Slashdot Mirror


Adding CSS3 Support To IE 6, 7 and 8 With CSS3 Pie

rsk writes "Internet Explorer 6, 7 and to some extent 8 have been the bane of every CSS-loving web developer for years. With the spreading adoption of CSS3's fancier rendering effects, like rounded edges, drop shadows and linear gradients, the frustration of needing to deal with IE compatibility is growing. 327 Creative's Jason Johnston has created the CSS3 Pie library to address this. CSS3 Pie adds support for CSS3's most popular rendering techniques to Internet Explorer 6, 7 and 8 by way of the IE-only CSS property 'behavior.' CSS3 Pie is open sourced under the Apache 2 license and can be accessed from its github repository."

142 comments

  1. IE? Seriously? by jon42689 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Honestly, while I realize that there are some people out there using IE, I almost never make it a priority in development. "Oh, it doesn't work? What browser are you using? Internet explorer? Oh, that's the issue then." Why are we trying to fix something that is broken by design and is about as closed as a nun's c**t?

    1. Re:IE? Seriously? by JazzyMusicMan · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately that can't always be your answer, especially when your site is an enterprise application, and the bread and butter of your system. As much as we would like to shun users of old or crummy software, sometimes, they're the ones keeping the lights on. Any help with allowing us to support them is help worth taking advantage of, in my opinion.

    2. Re:IE? Seriously? by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      "are the wheel nuts tight?"

      "tight as a nun's cunt."

      "you'd better give them another turn then."

      As for IE, some people would just rather not have to deal with third party crap. However, IE6? There really is no reason to run that anymore. Won't IE7 or 8 run on Windows 98?

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    3. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Man your catholic school experience must have been a lot worse than mine.

    4. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My department *just* dropped support for IE6 this week and we serve hundreds of websites, at least.

    5. Re:IE? Seriously? by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      I want to do web development for whoever pays you to do it. Not having to code for IE would be heaven, but 95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it. This is the terrible world we live in.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    6. Re:IE? Seriously? by Mad+Merlin · · Score: 2, Informative

      As for IE, some people would just rather not have to deal with third party crap. However, IE6? There really is no reason to run that anymore. Won't IE7 or 8 run on Windows 98?

      No, IE7 and IE8 aren't supported on 98, ME or even 2000, XP and newer only.

    7. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed.
      I make a basic-as-basic-can-get site that IE will display, then forget about it completely and do all the fun stuff with standards.
      I'm not going to waste my time because they're too stupid / scared to use another browser, and i don't give a damn about people who work in companies who are forced to use IE due to ActiveX since most of the time, most of them are wasting work time... posting on here...
      And if people still use ActiveX for banking, screw them, they're too stupid to change bank, too stupid for me to care about them.

      All IE users are going to get from me is a nice message at the top of every page saying "Look, your browser sucks, click here to see why" with a page showing them why they NEED to upgrade their browser, that is the only help i will give them.
      In fact, i just had an idea, i should emulate the silly IE messages that pop up at the top telling the users that IE is being cancelled, and if they don't upgrade they won't be able to access the web (facebook, Myspace, other examples). That'll make them switch!

    8. Re:IE? Seriously? by twocows · · Score: 1

      Internet Explorer still has about 60% market share (http://marketshare.hitslink.com/report.aspx?qprid=0). You can't really just ignore that, especially if you're developing for a business.

    9. Re:IE? Seriously? by JansenVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

    10. Re:IE? Seriously? by CiarnOS · · Score: 1

      I use IE7 within Citrix to browse Slashdot because I cannot do so on the desktop with Opera.

      I have a manager who is afraid of technology.
      I'm assuming that's a shocking amount of IT Managers which means old browsers are going to be used indefinitely
      with something like this the standards can already be be in place for future browser upgrades.

    11. Re:IE? Seriously? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Question would be "why". Being essentially an add-on, this really won't solve anything for those that IE as a browser is designed for - the average mom and pop crowd that won't even know what CSS stands for.

      This sounds like a technical solution to a social problem of people generally not understanding the tools they're using and not caring about them.

    12. Re:IE? Seriously? by znu · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Our approach for public sites is to make them look not broken in IE, because a broken looking site reflects poorly on us. (The kind of user who's still using IE is not going to understand it's their browser.) But we often make things look "not broken" by just removing design features that IE can't quite handle. In other words, IE gets a site that's functional, but not necessarily pretty.

      Also, we no longer bother with IE6.

      Of course we're in a Mac-heavy creative field; I think we get more hits from iPads than from IE. So we can afford to ignore it a little more than most, perhaps.

      --
      This space unintentionally left unblank.
    13. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a huge difference between some pointless public site and a business one with paying clients. IE is a pain and shouldn't get preferential treatment, but when a client that is basically paying your salary says their access doesn't work properly, even if it's an IE bug, you fix it or get fired.

    14. Re:IE? Seriously? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      > I realize that there are some people out there using IE,

      What do you mean "some" - the majority of people use IE. It has by far the biggest market share. I'm sure you realise that. And you're talking about IE like all versions are the same. IE 8 renders almost identically to Firefox/Chrome etc. It's only IE6 and 7 which were the problem.

      If you're not making it a priority in development, then I hope your business fails because you obviously don't care about the majority of your customers.

    15. Re:IE? Seriously? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 1

      Although I still feel that way, I've been forced on several occasions to make things look and function in IE (8 or newer only, luckily). One customer hounded us to get their site working in 6, and after we spent a week building a system to detect the browser and output different HTML and were only 1/2 done, they changed their minds.

      It's sometimes difficult for non-technical customers to understand that each version of IE is a different beast and requires you do do much of the front-end work over again for each version.

      If it was up to me, I'd just say that we don't support IE, but a good chunk of windows users on the public internet have not installed an alternate browser. I just don't get it.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    16. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the last 5 years i've developed numerous sites and applications and at no point have i tested ANY of them for comparability in IE.

      The fact is that at this point in time IE is a minority browser. Today, it's simply not worth the time or worry bothering to develop for IE.

    17. Re:IE? Seriously? by SashaMan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The fact that this was modded insightful is even more proof of why most tech people should never run a business. "Oh, the majority of users on the internet can't use your site? Tell 'em it's their problem."

    18. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I love how Slashtards live in a fantasy land where they can make these decisions just because they have a stick up their ass. It is easy to tell who develops to put food on the table and those that know a little HTML and think they're in the same category.

    19. Re:IE? Seriously? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      Any chance of posting your company name, so I know who to avoid when I want my website to render properly for the vast majority of my users?

    20. Re:IE? Seriously? by XanC · · Score: 1

      Why wouldn't it? It doesn't require them to actually do anything. This is for developers.

    21. Re:IE? Seriously? by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      This is a method for developers to get sites to look nice in IE easily, this has nothing to do with end users. Coding for all the good browsers -and- IE usually just means a terrible headache where you spend 2/3 of your time fixing shit that won't work in IE. This seeks to eliminate that nightmare situation, as far as the making-websites-pretty side of development goes.

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    22. Re:IE? Seriously? by thetoastman · · Score: 1

      Windows 2000 is now completely unsupported. There will be no hot fixes, no security updates, and no paid support. The support expired with the last monthly patch.

      Also, Windows 2000 seems to be less than 0.5 percent of all Windows machines connected to the Internet, according to this Ars Technica article.

      While supporting IE 6 may have some residual value for those XP users who have not gone to IE 7 or IE 8, even Microsoft is encouraging people to move to the latest Internet Explorer.

      In short, it may actually be an opportune time to drop support of IE 6 (and all of its attendant rendering bugs) when developing new web sites.

      Note, your stakeholders may have a different take on this. I'm just mentioning that from a technical viewpoint it's becoming harder and harder to justify spending the effort to hack in IE 6 support.

    23. Re:IE? Seriously? by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

      Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

      No it's not, because that would involve supporting every single browser, however old and however non-compliant.

      You draw the line somewhere (or the client does). If that line is the wrong side of IE6 you have my pity. Mine is elsewhere (not involving any version of IE whatsoever).

      --
      Azural - instrumentals
    24. Re:IE? Seriously? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      But plenty of other browsers are supported on those systems. I don't know of any system that's forced to use IE6 for technical reasons. Usually, it's political (i.e. management doesn't want to replace in-house apps that are IE6-only). I think IE6 can definitely be considered on-the-bubble on the open Internet. The cost of supporting it is steadily increasing and the potential benefits shrinking.

    25. Re:IE? Seriously? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

      Really? And just how much effort do you put into testing with Mozaic and Lynx? :)

      The fact is that there's almost always a point of diminishing returns. IE5 and Netscape4 are both past it, and IE6 is rapidly approaching it.

    26. Re:IE? Seriously? by westlake · · Score: 1

      Honestly, while I realize that there are some people out there using IE, I almost never make it a priority in development.

      I would be interested in knowing who your clients are.

      IE's global market share is 60%. IE 8's share alone is 25%. Browser Version Market Share

      The mobile platforms remain quite insignificant in terms of web browsing. Operating System Market Share

    27. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are lucky that you can do that. I develop custom web apps for companies and IE support is always a requirement. It is only recently that we have been able to drop IE6 support. All the other browsers are much faster and render the site better but no one uses them. The areas that depend on cutting-edge (at least to Microsoft) web technologies are the most likely to use IE.

      IT is full of people who use and love Firefox but have to standardize on IE because of important web apps that are IE only.

    28. Re:IE? Seriously? by JansenVT · · Score: 1

      I live in an area with a lot of old people. They all have IE6

    29. Re:IE? Seriously? by outZider · · Score: 1

      How to find a bad developer 101.

      --
      - oZ
      // i am here.
    30. Re:IE? Seriously? by narcc · · Score: 1

      a good chunk of windows users on the public internet have not installed an alternate browser. I just don't get it.

      That's easy. The majority of internet users are completely computer illiterate. They don't know what a browser is, don't distinguish the terms 'the internet' and 'the web', don't know what a web address is, they don't even know what files are (even the ones that "do a lot of pictures").

      The vast majority of internet users will say things like 'I have yahoo as my internet' -- and be completely confident in that answer!

      If you think I'm only talking about the over-50 crowd, kids aren't any better. I had a kid the other day (about 11) in the computer lab who asked me if I had I calculator. I said "you're sitting in front of one" -- Before I could show him how to access the calculator app, he exclaimed "I didn't know computer were that powerful!"

      That's why the majority of internet users don't upgrade their browser. They don't know what a broswer is, let alone that they'd need to upgrade it.

    31. Re:IE? Seriously? by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      But plenty of other browsers are supported on those systems.

      Which ones and how old are they?

      Of their Windows versions:
      Firefox 3.6.6 requires Windows 2000 or newer.
      Chrome (all versions) requires Windows XP or newer.
      Opera 10.60 requires Windows XP or newer.
      Safari 5 requires Windows XP SP2 or newer.

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    32. Re:IE? Seriously? by MyDixieWrecked · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The worst thing is that, when it comes to upgrading their browser, their assumption IS valid. They shouldn't HAVE to install a 3rd party browser. I'm not saying that there shouldn't BE 3rd party browsers, but the browser that comes with your OS should at least work properly.

      One of my semi-techie friends saw those Chrome commercials and said to me "you told me that google was NOT a browser, but look, it is! You don't know what you're talking about!" I seriously think that it's a conspiracy to confuse consumers lately. Between confusing branding (Motorola Droid vs HTC Droid Incredible vs Android OS vs "Droid Does" and this whole 4G thing) and confusing metrics that are difficult (if not impossible) to explain to non-technical users (4MP vs 8MP camera, it's possible that the 4MP takes better pictures... and the difference between 4" and 5" display, when the 4" has higher pixel dimensions). And don't get me started on the difference between a fast internet connection, fast network connection, fast computer and fast browser.

      So now you have uninformed users throwing terms around that they think they understand, you've got companies leveraging these misunderstandings to sell overpriced, sub-par electronics, and all these inexpensive electronics that you buy every year that are incompatible with each other (chargers, data cables, etc).

      Keep consumers in the dark and confused so you can sell them whatever you want.

      --



      ...spike
      Ewwwwww, coconut...
    33. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking business droid. There's no indication that the OP designs web sites for a company, but you just assume he does because money is the only thing your tiny mind can contemplate. Go die in a fire.

    34. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't be thick.

    35. Re:IE? Seriously? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Well, it still won't work on IE installation without it, so you would probably want to test it on IE without the library rather then with it.

      And for proper testing, there are much better alternatives then IE. IMHO.

    36. Re:IE? Seriously? by FredMenace · · Score: 1

      In fact you need XP SP2 or higher to install IE7.

      IE6 was actually a great browser when it came out - the best browser in existence, hands down (its main competition was Netscape 4), and became something like 90% of the total browsers in use. But that was nearly 10 years ago... Nobody should be using it today, yet it's still 5-15% of the browsers in use.

      The situation isn't IE6's fault, but it is Microsoft's fault for not making IE7 backward compatible with Win2K and early XP at the least. Actually, nobody should be using IE7 any more either...FireFox and Chrome users (and probably Safari, for the most part) manage to upgrade to pretty recent versions without any difficulty, so what is it about Internet Explorer that more than half its users are using versions at least 5 years old?

      But still, even IE8 has zero support for CSS3 or HTML5, so even it needs massive help if developers want to move the web forward... We can all hope IE9 lives up to its promises, but how many years will it take before even half the IE users have switched over to it??

    37. Re:IE? Seriously? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah that's right! He develops web sites for all of GNU/Linux buddies only. Who cares about fucking business when you're in your mom's basement. When GNU/Linux finally becomes cool they'll all be popular and getting laid while you're sitting there with your piles of money.

    38. Re:IE? Seriously? by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

      IE is not the majority anymore, but yes, you still got a point.

      --
      Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    39. Re:IE? Seriously? by XanC · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? This is a library that you include as part of your page when serving it to IE. End-users don't need to install anything.

    40. Re:IE? Seriously? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Since when? AFAIK, Internet Explorer as a whole still owns the majority.

    41. Re:IE? Seriously? by flimflammer · · Score: 1

      Fucking business droid. There's no indication that the OP designs web sites for a company, but you just assume he does because money is the only thing your tiny mind can contemplate. Go die in a fire.

      Gotta love teen angst.

    42. Re:IE? Seriously? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      English might not be your first language, but for most of us more than half of the market counts as a majority.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    43. Re:IE? Seriously? by Luckyo · · Score: 1

      Apparently I misread the OP. Thanks for clarifying.

    44. Re:IE? Seriously? by binary+paladin · · Score: 1

      Please tell me you beat the shit out of your semi-techie friend with something that leaves scars.

  2. some people? by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    If by "some people" you mean a majority.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:some people? by bunratty · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It depends on the site. Some sites have 95% of users using IE. Others have 30% of users using IE.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    2. Re:some people? by Your.Master · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You can bet that sites that don't work in IE have very low IE usage.

    3. Re:some people? by nmg196 · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet my life that less than 2% of sites have only 30% of users using IE. None of mine have IE at less than 50%.. even ones aimed at people in the creative industry where Mac usage is disproportionately large.

    4. Re:some people? by howdotheydothat · · Score: 1

      I'm updating a site right now that has 18% of visitors using IE6. Keep hoping I'm going to wake up and it'll all be a bad dream.

    5. Re:some people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ever wonder why this css crap doesn't get anywhere? because outside of your clueless little circles, no one really wants this stuff.

      stay out of web design - please.

    6. Re:some people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      quit moaning. it is what it is. html is for text & images and that's it. fark orf with the rounded corners already!!!!!

    7. Re:some people? by Xtifr · · Score: 1

      Yeah, even W3Schools, which is aimed at web developers, and thus is notorious for having high non-IE users, still has 33% IE. Of course, their IE6 numbers are down to 7%, still more than Safari and Opera combined, but only half the size of Chrome.

      I could see a strong case for dropping IE6 support, as its numbers are steadily dropping, and it's not supported upstream, and it is disproportionately difficult to support (to put it mildly), but no IE support in general is an idea for hobbyists and the most niche of sites only.

    8. Re:some people? by bunratty · · Score: 1

      In Europe, IE usage is just over 40%. In Russia, IE usage is below 30%. IE usage varies widely from site to site, country to country.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    9. Re:some people? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We're talking about important countries here though, like the United States and Canada.

    10. Re:some people? by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      I'm willing to bet my life that less than 2% of sites have only 30% of users using IE. None of mine have IE at less than 50%.. even ones aimed at people in the creative industry where Mac usage is disproportionately large.

      One of my websites has Firefox 48.18%, IE 29.34%, Chrome 13.11%, Opera 5.47%, Safari 3.28% according to Google Analytics. Firefox was a clear majority before Chrome showed up. It's a gaming site, so it attracts almost exclusively young techy types. W3Schools probably gets lots of visitors from corporate sites with only IE installed, and while your creative types might use Macs a lot more, they're also less likely to change the default browser when they do use Windows.

      I think you're underestimating variability among site audiences here. Most sites are pretty specialized, and audiences can have drastically different browser usage patterns. I think more than 20 of the top thousand sites will have under 30% IE usage share. 2% is extremely small. mozilla.com, apple.com, and thepiratebay.org are three Alexa top 100 websites that are likely candidates. If I'm right on two of those three, or there are some I missed, you're already wrong for the top hundred sites. And variability will go way up as you get to less mainstream sites, so only looking at the top hundred is generous to your hypothesis.

      Still, I agree that at least 90% of reasonably large sites probably see IE at 30% or more. 98% I wouldn't bet on, nor anything for smaller sites.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
  3. Almost never make it a priority in development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Me either. But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.

    1. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by jon42689 · · Score: 1

      Me either. But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.

      I get that... I just hate having to intentionally break things to make it appear to work.

    2. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by Tumbleweed · · Score: 1

      But on those rare occasions when I'm not developing for unicorns, I have to consider the real world.

      I hate developing for unicorns - they always prefer Opera.

    3. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      The unicorns are a cultured race

    4. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.

      In Web developerland, whatever the current standard is, has always been the standard, and thus anything that doesn't conform to it is "broken". This ignores the fact that other standards existed before the current standard, and that the meaning of the standards have even changed (CSS2.1 for instance, redefines a great deal of CSS2).

      Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.

      However, IE6's major failing is simply that it did not evolve. People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined). Mozilla was likewise broken in many such ways, but they evolved and fixed their problems over time. It's like calling a car that requires leaded gasoline "broken" because all you can find is unleaded gas today. It's not broken, it's just out of date.

      Yes, it's frustrating that there is this huge legacy burden on web developers, but please people, stop rewriting history. Stop forming the perception filter that turns you into conspiracy theory spouting retards with no concept of how the web actually was created. (appologies to any real conspiracy theory spouting handi-capable people reading this message, i'm an insensitive clod).

    5. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by DWMorse · · Score: 1

      I got the Looney Tunes joke. Mod parent up.

      --
      There's a spot in User Info for World of Warcraft account names? Really?
    6. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Sorry, that isn't the reality - its revisionist and misleading. At launch, IE6 did not support the standards in place then. Not close to completely, not correctly (even in places where no interpretation was needed), and where they could interpret - they did so poorly (as you acknowledge).

      Since then, plenty of standards have finalized that were in draft, in wide use, and easily adopted by dozens (yes, dozens) of other browsers. IE did not.

      I was there before IE4. Back when Microsoft was actually trying to keep up. They took a decade off, and IE6 was near the beginning of it.

    7. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by bunratty · · Score: 1

      IE6 wasn't very good even right when it came out. At the time, Mozilla was at version 0.9.x and had far better standards support. Remember the issue with alpha transparency in PNGs, for example? Or not handling documents served with Content-Type application/xhtml+xml properly?

      The difference was that Netscape 4 (virtually no CSS support) and Opera 6 (no dynamic reflow) sucked even worse than IE6. Even Mozilla 0.9.x had quite a few problems. Today, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera are all strong browsers, so IE looks even worse in comparison.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    8. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People like to claim IE6 today was intentionally designed to violate standards that didn't even exist when IE6 was created (or were at best ill defined).

      Seeing as Microsoft went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers... I don't think it's really too big of a stretch to believe. It's the "extend, extinguish" part in it's original sense from the e-mail evidence.

    9. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by dangitman · · Score: 1

      Web developers have this really weird reality perception filter. It's almost like 1984 "doublethink". We have always been at war with Flash, CSS 3 is our friend.

      You must hang out with some really unusual web developers. Most web developers I know are almost slavishly devoted to testing on IE6 and not adopting new standards unless they can be tweaked to work in IE6. Most also really like Flash. While some of the more progressive developers are into things like HTML5, they are the minority.

      I think you have a distorted perception. There are vast numbers of people out there doing HTML who have barely progressed beyond Microsoft FrontPage, and struggle with things like CSS.

      --
      ... and then they built the supercollider.
    10. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      Uhh... what?

      What universe do you live in? That never happened. MS originally lost the DOJ case in regards to browser tying, but that had nothing to do with standards compliance. Especially if you consider there was no other standards conformant browser out there (Mozilla had just started development)

      The tying argument was overturned on appeal, though and that had nothing to do with jackson's behavior, the appeals court found no evidence to support the claim.

    11. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1

      IE6 was actually quite good. It actually had better CSS 1.0 support than Mozilla or Opera. CSS 2 was lacking, of course, but CSS2 had only been out for about a year when IE6 began development. CSS2 had so many problems though, that they finally had to give in and create CSS2.1 that's a subset of CSS2 because *nobody* fully implemented CSS2, not even today.

      Yes, IE6 is old and dated and crusty, but in 1999 it was the new hotness in comparison.

    12. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by im_thatoneguy · · Score: 1

      That lawsuit was initiated by Netscape over bundling not standards.

      And if you think IE had 'poor standards compliance' you must have never targeted Netscape.

    13. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 4, Informative

      You can read the internal memos they discovered during the trial yourself, where the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" originates. Claiming they didn't intentionally break compliance, when they say they are planning to do so in their own e-mails requires absurd bias on your part.

    14. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by cavebison · · Score: 1

      Remember, there's a difference between "web developer" and "developer". People getting jobs in web dev houses are often encouraged to make use of flash and work with IE6 because that's where the business clients are for their employers.

      "Developers", however, usually have more say in the direction their projects take. That is, there's a big attitude difference (I find) in developing a "web presence" as opposed to a web application.

    15. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by cavebison · · Score: 2, Informative

      True. I recall being asked to develop a "multimedia product with interactive, animated instructional material that can be centrally updated". IE4 was THE BEST solution and it really was quite the revolution in browsers at the time. IE4 rocked everyone's socks off. After IE6, however, it was clear everyone else was moving in a different direction and IE just didn't seem interested - or maybe thought they could still win. So instead of making life better, as IE4 did, they doggedly made life worse.

      But the W3C is also guilty of being closed-minded and making life difficult for us devs. While saying "don't use tables for layout", they failed to provide alternatives - vertical centering, dynamic % height, ie. stuff that tables did very well. And still no real separation of layout and content. Using

      is layout, not content. Having to nest several DIVs to make something work is layout, not content. So why are tables any different? W3C seems to think the web is only for one thing: mass media distribution. Sorry, no it's not. It's also for writing very specific applications for very specific uses and audiences. We need the tools to do both efficiently.

      Facebook's slowness in addressing simple web-standard accessibility issues didn't slow down its growth. Not saying that's right, just saying not every web site in the world is there for the same reason or needs to adhere to every single standard. If you don't never complain or do anything different from the crowd, nothing ever changes.

      Disclosure: I still think IE's box model made more sense. :)

    16. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by IntlHarvester · · Score: 1

      Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.

      Agree with your overall point, but IE6 does support the W3C box model (except for a number of bugs) with certain DOCTYPEs. You're confusing it with IE5.

      --
      Business. Numbers. Money. People. Computer World.
    17. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 1, Informative

      Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers"

      The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.

      Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect. And the argument was about compatibility with Java, a closed technology (at the time) owned entirely by Sun. It was not a standard.

      The link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.

      I'd say the bias is yours, since nothing you've said about this is, in fact, true. As in, you know, supported by fact.

    18. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      Netscape had great standards compliance. It supported all of Netscape HTML. You could even go to their web site, read the tags that Netscape HTML supported, and download a little 'designed for Netscape Navigator' button if you used it!

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    19. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by bunratty · · Score: 1

      Ah, the famous moving goalposts. Yes, IE6 had good support for CSS, as does IE8 today. But IE's support for many other standards, in both IE6 and IE8, was and is sorely lacking.

      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    20. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      Granted, IE6 is broken, but not in the way most developers seem to think, or want to claim. It had bugs, and when it was designed, the W3C had not clarified how the box model was supposed to work, and IE6's assumptions were were wrong.

      I agree that people drastically underestimate how good a browser IE6 was. It got 95% market share because it was the best browser at the time, period. However, this specific statement of yours is wrong, as far as I know. CSS2 clearly specified the box model and the meaning of the "width" property in 1998. IE6 was released on August 2001, IE5.5 in July 2000, IE5 in March 1999.

      Thus IE6 must have still been in the design phase by the time that the box model was officially clarified, and its team must have decided that this bug wasn't worth delaying the browser release over. I don't begrudge them that decision, because I don't know what reasoning went into it. As I recall a Mozilla developer once saying when denying the blocking flag on a bug, "Release management is the art of deciding who to tick off." Software can't ship with all desired features, or even close to it.

      I think it's fair to say overall that the thing we should be hating Microsoft for is not releasing IE6, but for taking five years to release IE7. If they had released incremental updates every two years after IE6, we would not be in nearly as terrible a situation as we're in today. IE7 is bad but way better than IE6, IE8 is actually tolerable in objective terms, and IE9 is looking to actually be almost competitive in standards support.

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
    21. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF · · Score: 1

      Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers" The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.

      Technically, they were convicted, it was just overturned later. Of course the latter part of the case was a sham.

      Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect.

      What, it's specifically in the memos I linked to. That's where the term comes from. Do you have an earlier citation?

      he link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.

      That's a very, umm, creative interpretation. I'll let the memo stand on it's own. Anyone that wants to read it and believes your interpretation, well, they must be equally... creative. You're a sad sack.

    22. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Technically, they were convicted, it was just overturned later. Of course the latter part of the case was a sham.

      You're the one with "creative interpretations". One cannot be "convicted" in a civil trial. The mere terminology you use is intended to deceptively imply criminal actions. Why not try using, you know, stuff that's actually true, and you know, stuff that's actually reality rather than what you want it to be.

      They were found by judge jackson to engage in browser tying (among other things, none of which had anything to do with your claim) They were *NOT* found to be deliberately breaking browser standards).

      The term "embrace and extend" goes back further, the DOJ simply added the "extinguish" part, or rather one of the witnesses did, and when cross-examined that witness acknowledged that the phrase wasn't in his notes. In fact, there is no evidence the "extinguish" phrase actually existed, other than his testimony.

      But, in any event...

      That's a very, umm, creative interpretation. I'll let the memo stand on it's own. Anyone that wants to read it and believes your interpretation, well, they must be equally... creative. You're a sad sack.

      Sad sack? Who's the one that's making things up to validate his point? That would be you.

      It should be quite easy for you to quote the section of the memo that talks about violating internet standards if it truly says what you claim it does. How about a few sentences? No? Didn't think so.

    23. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by man_of_mr_e · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're forgetting, there's basically a 12 year difference between IE6 and IE8. Most of the standards you are probably thinking of either didn't exist back then, or were very new and not proven or even implemented by the competitors at the time.

      IE8 is part of an ongoing work to modernize the browser to support most of those standards you say are missing. Standards conformance isn't a switch that you turn on, it's a lot of work, and you can't wait to release your product until all standards are supported or no browser would ever be released.

    24. Re:Almost never make it a priority in development by YoshiDan · · Score: 1

      I absolutely agree about ie5/6's box model making more sense. I should be able to set padding on an element without it affecting the overall width. It would make things a whole lot easier.

  4. Re:Pointless. by yoyhed · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This isn't pointless - do you understand what this is? This isn't for people that use IE, it's for people that develop websites for IE. This is a Godsend for me.

    Developing nice-looking websites in Chrome/Firefox/Safari/Opera is easy as PIE (pun intended), but when you want that same site to look good in IE it's a fucking nightmare. This provides some easy ways of making a site look nice in all the major browsers without a huge coding headache.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  5. This is huge progress for Internet Standards by CiarnOS · · Score: 1

    If CSS3 Pie can gain traction among developers this will push the benefits of a unified Code Standard massively.

    A site can be written in CSS3 now and work almost everywhere. If IE9 can get it all right the transition to an open
    playing field for any group creating a browser will make life easier for developers and i hate to say it but users too.

  6. Re:Pointless. by rsk · · Score: 1

    newtown, I think that's probably a fair statement... but the library is intended for developers that have to target a luddite crowd that either cannot change or doesn't know any better.

    Imagine, for example, the requirements BofA.com or Wellsfargo.com has... they probably have to target IE 6 for another 5 years given their user base and that rules out a lot of nice looking CSS... this library addresses that for those devs that have to target crowds that aren't up to date.

    It's pretty damn slick actually... technologically speaking, that it can even *do* this stuff in the first place.

    I didn't even know IE 6 could render text correctly let alone run JavaScript effectively enough to mock this stuff up in it.

  7. Re:Pointless. by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 5, Informative

    If you were intelligent enough to know how to install CSS3 Pie*, you wouldn't even use IE.
    *not exactly "install" per se seeing as it's a library, not an application but you know what I mean. Hopefully.

    You seem to have misunderstood what this is about... The end-user doesn't install anything. The .htc resides on the server and it's the developer who includes the library and makes it work.

    To be fair, however, CSS3 Pie isn't something that you should actually use, considering that it slows down the browser massively and it just adds the ability to display useless visual cruft.

    This library, on the other hand, is several orders of magnitude more useful (and I'm dead serious about it): http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/

  8. i dont want my site to work with ie by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    tehn the morons wont show up as much as they do

    1. Re:i dont want my site to work with ie by zim2411 · · Score: 3, Funny

      tehn the morons wont show up as much as they do

      Oh the irony.

  9. Re:Pointless. by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    I know CSS3 Pie basically only lets you display eye candy, but you have to understand some web developers' clients WANT this shit. They don't understand good minimalist design, they want things to be shiny and flashy.

    That JS library looks pretty awesome. The PNG transparency in IE6 is nice, but it also says it fixes CSS issues - does it just fix bugs in the way IE renders CSS, or does it implement JS equivalents of modern CSS eye candy like CSS3 Pie too? If so, I'd use it.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  10. LET IT DIE by v1 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    the last thing we need is more people coming up with hacks to give PHBs another excuse not to leave the dark ages.

    If anything, we need more of the web dev tools to make pages that are outright guaranteed not to work with IE6-7.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    1. Re:LET IT DIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      let it die? er... if you can't make a website that is compatible with the most popular browsers then you shouldn't be working as a web developer. its that simple. seriously - go do something else.

      no one wants or needs the css crap anyhow, it makes the pages heavy and you guys don't have the foggiest notion of what constitutes decent or attractive design anyhow. just keep it to yourselves.

    2. Re:LET IT DIE by physicsphairy · · Score: 1

      If anything, we need more of the web dev tools to make pages that are outright guaranteed not to work with IE6-7.

      That's a fine philosophy when you're sitting in your armchair, but do you think that people who use websites to generate revenue are really going to say, "Well, the extra profit would sure be nice, but instead we're going to take a moral stand and let the IE6 users slip away to our competitors"?

      The main concern is for your visitors to see what you want them to see, not to propagate software evangelism. Hopefully hacks like this will ease the burden on developers, and end-users can migrate as their old systems die off and because the browsers that don't require hacks manage the rendering much faster. It's a slower victory... but still a victory.

    3. Re:LET IT DIE by v1 · · Score: 1

      That's a fine philosophy when you're sitting in your armchair,

      No, that's "thinking of US instead of thinking of ME". Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

      Please try to start thinking about US instead of ME ME ME.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    4. Re:LET IT DIE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

      To be fair, IE6 runs on other versions of Windows too.

    5. Re:LET IT DIE by zuperduperman · · Score: 1

      Do you and everyone else bitching about IE6 / IE7 understand that this adds a bunch of features even to IE8 that web developers waste a huge amount of time implementing IE-only cruft for? (Eg: border-radius).

      You can spend your years focusing on ideology and waging a war to rid the world of a browser you don't like if you want. I'll be back here in reality making beautiful web sites quickly and efficiently and accomplishing things in my life. For people like me, this kind of solution is a god send.

    6. Re:LET IT DIE by spongman · · Score: 1

      i suggest you start a web design company that states outright that it refuses to design any sites that work on IE6.

      don't worry about getting web design skills first, you won't need them - you won't get any clients...

    7. Re:LET IT DIE by Dhalka226 · · Score: 1

      What's the difference?

      We have to operate in the real world. Maybe we can make a principled stand on our personal blogs or websites or what-have-you, but so long as there is more profit left on the table by ruining the experience of IE6 users than there is extra cost for working around it, the companies and websites that the majority of people care about will still demand support for IE6, and anybody who wants to collect a paycheck in the web development field will do it or they will be replaced by somebody who will. The idea of some sort of massive IE6 strike from developers that nobody can work around is naive.

      Is it selfish? Yes. Humanity is selfish. Capitalism is selfish. Business is certainly selfish. So long as they are the underpinnings of our society that's just a fact of life. Wishing it weren't so doesn't change anything, and swimming against the current is unproductive at best and suicidal at worst.

      IE6 and other bad technologies will die when one of two things happen: That culture changes from the top (asking the people who profit from it to abandon it in favor of something more universally valuable--highly unlikely) or the natural technology update cycles make IE6 such a niche case that the time, money and effort spent accommodating it is no longer worthwhile in the same way that almost nobody cares about IE5.5 anymore.

      I'm certainly not holding my breath for the former. The latter is close to happening, in my estimation. ME ME ME believes in working in the real world, so I'll take that.

    8. Re:LET IT DIE by Simetrical · · Score: 1

      No, that's "thinking of US instead of thinking of ME". Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

      Please try to start thinking about US instead of ME ME ME.

      You can't. Because if you do, then your business fails, your website goes down, and your principled stand no longer has any impact. It's natural selection, survival of the fittest. Businesses aren't self-interested because businessmen are nasty people: it's because if you aren't self-interested, your business fails. Period. Nice guys finish last, like it or not. Businesses can only tenably act against their self-interest if their competitors also do, which requires active coordination, which is impossible with so many websites out there and anyway is vulnerable to renege.

      So, sorry, but grandparent is right. Your philosophy does not work in the real world, and cannot, as long as there's competition. The only way to do it is to ban all competition, like by being the government. And that's not such a great idea for website development, now, is it?

      --
      MediaWiki developer, Total War Center sysadmin
  11. Re:Pointless. by JansenVT · · Score: 1

    Exactly. This is awesome!

  12. Finally!! by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    Totally agree. It's for us developers. I'm going to use just about everything it supports, maybe even later today. My buttons are gonna look SO GOOD.

  13. Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by Zarel · · Score: 4, Informative

    A lot of CSS2 features don't even work correctly in IE6 and IE7: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_layout_engines_(Cascading_Style_Sheets)

    A lot of the really useful selectors, for instance, aren't available in IE6. Not to mention min-width/max-width, and white-space:pre. And using left and right in the same rule makes IE6/IE7 ignore right. In IE6/IE7, there's plenty that goes unimplemented, like :active and :before and outline and display:table; and border-style:dotted; and vertical-align:middle; and background-position:fixed;.

    These aren't obscure features no one uses, these are all features I've wanted to use while designing my webpages that are supported by every other browser that IE6 and IE7 don't support.

    We should really be looking to fix those, first.

    --
    Want a high quality FOSS RTS game? Try Warzone 2100!
    1. Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      The only solution is to flush IE down the toilet, seriously...
      It is either, designing webpages the proper way or doing gruntwork for IE and trying to guess how it behaves, trying to fix flaws by javascript and CSS hacking and hoping for the best.

    2. Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by TheCyberShadow · · Score: 1

      There is already a project for this: ie7-js.

    3. Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by spinkham · · Score: 1

      If you have a way to do this, we're all ears.

      If you had a good way to rid the web of IE6, google among many others would throw money at you to implement it.

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    4. Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Google is already doing it they already stopped support for ie6 for gmail and youtube.

    5. Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by spinkham · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, where IE 6 is still used (mostly large corporations) not having access to gmail and youtube would be considered a benefit, not a drawback..

      --
      Blessed are the pessimists, for they have made backups.
    6. Re:Forget CSS3, work on CSS2 by MemoryDragon · · Score: 1

      Jepp, I am glad that corporations are slowly moving away now, I already know at least 2 big ones which are in the transition phase, and as it seems, IE7 will be mostly skipped which is another pain in the ass browser from the IE team, IE8 while still being buggy is the first version which I would consider bearable.
      (although they have the tendency to implement everything which is not clearly specced out on the dom model differently than the rest of the world, for instance try to use an an apply function on the console object -> ie will throw an error)

  14. CSS by Bing+Tsher+E · · Score: 1

    "CSS has been the bane of every information-loving web user for years."

    Just give us the content! You're not an 'artist' and you're certainly not a 'programmer.'

    1. Re:CSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "CSS has been the bane of every information-loving web user for years."

      Just give us the content! You're not an 'artist' and you're certainly not a 'programmer.'

      Yes, because separating the page layout and style markup from the actual content makes it much harder to just get said content.

    2. Re:CSS by AntiDragon · · Score: 2, Informative

      One of the key points of CSS is the ability to override/disable styles on the client side.

      You want that site in plain text? Turn off CSS altogether. Instead of embedding fonts tags, italics, background images and so on in the HTML, it's all removed to the CSS file. Makes the HTML more useful as raw information. Makes it easier to make seepintg changes to the layout of a whole site (change one shared CSS file and voila!) and allows users to override the sites style and layout anyway they choose.

      CSS makes it easier to get at the raw information and makes it easier to manage the style and layout of entire websites. If IE played nicely with the spec, then I'd be happy as pie.

      --
      "...So I hung back and lurked. For 18 months. Can't beat a good old-fashioned lurking."
    3. Re:CSS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree wholeheartedly with you but... we've been there before. And even if your document language doesn't provide for control over styling on the content-provider side, that doesn't stop them from thinking they know better what design the viewer likes best than said viewer. So they start to muck about with tables to position things, images to separate things, headings-that-aren't to up font-size, em-tags over the entire text because they like cursive better, and so on and so forth. Now we've coaxed them into using cascading style sheets, we can at least turn them off. Then you have to wade through a few pages of menus and other crap to get at the actual content, but hey, there's always Readability, which would probably have been very hard to implement in the days of yore.

    4. Re:CSS by thelexx · · Score: 1

      If I'm following you, it still won't be plain-text information. It will still be html markup, just sans CSS. What you are describing is implemented in a much more robust fashion (imho) using a content repository such as Jackrabbit/Sling or Day CRX/CQ. You can request .html, .txt, .pdf or whatever you choose to support, all rendered from one content node. For what you describe above you could even create a selector like .simple.html. It just seems like overloading CSS to use it to mimic that behavior, and in a rather limited fashion.

      --
      "Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world." - Alan Greenspan, 1999
  15. Re:Pointless. by A+Friendly+Troll · · Score: 1

    That JS library looks pretty awesome. The PNG transparency in IE6 is nice, but it also says it fixes CSS issues - does it just fix bugs in the way IE renders CSS, or does it implement JS equivalents of modern CSS eye candy like CSS3 Pie too? If so, I'd use it.

    Look here:

    http://ie7-js.googlecode.com/svn/test/index.html

    No, it doesn't include the fancy shadows and rounded borders, but you get extremely helpful CSS selectors and even some really basic HTML5 functionality when it comes to IE7/8. The fixes for IE6 are incredible if you are unfortunate enough to be forced to develop for it; this makes things a lot better.

  16. Re:Pointless. by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    It so just happens that people develop for platform X because of reasons Y. In this case, there is one reason: popularity and third-party support / enforcing. So, a logical diagram shows that for one to stop having to develop for platform X, then reason Y has to stop existing. This means that for us to stop developing for IE, it has to stop being supported, used and enforced.

    So, the next question is: How do we do it? One of the possible (and probably *smartest*) answers is: let it die, or don't allow your websites to use it.
    Nevertheless, saying that "This isn't for people that use IE, it's for people that develop websites for I" ends up being redundant and, IMO, silly, as I just logically demonstrated.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  17. Re:Pointless. by Neon+Aardvark · · Score: 1

    "Good minimalist design" and "shiny and flashy" aren't in any way mutually exclusive.

    --
    Azural - instrumentals
  18. This is the best way to get people off of IE6! by iamsure · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Designers win, because they use one design (compliant, too!), for all browsers. Users win, because everyone sees the same design/version/look.

    Best yet, when you pile on a library that fixes CSS3 (this article), and one to fix the CSS box model ( http://webdesign.about.com/od/css/a/aaboxmodelhack.htm ), and then another to fix the png transparency issue ( http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ ), and another to add canvas support ( http://excanvas.sourceforge.net/ ), and another ...

    Then you explain that everyone will see the same design (yay!), and people using older browsers will experience a VERY SLOW page load. That is why they should upgrade to a more up to date browser.

    1. Re:This is the best way to get people off of IE6! by Hurricane78 · · Score: 1

      No it is the absolute worst way. Since it is an enabler. It supports people’s lazy asses and weak spines. The lazy asses of those who prefer complaining to taking about 2 minutes to update their piece of shit browser, and the weak spines of the so-called web developers who prefer to spend 80% of their time working around IE bugs, because they fear they might lose a tiny bit of the dumbest of their users, because they would not want to upgrade. While at the same time those same idiot users update their Flash player about once a month without any complaint. (Why? Because the site does not work without it.)

      I solved it long time ago. By directing IE users (ALL. No matter what version.) to a error page that looks exactly as if it were IE-internal. That page shows the actual facts of the problem. In that it tells the user that the browser is extremely outdated and can’t render modern sites like these. So they should update their browser.

      Then, in Microsoft style, it lists a couple of solutions. Browsers that support current standards. And if that does not help, they can contact Microsoft, and demand to implement those standards in IE. The contact link goes straight to the right e-mail address for these inquiries.

      It’s 100% believable that it’s a MS IE error, and it makes it clear, that not the site, but the user/MS is at fault.

      But I guess it’s easier when you’re not a greedy bastard and therefore don’t count every last retard as your target group.

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
    2. Re:This is the best way to get people off of IE6! by Bungie · · Score: 1

      I really like your idea of laying out the problems with IE6 to the end user and providing solutions for them to upgrade, but your other comments about people being spineless and greedy because they can't do the same makes you look like a fanatical asshole.

      Your job as a developer is to develop code that meets the needs of your users and customers, not to dictate what you like to them and make an ideological stand. If you tell your boss or customers to fuck off because you don't like their browser then they find a developer who will do the job that they are fucking paying him to do. The end user doesn't give a shit about open standards or who follows them, they want to get shit done. Standards are nice but if they aren't laws, and we have to follow supply and demand if we want to feed our family and succeed in the real world.

      Even Microsoft had to do shit like make sure Word could open WordPerfect documents and IE could open web pages built for Netscape. If they had told customers to fuck off because they wanted to do things the way they liked, no one would use their shit and they wouldn't be in the dominant position they are in today.

      --
      The clash of honour calls, to stand when others fall.
  19. Very Cool..... but laggy by mike.rimov · · Score: 2, Informative

    Launched IE-8 on my laptop for the first time in months and pointed it at the site's homepage.

    While it displays fine, you can feel the lag when scrolling/resizing the window. I cannot imagine what it would be like on an older machine running IE-6.

    That said.... the library is unique, inventive, and solves a serious issue with cross-browser compatibility... kudos for thinking outside the box!

  20. Re:Pointless. by Jorl17 · · Score: 1

    Doing the silly thing of answering to myself, I should add that I get what you said (parent misunderstood the library), but I still disagree with it being an atomsend.

    --
    Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  21. Frame by gmuslera · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    Won't be a better solution to use instead Google Chrome Frame? (IF you still have to run IE, at least)

    1. Re:Frame by Shados · · Score: 1

      Cant make your end users install stuff. You can only change the tools you use :)

  22. Google Chrome Frame by tepples · · Score: 1

    95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it.

    First make your clients' shit look good in Google Chrome and IE 8, which is far less broken than 6 or 7. Then set your site to use Chrome Frame, a plug-in that uses Chrome's engine on pages that opt in.

    1. Re:Google Chrome Frame by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      You don't seem to understand - this requires the viewer to install Chrome Frame. As sweet as CF is, the reason these people are running IE6 or IE7 is because they're too ignorant/apathetic/incapable to upgrade their browser. You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    2. Re:Google Chrome Frame by tepples · · Score: 1

      You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?

      For users on Windows XP, put up a video walkthrough of Windows Update in both Flash and Windows Media Player formats. For users on Windows 2000, put up a link to getfirefox.com.

    3. Re:Google Chrome Frame by yoyhed · · Score: 1

      I'm not concerned with babysitting users. I'm concerned with having my sites work on their browser. The most work I do to that end is a warning for IE6 and IE7 that they should upgrade to IE8, Chrome, or Firefox (with links).

      --
      WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
    4. Re:Google Chrome Frame by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fuck Chrome. It is an awkward piece of shit. Just like Linux dickwads. Let's fragment the market yet again with something else and then complain when web developers don't do something they think they should because they can only code for the idiosyncrasies of so many browsers. And if you think that even so called compliant browsers don't have idiosyncrasies you are stupid. Chrome is Google's way of trying to sell people on some pie in the sky cloud/web based operating system and application stack. Something for idiots to get fucked over when their web connection goes down at an inopportune time. Or for their sensitive data to be exploited either by Google or someone who will eventually hack Google.

  23. Accessibility by tepples · · Score: 1

    Testing in Lynx is fairly important if your client is subject to section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act (or foreign counterparts) because a lot of web browsers designed for blind people act like Lynx.

    1. Re:Accessibility by PRMan · · Score: 1

      OK, I always find this funny. Of all the sites I go to, the only ones that don't work in Firefox are government sites.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
  24. No administrative privileges required by tepples · · Score: 1

    Can one install Google Chrome Frame without being a member of the Administrators group? A lot of people who need to visit web sites and cannot use anything but IE 6 or 7 are limited users who do not know the password to any administrative account on the computer. This is the case in the office (where the web sites are those of suppliers or clients), in the break room at work, at school, and at the public library. Because this workaround is CSS and JavaScript, it will work without administrative privileges.

  25. Not New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This isn't new... see also: http://fetchak.com/ie-css3

  26. Users are impatient by westlake · · Score: 1

    Then you explain that everyone will see the same design (yay!), and people using older browsers will experience a VERY SLOW page load. That is why they should upgrade to a more up to date browser.

    Users are impatient.

    Users don't give a damn why your page loads slowly and they won't take the time to hear you out. They will be gone before you can put up your Chrome or Firefox logo.

    The one website that has defeated every browser I've tried is Slashdot. There is no more quirky and unresponsive a front page on the web.

    --

    1. Re:Users are impatient by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Users are impatient.

      Users don't give a damn why your page loads slowly and they won't take the time to hear you out. They will be gone before you can put up your Chrome or Firefox logo.

      The one website that has defeated every browser I've tried is Slashdot. There is no more quirky and unresponsive a front page on the web.

      --

      Based on what you wrote, why are you still on slashdot, then?

  27. Re:Pointless. by yoyhed · · Score: 1

    Well obviously letting IE die is the way to fix the REAL problem. This isn't about the real problem - this is about a really nice bandaid.

    I'm not so idealistic that I'm going to refuse to make sites work in IE and thus put myself starving on the streets - because I don't write sites for myself. I write them for clients who have ignorant customers, who are probably using IE.

    It may not seem like a big deal, but these CSS3 properties can instantly make a site look nicer to a client that doesn't know much about design. These are things they demand anyway. Now it's a lot easier to do them.

    --
    WHO NEEDS SHIFT WHEN YOU HAVE CAPSLOCK/ DAMN1
  28. correction by cavebison · · Score: 1

    argh, /. removed the html.. that was meant to say "using [div style="clear:both"] is layout not content".

  29. 10-4 on the display:table ... by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    ... and vertical-align:middle. The float hacks that people have to use to simulate display:table are truly awful, quite probably the very worst thing about CSS nowadays.

  30. Do HTC files work with JavaScript off? by WebManWalking · · Score: 1

    I suppose that you're no worse off it they don't. Folks who turn JavaScript off are used to pages looking awful.

  31. Re:Pointless. by ctlajoie · · Score: 1

    This library, on the other hand, is several orders of magnitude more useful (and I'm dead serious about it): http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/

    I have tried this library recently (IE9.js specifically). It worked as advertised in many situations. However I also ran into a case where it broke a layout in IE6 that was previously working ok. It's a great library, but not a drop-in solution for all the IE5/6 problems it claims to fix. Like many IE hacks, sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

  32. MOD PARENT UP by cyclomedia · · Score: 1

    For those of us who operate in the real world.

    Are you *really* going to say no when a you can get $0000's (yes that's 4 zeros) from a big company by developing a web app/site for them because they require it to work in IE6/7? There are lots of reason's why this might be the case, not just slow/lazy/non-existent IT department. Some dept's have to audit and justify all software upgrades to some kind of higher tier of management, even "free" ones, some have backwards compatibility issues with their existing internal applications, or require an ActiveX/COM plugin.

    If you don't want to take the job because it seems like too much effort or hard work, then fine, someone else will, and they'll take the money too. But don't get all preachy round here because of your supposed purity, some of us have bills to pay and mouths to feed and a job is a job and if you do the job well and it comes out Shiney on their crappy old IE6 Pentium 2's then they're also likely to recommend you to the next firm. Queue up those digits.

    --
    If you don't risk failure you don't risk success.
  33. Math fail by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    $0000's (yes that's 4 zeros)

    The way you've put it, 4 zeroes are no better than one.

    If you meant, say, $10000 that's still not all that much. Sure for a one-time, one-developer project it might be okay. But that's nothing if you're developing a site for a big company.

  34. Anonymous Coward. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He can do it, but MS can't?