The test only works for Acid hosted on specific websites, not the WWW at large.
This bug was fixed in Beta 2. Like I said, anybody who doesn't believe that it's fixed can download it and run the test for themselves. Apparently you'd rather spread FUD than know the truth.
When it works across the web instead of sniffing URL to change compliance
More FUD. Even Beta 1 didn't sniff the URL. It was a cross-domain security issue that was a bit overzealous. No special-casing, just an oversight that wasn't caught because the canonical URL for the Acid2 test was on the same host as an absolute URL it referenced. Again, this is something you can determine for yourself if you don't believe Microsoft.
then my analogy will become ridiculous.
No, even if you assume all the things you believe are true, your analogy would still be ridiculous. To modify your analogy to be appropriate, the car would have to travel very quickly under normal circumstances, and only slow down when there's a hazard, and you can drop that "where no one can see it" nonsense altogether. Once more - you can download it and try it for yourself if you don't believe any of this.
What ACID tests do is test the error handling of the elements.
Jesus Christ, not this again. I thought I'd reposted this comment enough times to kill this idiotic myth off once and for all, but apparently it's been resurrected. Once more:
Have you actually bothered to read the Acid2 page? Because I hear this repeated all the time, and it's downright misleading.
There is a checklist of about a dozen things the Acid2 page tests. Incorrect code is just one of them. It is necessary to include incorrect code in a test like this. How else are you going to check whether a browser follows the CSS error handling rules?
It's incorrect code, sure, but it's incorrect code that has a defined rendering according to the CSS specifications. It's not something a compliant browser would trip up on. There is a correct way to parse the incorrect code, and the Acid2 page tests to see if a browser parses it correctly - among many other things it tests for.
Where are you guys getting this idea that the Acid2 test is all about error handling? It's a very small part of the test, but plenty of Slashdotters seem convinced that the test revolves around broken code and nothing else. Was there a weekly meeting I missed wher eyou all got this myth drilled into your heads?
My '72 Fiat can do 300 KPM and 0-100 in 3.6 seconds, but only on my private track where no one can see it.
That's a ridiculous analogy. Anybody can download Internet Explorer and run the test themselves. If you don't believe that it passes Acid2, download it yourself and try it out. You don't need to take Microsoft's word for it.
Re:We need to go in the other direction
on
Chrome Vs. IE 8
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I definitely plan to stick to Firefox. First of all, if it ain't broke, why break it?
Then why are you using Firefox? After all, the Mozilla Suite wasn't broken. Is it because there's still room for improvement even though the predecessors aren't broken?
You don't honestly believe that it is impossible for Microsoft to deliver the best browser by the end of the year, do you?
Yes I do think that, and so should anybody else with the remotest grasp of software engineering. You can't just add manpower and expect an improvement in development speed. It doesn't matter what resources Microsoft has at their disposal, they can't dispose of that principle.
Any rendering bug in IE8 exists for one reason only: Microsoft doesn't want IE to adhere to a foreign standard.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Even NASA can't do better than 6 defects/KLOC, and the consequences for failure are a hell of a lot higher for them than they are for Microsoft. One of the few universal truths in software engineering is that bugs happen. Every browser has bugs. They aren't evidence of a conspiracy.
IE6 is chock full of strange positioning and layering bugs. Perhaps that is the reason why nobody realizes that one particular box model bug was fixed in comparison to an even more broken version of IE?
If you are specifically asking for a particular bug to be fixed when it was fixed years ago, that's just being stupid and thinking you are cool for joining in the hate without actually knowing what you are talking about. The existence of other bugs doesn't change that.
There's so much missing from IE6
Yes, there is, but it seems you are rather more keen on ranting about Internet Explorer's shortcomings than actually participating in the discussion. Nothing beyond this point relates to my comment at all, it's just #include <stdierant> .
Going with Webkit is an interesting choice. It seems like there are a lot of minor browsers using it rather than Gecko these days.
Apple chose KHTML as the foundation of WebKit for the size and quality of the codebase compared with Gecko, despite having Gecko experts working on the project. It makes sense that others would choose WebKit for the same reasons.
These days, there isn't much to differentiate between browsers as far as end-users are concerned. A "smart homepage" is a very effective way of capturing a user's interest, providing significant convenience, and making it less likely for them to switch away. Opera have started down this road with their speed dial feature, but Google seem to be taking it a big step further. Google have tried this once before, with iGoogle, but building it into the browser means they can incorporate things like surfing history and bookmarks to determine which websites are most important to a user without needing manual configuration in the same way an online homepage would.
The broken box model problem was where Internet Explorer 5.5 and below included padding in the width of content boxes when it should not. This brought about some of the earliest CSS hacks, for instance Tantek's box model hack, designed to feed Internet Explorer 5.5 and below one width, and other browsers another width.
Internet Explorer 6 introduced doctype switching, where pages using an up-to-date document type got a better rendering, and invalid pages got the Internet Explorer 5.5 rendering with all its associated bugs. Internet Explorer 6, in its better rendering mode, had the box model problem fixed. Unfortunately, there are legions of web developers who don't know what they are doing, and kept writing invalid code that kicked Internet Explorer 6 into its buggy backwards compatibility mode. And then complaining that widths weren't right.
When Microsoft was planning on releasing Internet Explorer 7, 5 years after they fixed the box model problem, they were still swamped by clueless web developers demanding that they fix the box model problem. Somehow it has passed into "common knowledge" that Internet Explorer 6 did not fix this bug. It's not true, you fallen for rumour and hearsay. Load up Internet Explorer 6, feed it a valid, HTML 4.01 Strict document, and test it for yourself. They fixed it in 2001, seven years ago - it's time to stop complaining about that particular bug.
When has Microsoft ever created a true web standards compliant browser?
Tasman had excellent CSS support for its time. In its later incarnations, it had good DOM support and even had support for some parts of CSS 3. Even Internet Explorer 8 won't support web standards as well as Tasman did years ago. For instance, Internet Explorer 8 still won't support DOM 2 Events. Tasman supported that specification five years ago.
They haven't truly improved standards support since IE 5.5
This is a ridiculous thing to say. Internet Explorer 6 was the first Windows version that had doctype switching, which enabled them to ditch the 5.5 engine as "quirks mode" and do things like fix the box model, add real auto margins, etc. Internet Explorer 7 included additional selector support, min/max-* support and fixed positioning. Internet Explorer 8 includes further selectors, the selectors API, CSS tables, generated content, DOM Storage, data URIs, and more.
I'm a web developer. I'll be holding a grudge against Microsoft for years to come. But even I can recognise that there has been actual progress. You don't have to invent reasons to criticise them, their actions are appalling enough without having to resort to making things up.
Anyone who thinks IE standards support has improved from IE7 to IE8 is sadly mistaken
It has improved. The difference between 6 and 7 wasn't too great, basically just bugfixes and additional selectors, but there are significant improvements in Internet Explorer 8, for instance CSS tables. Internet Explorer 8 passes the Acid2 test now, where 6 and 7 were miles off. While it's not a conformance test, it does give a good indication of how far they've come, and it's a result of additional support, not merely "rearranging bugs" as you seem to think (which would actually be far more work than just doing things properly).
Companies with intranets that don't work in a standard web browser can set all their clients to use the broken backwards compatibility mode by default as part of their policy settings.
They all still suck for about the same reasons they sucked three years ago.
Python is a nice language, but it still suffers from the limitations of the CPython implementation. It's slow, and integration with standard C modules is troublesome.
Three years ago, ctypes wasn't part of the standard library. It is now, and it's great, not troublesome at all.
Python has distro packaging problems - the Python maintainers don't coordinate with the maintainers of key modules, like the ones for talking to databases, and as a result Linux distros don't consistently ship with a CPython and a set of modules that play well together.
Can you give an example? The DB-API seems like good coordination to me and easy_install psycopg2 and similar have never let me down.
The website editors decided to reward the customer for publishing the article by paying him an author's royalty in the same amount as was the offered compensation for returning the license.
Meanwhile, Microsoft still got paid for a product that was completely unwanted and unused. This is a great example of the Microsoft Tax in action. Even when their new operating system is a disaster and people refuse to use it, they still get paid, purely on the basis of their market position. This is the kind of reason why Microsoft should be subject to antitrust laws. Normal market forces just don't apply to them.
No, using IE8's compatibility mode means you are testing against IE8's compatibility mode. Sure, in theory it will behave identically to IE7, but testing is not a theoretical exercise, you need to know how IE7 actually behaves.
And this is basically what happens when you make your local expert know-it-all -- a real judge -- with real powers. Common sense goes out the window, and super-conflated thesis-related academic mental masturbation takes over his every case.
Holy shit, I never thought I'd see the day when a Slashdotter complained that a judge knows what he's talking about and that it would be better if he were clueless. All those awful technologically inane rulings that ignorant judges hand down come from "common sense". "Common sense" is a codeword people who don't have a clue use to justify being part of a decision they aren't qualified to make.
What does it say if Adobe only has 1 employee (if that) working on the linux Flash port and he's doing a better job than GNASH and open source development?
Do you think that employee started from scratch? The reason why that "1 employee" is outperforming GNASH is because all he had to do was add Linux support to an existing codebase, while GNASH has to write everything from scratch.
The satirical board game was confiscated along with knives, chisels and bolt cutters, from climate protesters during a series of raids near Kingsnorth power station, in Kent, last week.
Here's the thing: a bunch of people were protesting by chaining themselves to gates and generally impeding operations at a power station. The police came along, hauled them off, and took away the tools they were using. Knives, chisels, bolt cutters, and balaclavas.
It's got nothing to do with balaclavas being illegal, any more than bolt cutters are illegal. It's got nothing at all to do with the game itself. It's the fact that the masks were being used in the process of shutting down a power station.
Did anybody spot that most of the article was dedicated to describing the game and its distribution hopes, as if it were a game review, while the confiscation itself got just a single sentence in the article? This is a fucking advert. The creators, from Cambridge, heard about it, and got their mate at the local paper, in Cambridge to write about it as a favour. This is a local paper, and the event the article is supposed to be talking about happened in Kent, 100 miles away.
Okay, here's the thing: nobody but you ever got spam. We all just thought it would be funny to fool you into thinking there was some kind of worldwide scamming epidemic. You don't seriously think people would be stupid enough to buy pills off strangers who email them out of the blue, do you? I thought we'd gone a bit too far and stretched the limits of credibility when we came up with the idea for the Nigerian scams, but I was wrong, you even fell for that! Nobody is stupid enough to send all their money to a "Nigerian prince".
Anyway, enough's enough. The joke's stale now, so we decided to stop sending it all to you.
Slashdot Mirror
This bug was fixed in Beta 2. Like I said, anybody who doesn't believe that it's fixed can download it and run the test for themselves. Apparently you'd rather spread FUD than know the truth.
More FUD. Even Beta 1 didn't sniff the URL. It was a cross-domain security issue that was a bit overzealous. No special-casing, just an oversight that wasn't caught because the canonical URL for the Acid2 test was on the same host as an absolute URL it referenced. Again, this is something you can determine for yourself if you don't believe Microsoft.
No, even if you assume all the things you believe are true, your analogy would still be ridiculous. To modify your analogy to be appropriate, the car would have to travel very quickly under normal circumstances, and only slow down when there's a hazard, and you can drop that "where no one can see it" nonsense altogether. Once more - you can download it and try it for yourself if you don't believe any of this.
Jesus Christ, not this again. I thought I'd reposted this comment enough times to kill this idiotic myth off once and for all, but apparently it's been resurrected. Once more:
You should know all this already because I've already corrected you on this once.
That's a ridiculous analogy. Anybody can download Internet Explorer and run the test themselves. If you don't believe that it passes Acid2, download it yourself and try it out. You don't need to take Microsoft's word for it.
Then why are you using Firefox? After all, the Mozilla Suite wasn't broken. Is it because there's still room for improvement even though the predecessors aren't broken?
I suspect BBC Worldwide will pay the BBC for a license to sell this content.
Yes I do think that, and so should anybody else with the remotest grasp of software engineering. You can't just add manpower and expect an improvement in development speed. It doesn't matter what resources Microsoft has at their disposal, they can't dispose of that principle.
You have no idea what you are talking about. Even NASA can't do better than 6 defects/KLOC, and the consequences for failure are a hell of a lot higher for them than they are for Microsoft. One of the few universal truths in software engineering is that bugs happen. Every browser has bugs. They aren't evidence of a conspiracy.
If you are specifically asking for a particular bug to be fixed when it was fixed years ago, that's just being stupid and thinking you are cool for joining in the hate without actually knowing what you are talking about. The existence of other bugs doesn't change that.
Yes, there is, but it seems you are rather more keen on ranting about Internet Explorer's shortcomings than actually participating in the discussion. Nothing beyond this point relates to my comment at all, it's just #include <stdierant> .
Apple chose KHTML as the foundation of WebKit for the size and quality of the codebase compared with Gecko, despite having Gecko experts working on the project. It makes sense that others would choose WebKit for the same reasons.
These days, there isn't much to differentiate between browsers as far as end-users are concerned. A "smart homepage" is a very effective way of capturing a user's interest, providing significant convenience, and making it less likely for them to switch away. Opera have started down this road with their speed dial feature, but Google seem to be taking it a big step further. Google have tried this once before, with iGoogle, but building it into the browser means they can incorporate things like surfing history and bookmarks to determine which websites are most important to a user without needing manual configuration in the same way an online homepage would.
The broken box model problem was where Internet Explorer 5.5 and below included padding in the width of content boxes when it should not. This brought about some of the earliest CSS hacks, for instance Tantek's box model hack, designed to feed Internet Explorer 5.5 and below one width, and other browsers another width.
Internet Explorer 6 introduced doctype switching, where pages using an up-to-date document type got a better rendering, and invalid pages got the Internet Explorer 5.5 rendering with all its associated bugs. Internet Explorer 6, in its better rendering mode, had the box model problem fixed. Unfortunately, there are legions of web developers who don't know what they are doing, and kept writing invalid code that kicked Internet Explorer 6 into its buggy backwards compatibility mode. And then complaining that widths weren't right.
When Microsoft was planning on releasing Internet Explorer 7, 5 years after they fixed the box model problem, they were still swamped by clueless web developers demanding that they fix the box model problem. Somehow it has passed into "common knowledge" that Internet Explorer 6 did not fix this bug. It's not true, you fallen for rumour and hearsay. Load up Internet Explorer 6, feed it a valid, HTML 4.01 Strict document, and test it for yourself. They fixed it in 2001, seven years ago - it's time to stop complaining about that particular bug.
Tasman had excellent CSS support for its time. In its later incarnations, it had good DOM support and even had support for some parts of CSS 3. Even Internet Explorer 8 won't support web standards as well as Tasman did years ago. For instance, Internet Explorer 8 still won't support DOM 2 Events. Tasman supported that specification five years ago.
This is a ridiculous thing to say. Internet Explorer 6 was the first Windows version that had doctype switching, which enabled them to ditch the 5.5 engine as "quirks mode" and do things like fix the box model, add real auto margins, etc. Internet Explorer 7 included additional selector support, min/max-* support and fixed positioning. Internet Explorer 8 includes further selectors, the selectors API, CSS tables, generated content, DOM Storage, data URIs, and more.
I'm a web developer. I'll be holding a grudge against Microsoft for years to come. But even I can recognise that there has been actual progress. You don't have to invent reasons to criticise them, their actions are appalling enough without having to resort to making things up.
It has improved. The difference between 6 and 7 wasn't too great, basically just bugfixes and additional selectors, but there are significant improvements in Internet Explorer 8, for instance CSS tables. Internet Explorer 8 passes the Acid2 test now, where 6 and 7 were miles off. While it's not a conformance test, it does give a good indication of how far they've come, and it's a result of additional support, not merely "rearranging bugs" as you seem to think (which would actually be far more work than just doing things properly).
Companies with intranets that don't work in a standard web browser can set all their clients to use the broken backwards compatibility mode by default as part of their policy settings.
Three years ago, ctypes wasn't part of the standard library. It is now, and it's great, not troublesome at all.
Can you give an example? The DB-API seems like good coordination to me and easy_install psycopg2 and similar have never let me down.
Meanwhile, Microsoft still got paid for a product that was completely unwanted and unused. This is a great example of the Microsoft Tax in action. Even when their new operating system is a disaster and people refuse to use it, they still get paid, purely on the basis of their market position. This is the kind of reason why Microsoft should be subject to antitrust laws. Normal market forces just don't apply to them.
Actually, generated content is over a decade old.
No, using IE8's compatibility mode means you are testing against IE8's compatibility mode. Sure, in theory it will behave identically to IE7, but testing is not a theoretical exercise, you need to know how IE7 actually behaves.
Holy shit, I never thought I'd see the day when a Slashdotter complained that a judge knows what he's talking about and that it would be better if he were clueless. All those awful technologically inane rulings that ignorant judges hand down come from "common sense". "Common sense" is a codeword people who don't have a clue use to justify being part of a decision they aren't qualified to make.
You can't use <img src="foo.svg" alt="..."> yet.
Is that a prequel to the excellent mid-1990s documentary film Hackers?
Do you think that employee started from scratch? The reason why that "1 employee" is outperforming GNASH is because all he had to do was add Linux support to an existing codebase, while GNASH has to write everything from scratch.
Here's the thing: a bunch of people were protesting by chaining themselves to gates and generally impeding operations at a power station. The police came along, hauled them off, and took away the tools they were using. Knives, chisels, bolt cutters, and balaclavas.
It's got nothing to do with balaclavas being illegal, any more than bolt cutters are illegal. It's got nothing at all to do with the game itself. It's the fact that the masks were being used in the process of shutting down a power station.
Did anybody spot that most of the article was dedicated to describing the game and its distribution hopes, as if it were a game review, while the confiscation itself got just a single sentence in the article? This is a fucking advert. The creators, from Cambridge, heard about it, and got their mate at the local paper, in Cambridge to write about it as a favour. This is a local paper, and the event the article is supposed to be talking about happened in Kent, 100 miles away.
Okay, here's the thing: nobody but you ever got spam. We all just thought it would be funny to fool you into thinking there was some kind of worldwide scamming epidemic. You don't seriously think people would be stupid enough to buy pills off strangers who email them out of the blue, do you? I thought we'd gone a bit too far and stretched the limits of credibility when we came up with the idea for the Nigerian scams, but I was wrong, you even fell for that! Nobody is stupid enough to send all their money to a "Nigerian prince".
Anyway, enough's enough. The joke's stale now, so we decided to stop sending it all to you.
I prefer this quote: