opportunity now to update the User-Agent string.
Given that naive sniffing code typically just does a substring check, usually for "IE" and sometimes the version number, the obvious thing is to remove the string "IE" from the UA string. If it were me, I'd make it something along these lines...
Internet Explorer/8.0 (Win32; Windows NT 6.0; en-US)
Rebranded versions (notably, MSN Explorer) could throw whatever vendor indicator they like on the end of that.
Cut that out, or I will ship you to Norilsk in a box.
I might not like IE (any version), but at least Microsoft did a really neat move when they added their IE conditional comments. It keeps the code valid, other browsers ignore them because they're valid comments, and it allows us to target specific versions of IE.
So, while Microsoft does have problems with IE, at least they gave us a clean and solid way of making special code for it, especially given the "cascading" in CSS.
I personally feel that it is time to let IE break clean with the IE7 and older versions' flaws. MS should create a compliant browser for a change and if people want to access the deliberately kludged sites let them use IE7 or earlier. It's time to let the spaghetti code that is IE7 die its unnatural death. Sorry to be so blunt but this sounds like the same excuses coming from Microsoft when IE7 was nearing release. There was a backing away from standards because they reasoned that they would rather put out a known flawed product rather than attempt to do it right and making "new" mistakes. Come on. Frankly it sounded like upper management BS "dumbed down" so that maybe we the developers might swallow this dubious reasoning when actually management is saying we don't want to spend the money to do it correctly. The IE team management has little credibility as far as I'm concerned. "Let them eat cake!" indeed.
Be as you would have the world become.