Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by Soulskill on from the bringing-civilization-to-the-savages dept.

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."

24 of 142 comments (clear)

  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 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.

      --
      Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
    2. Re:IE? Seriously? by JansenVT · · Score: 2, Insightful

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

    3. 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.
    4. 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."

    5. 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...
  2. 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 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).

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    2. 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.

    3. 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.

    4. 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.

    5. 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. :)

    6. 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.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
    7. 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.

      --
      If you need web hosting, you could do worse than here
  3. 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.
  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. 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.

  6. 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/

  7. 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.
  8. 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. 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!
  10. 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."
  11. 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.

    --
    GPL'd web-based tradewars themed space game
  12. 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!