Vector Graphics Lead Wish List For Future Browsers 321
Coach Wei writes "Community voting results and a summary report have been published from
OpenAjax Alliance's recent "community wishlist for future browsers" effort. When the voting closed on July 13th, 222 people participated in this open community initiative, with 143 people voted, 55 feature requests being written up, and contribution from many industry leaders. The voting indentified and prioritized 37 features. The top 10 are related to vector graphics, security, performance, layout, rich text editing, Comet, audio and video. Among all the feature requests, 2D Drawing/Vector Graphics is clearly the most desired feature by the community. It received most votes (110 people voted for it), and highest total score (over 10% higher than the second feature request). Looks like that it is time for all browsers, in particular, IE, to seriously consider supporting standards-based vector graphics."
"Community" ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:"Community" ? (Score:5, Informative)
Internet Explorer is the only major browser to NOT implement SVG and Canvas. Which is a major failure on Microsoft's part. One might almost say that they're intentionally trying to prevent the adoption of standards that could replace their proprietary APIs like VML and ActiveX. Almost, anyway. It's not like Microsoft has a history of not implementing the DOM standards or anything.
(*Hint!* That was sarcasm. Microsoft fails miserably at implementing the DOM2 standards.)
Re:"Community" ? (Score:5, Insightful)
There, fixed that for you. The only thing MS is ever first on are the things that can't be implemented in any other browser because MS owns the technology.
Re:"Community" ? (Score:5, Interesting)
Except for AJAX...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XMLHttpRequest#History_and_support [wikipedia.org]
I mean, they didn't come up with the cute name, but they did package the technology first.
Re:"Community" ? (Score:5, Informative)
I mean, they didn't come up with the cute name, but they did package the technology first.
True, but their version is based on ActiveX, while everyone else used XMLHttpRequest. See here: http://www.w3schools.com/Ajax/ajax_browsers.asp [w3schools.com]
Re:"Community" ? (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, because they created it before XMLHttpRequest ever existed as a standard. They took a shot at implementing XMLHttpRequest for IE7 but apparently botched it a bit.
The point is, Microsoft created the technology and then it ended up in other browsers.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There was no standard! In order to implement it at all, they had to do it "in a non-standard way".
When Microsoft were trying to take over the browser market, they didn't just leverage their desktop monopoly, they innovated. Netscape were already doing the same. Often their ideas didn't mesh, which meant headaches for developers, but they also copied each other's ideas. The first browser war made the web the multimedia platform it is today.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's splitting hairs on an irrelevant point.
Who was first? Microsoft.
It doesn't matter if it was done in ActiveX, as a DLL, or as pat of the "kernel".
At the time it actually made sense to do it in ActiveX... it could be disabled if installations wanted to do so.
What made Ajax at the time useless was only Microsoft was supporting it... so some Intranets could take advantage of it, but not the wider web.
Once Mozilla supported it, things got better... except we had to wait for abstraction Javascript librarie
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe the original driver behind the AJAX features was a web-based Outlook mail client.
Little did they know that they had opened the door to all the cool things we have today like Google Mail, Google Docs, Google News, Google Labs Search, Google Notebook, Google Base, MS Live Mesh ... err ;-)
I think we owe MS a huge debt of gratitude for making the web browser-based clients possible, and for most practical purposes, freeing us from monolithic PC-based software.
Re:"Community" ? (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft fails miserably at implementing the DOM2 standards.
Microsoft fails miserably at implementing the HTTP standards! See their treatment of files served as text/plain.
Re:"Community" ? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
and 222 votes? (Score:2)
not to mention that 222 votes is statistically irrelevant. Only a fool would base any business decision on such a woefully small sample size.
Damn graphic artists... (Score:3, Interesting)
...keep your art out of my code (and off my lawn)!
Native JSON should clearly be at the top of this list. I call shenanigans.
Re: (Score:2)
Huh ?!
I could have sworn JSON was adopted as a method of transfering data from server to client instead of XML because JS Object Notation was already something native to browsers.
I only have about 5 years of experience with Javascript, so I could be wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
It hasn't been adopted officially, hence the use of "eval()" to turn it into a JSON object. Otherwise, it's still just a string. :(
I'm gussing "Native JSON" would be able to accept a string from the server, automatically turning it into a JS object.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Damn graphic artists... (Score:4, Informative)
Trust me, that's why it's called JavaScript object "notation" -- it's not actually a JavaScript object. You still have the extra step of converting it out of string form when you get it from the server.
Re:Damn graphic artists... (Score:5, Interesting)
Of course you have to convert it to/from strings, duh, you can't put an abstract concept like an object on a wire and send it across the internet. So we represent the object some other way. A string is a perfectly fine way.
And -- Oh -- it's a string which which contains a JavaScript object literal. Now, what do you call the language subset which defines the string appearance of a Javascript object literal? JavaScript Object Notation seems pretty damned reasonable.
Don't like calling eval() to parse the object literal? Why not? It's an object literal; to turn ANY piece of source code (and that's what it is, source code for an object) you need to run a parser over it. It turns out that eval() is a pretty damned good JavaScript parser.
You could, if you we were so inclined, parse the JavaScript yourself. And, in fact, if you only wanted to support objects -- not the whole JavaScript language -- you might want to only parse a limited subset of JavaScript, which some freaky has guy (who works at Yahoo) has decided to call JSON.
Now, what's the best way to write a limited-function parser in JavaScript, and still have it be really fast?
Use native constructs.
Hmm, but does JavaScript have any native constructs which allow us to easily build parsers which understand small regular grammars? Hint: there's a reason they're called regular expressions.
So, the current common/secure technique is to use a regexp parser to validate the input to eval(), because that's the fastest way (two calls, both into native code).
Now, how the hell can we MAKE these objects? Well, it's pretty easy from JavaScript; the .toSource() method and/or uneval calls work pretty good.
So, we now have a general-purpose way to serialize/deserialize javascript objects into something we can send over a network. If you wanted to, that's enough to start a cult and try to build a career around. You could even describe it really complicatedly (like on http://www.json.org/ [json.org]). Or, you could build a compilcated object/class hierarchy around it, like this guy http://www.devpro.it/JSON/files/JSON-js.html [devpro.it] -- I suppose you could even come up with something as complicated as DCOM or CORBA if you were really bored.
But it's still nothing more than winging JavaScript source code around the internet, and validating it somehow [regexp] if you don't trust its contents.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope, for your users' sake, you don't actually parse JSON that way. If you don't believe me, just wait til a site passes you the JSON string "alert('P0wned!')"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I'm pretty sure that most browsers today (that I'm aware of) still have to convert the JSON objects back and forth into strings to communicate with the server.
we'll vector you right up (Score:5, Funny)
Guys, guys.
We've got it covered. Just close your eyes, bend over, and wait for Silverlight.
Re: (Score:2)
That has inspired me to install a traffic signal over my headboard.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Hopeful in regards to Silverlight? (Score:5, Insightful)
You realize adobe has released an official flash player for Linux right? How did such an ignorant post get modded insightful?
Microsoft is not to be trusted, they have proven this time and time again. Silverlight itself is built on a platform designed to screw everyone in the IT world over.
Microsoft tried to corrupt Java and make it Windows only... and got stopped. So they cloned Java, e.g. .NET, and made it Windows only.
Mono is a few major revisions behind Microsoft's implementation. It doesn't support a large part of Microsoft's software stack. It is basically "Managed Wine."
It's not the kind of thing I'd want to rely on and no one in their right mind should let Silverlight put Microsoft in a position to take over the Internet.
So in short: avoid Silverlight like the plague that it is.
Re:Hopeful in regards to Silverlight? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The Register (specifically, the Open Season webcast) did an interview with some managerial type or another from Adobe, who stated that FP10 will have a same day release for Linux (Though I assume Linux's will come an hour later, just on principle.)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Allowing one man to do the work unpaid begrudgingly is not what I'd call supporting a platform.
They release an officially supported Flash plugin for Linux. Who at Microsoft do I call for Moonlight support on Linux?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Ok, I'll bite (again).
"Adobe repeatedly refused to release an updated Flash plugin for Linux. That is why they skipped a version. They said they were done with Linux support. One guy kept pestering Adobe offering to code it for free, and the eventually let him create an updated Flash plugin. Allowing one man to do the work unpaid begrudgingly is not what I'd call supporting a platform."
That sounds fucking crazy to me. Yes, Adobe skipped a version. However, they did so because that version was a transition to a pretty new codebase. I'm not arguing that proprietary Flash is great... it pretty much sucks. However, Adobe isn't in a position to use Flash to create greater lock in for "Adobe OS" or whatever. So Flash is the lesser of two evils in this case (and I mean actual evils, not just metaphorically).
"You suggest Silverlight is designed to screw everyone."
Silverlight is about screwing everyone but Microsoft. It's prime re
Re:Hopeful in regards to Silverlight? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Hopeful in regards to Silverlight? (Score:5, Funny)
Sweet, where can I get a 62-bit browser?
I already have a two-bit browser, that would be IE7.
/Ducks
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Do you think a major Internet player will push Microsoft's technology, even if it was the best possible in the whole world ?
Nope. That's what automatic update is for.
Vector graphics can't work (Score:5, Funny)
<ducks>
Isn't that called VRML? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
exactly what I was thinking when I read TFA. We've already been here before and the industry decided that it didn't want vector rendering of the web.
Re: (Score:2)
That was when vector artists had artistic abilities of a rubber stamp.
Alot has changed since then.
Re:Isn't that called VRML? -- No (Score:2)
yea. ajax. it has given us so much (Score:4, Insightful)
that alliance should try to make ajax actually something of use to the internet, rather than trying to shape future browsers to their preference by staging limited scope polls and then pushing it as browser community's preferences.
or, we can just kill all buzzword crowd and get it over with.
"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
That's what the Super Back Button is for.
This could be the start of the back button arms race...
Re: (Score:2)
On a more serious note, wouldn't it be nice to be able to attach a confirm box to the back button, which allows the user to still go back if they desire, yet lets them know that they may lose the data within the ajax app?
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
<sarcasm>Well, you see... our new, half-assed, pieced-together technology will only properly work if we force users to use it the way we want. Remember: it's OUR content, so we get to determine how the USERS use it!</sarcasm>
<serious>UseIt.com [useit.com].</serious>
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Overriding the back button would lead to evil behavior on some websites. I think what would be better is to have a way to register "the page has advanced" events with the browser when dynamic content is loaded. In other words, the back/forward buttons could be tied to application states that aren't necessarily a result of a complete page load. This would be like the YUI Browser History Manager [yahoo.com], but with a simpler set up and no libraries to include.
The only problem is that sites could load up the application
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
And nothing "traps" you in a page; just close the tab.
That kills the browsing history of that tab. Thank you very much for trapping me on that page.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if you're using a decently made web app it's going to have opened in its own personal tab/window anyway. No history concerns that way.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, if you're using a decently made web app it's going to have opened in its own personal tab/window anyway. No history concerns that way.
If a web-app is well made, all is well. But this is going to be abused by those too lazy to make a good webapp. Anyway, if a webapp opens in a new window, will it ever have a history to go "back" to? Will the back-button even be enabled in that case?
Re: (Score:2)
Anyway, if a webapp opens in a new window, will it ever have a history to go "back" to? Will the back-button even be enabled in that case?
You make a good point (using a new window is how I do things). I guess I was just playing Devil's Advocate -- to be honest, I wouldn't even need this feature. :P
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Do you like all system applications to open in the same window, too?
What if you need to get information from another web page to use in the application page?
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
There's actually a feature in the TabMixPlus extension for Firefox that allows you to force this behavior. Try it out!
Re: (Score:2)
No, if it's decently made then it will open in the my browser window, or a new tab if I chose. Gmail and google maps are both decently made I think and they don't refuse to open in the current tab. They don't disable my back button either.
Re: (Score:2)
Aye, but isn't there the possibility of data loss if you go back in the history?
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
As an end user and a project manager, I'd have to ask you why your code doesn't allow such a possibility. Not that I don't understand the added effort and difficulties (okay, technically, I don't; I don't program for the web), and it would suck to have to make it all work properly, but that's kinda your job.
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is the back button causes a very very very large break in the sanity of web applications. You can kiss a consistent state goodbye.
I know I'm contradicting my sig, but I want to explain why you are wrong.
Session state is maintained on the server, not the client.
If you trust the client to provide you valid data about the state of the application, you are very stupid. This is how people get owned.
As such, you should remember what the user was doing, and if they open the application again, return them to where they were.
Disabling the back button is wrong. If your application cannot handle me leaving it any any time gracefully, it is a piece of shit. And if you absolutely must have control of my system, well, that's why we have xulrunner. In fact, I would go so far as to say that the web is probably not even the best way to deliver an application of that nature, but you could argue that one back and forth all day - my main argument is that users expect web pages to behave in a certain way.
The real issue here is that a webpage is not a standalone application, and you run into problems like these when you try to make it one. Webpages are forms, like screens on mainframes, and are request-oriented. Your web applications should be the same.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Do a lot of web development? This is one feature I would love -- users can completely destroy how a web app works just by clicking on the back button and asking "where'd all my data go?"
They sure can. This might put the onus on you as the web developer to build a smarter app. Or to not build that particular as a web browser app at all. You've got options, and it's not like the back button is a new feature that's surprised you and thrown off your assumptions.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, there's very little you can do in the situation about an application's intelligence -- the web browser is basically your development environment for web apps (and one that wasn't originally intended to be such), and things like the back button are (almost) unavoidable frustrations.
And do you honestly think I'm choosing the web as a platform? It's what I'm told to do, so I do it. :P
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Hey, that's a bit harsh, don't you think? I develop for the web. Just because I don't use every trick of the trade, you shouldn't try to call me names (lawyer).
Should I not call you a "car driver" because you can't do the Nurburgring in 8 minutes? No, because that would be silly.
(Or, like has been said elsewhere, just open a web app in a new window/tab. Problem solved.)
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:4, Insightful)
On one hand, you have a point. On the other hand, anyone who would hire you to write an AJAX application when you can't do this is not competent to hire you (typical, though.) This is more like not calling you a car driver because you don't know how to parallel park.
P.S. If you open a new window, and I don't need to use your site, I will close the window and never return. I prefer to avoid incompetents who think they should control what my browser does. Thank you.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I do web development work. I'm not completely talking out my ass here. You do have some options.
Re: (Score:2)
Seems like instead of a trap there needs to be a mechanism to override the back action and deal with it as appropriate. Or is that what was originally meant by "trap"?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
There kinda is -- you hook into the "onunload" event on a web page, prompting the user with a dialog. It's how web apps like Meebo.com handle this problem.
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:5, Interesting)
Would seem to me that both camps can be made happy by allowing the developers to indicate that "THIS" page should not be added to the browser history.
So, if the user goes to the home page, then goes to a "view product" page, then goes through a purchasing process, you could suppress the pages involved in the purchasing process from being added to the history. If the user hits the back button half way through making a purchase, it would take them back to the "view product" page. If they then hit "forward", it would do nothing, because the "view product" page is the most recent entry.
Re: (Score:2)
You mean one of the fundamental features of every web browser ever created breaks your web app? Maybe that's a hint...
If anything like that ever gets added to Konqueror or Firefox I'll release a patch disabling the "feature" just out of basic principle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:"Override Back Button Event"??? (Score:4, Informative)
The back button works fine, and without data loss potential, if you follow a simple recipe:
* Never return a page from a POST; redirect to a GET instead (after processing the POST).
* Never modify business data from a GET.
* Never allow pages containing dynamic data to be cached.
Follow those rules, and every page in your app will be safely bookmarkable and play nicely with the back button.
222 random people on the Internet (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
As one of the people who voted on it, I can tell you that I considered the vote well-advertised inside of the ajax development community. Many of the voters are the people building the javascript libraries that are powering "web 2.0" (hate that term, but it applies here).
You know, in case it comes up, am I the only one.. (Score:4, Insightful)
...who doesn't want cross-domain access? I'm perfectly fine with making server side code to parse whatever I need and then feed it to the browser via the local domain.
Am I missing something? Something about making a browser more independent of the server or something?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That cross-domain security doesn't really solve a damned thing?
Remember the "Samy is my hero" MySpace virus [wikipedia.org]? OK, the Wikipedia article calls it a "cross-site scripting vulnerability" but it wasn't, exactly. It was in the sense that MySpace was allowing JavaScript from user-supplied text to be sent to the client. But once inserted into his profile, it no longer crossed domains. It used AJAX to act with the user's credentials on the same domain.
Cross-domain security didn't do anything to protect against that
Heh (Score:2)
Sliding Panes (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd love Firefox to let me set not just exclusive tabs each with their own page, but also to let me slide around a dividing border between two panels, each with its own page in it. Side by side, or top/bottom, or a grid of X x Y. Let me look at two (or more) pages at once, scrolling each independently inside its pane. Comparing. copy/pasting. Like Excel and OO.o spreadsheets can allocate ranges of cells to separate window "portals" onto the sheet below.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Like Split Browser [sakura.ne.jp]?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What's the easy way for me to tile multiple open Firefox windows on Ubuntu?
But that's not quite enough. I don't want to have a whole GUI frame, including redundant navigation controls, for each page's pane (just one, that controls the active pane, like with tabs). And I don't want to have to rebuild the tiling, and de/retile my desktop's current mode when I switch among Firefox and other apps (like Evolution, OO.o, etc). Plus I would like the DOM to allow Javascript to access across independent pane boundar
SVG animation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:SVG animation (Score:4, Interesting)
Rich Text Editing? (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't we already have that? Yes, yes we do, it's called TinyMCE [moxiecode.com] and it is licensed under the LGPL and can be included on your form with just a couple of lines in your HTML code.
Oh wait, you want native rich text editing? Yeah, like you are really going to get a consistent experience across different browsers...
You know what I want from my web browser? I want it not to freeze when loading large (and/or lots of) images, and I want secure JavaScript, including killing off all JavaScript easily (none of this take over the browser with 50.000 alerts crap). Yeah, I know Opera has that last one, but I want a [i]free[/i] browser as well.
Anything else? Security sounds nice. I personally don't have much of a use for vector graphics as a developer, but I can see how they would be useful for everyone else.
Ummm... Maybe I'm just not very imaginative, but I tend to find that stability and security top my list of what I want nearly every time.
(Though I have to admit, the new address bar in Firefox 3 is nicer then the Firefox 2 bar.)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't we already have that? Yes, yes we do, it's called TinyMCE [moxiecode.com] and it is licensed under the LGPL and can be included on your form with just a couple of lines in your HTML code.
With rich text editing they mean a foundation sufficient to build a light-weight word clone in. The current browser support for rich text is so poor that it's not possible to use it without some whizkid's library, and even with the library it's really poor, barely up to the level of wordpad in capability.
Ummm... Maybe
Personal Info Insertion (Score:4, Interesting)
I'd like HTML forms to include a tag that uniquely identifies the site publishing the form, and the form itself. Probably a hash of the form's field names, signed by the site with its SSL certificate. Then I could click an option on the form to repopulate it with the last data I already inserted into that same form the last time I filled it (or any previous time, in a history). Storing that data on my local terminal, rather than leave it stored at the remote site.
And I'd like for the full range of common personal info fields to have standard names, so I could click to fill out the neverending series of personal info forms the Web challenges me with all day, every day. Click to refill the form with the same info as last time I visited it. Or one dataset from a list of named profiles stored on my local machine. So I don't have to remember what personal info I disclosed to this or that site, or scrounge for it from the other places I keep that info stored personally.
If the system let my browser point at a "personal info server", I could click to populate these personal info forms using anyone's terminal, not just my own, though I'd have to trust the terminal not to exploit the personal data exposed while using its browser as a transfer point. Maybe these personal info forms could also take a URL that points directly at my personal info server, and let the challenging server direct its request to my personal info server, which lets the challenging server login (as prearranged) and get the data specified as available to it.
That infrastructure would take some work. But it would save me a lot of trouble every day. And therefore save a lot of trouble for millions of others in the same boat. While lowering the transaction barriers, without sacrificing security. And indeed increasing security, by minimizing the personal data stored outside my control, at numerous (and forgettable) unaccountable remote servers.
I'd just like /. to work (Score:3, Funny)
SVG animation in Inkscape. (Score:4, Interesting)
Funny, just now I was checking the Roadmap for Inkscape [inkscape.org]. SVG animation is planned for the next-next release (0.48, it's 0.46 now, 0.47 will be basically some internal re-factoring).
Unfortunately, multi-page support, which was the feature I was looking for, is planned for 0.49 (or 0.50?).
The ONLY thing that is needed is... (Score:5, Interesting)
The ONLY thing that has to be added, and needs to be added about ten years ago, is a date input field in forms.
One that is locale-aware (DD-MM-YYYY, MM-DD-YYYY, or whatever you're locale used). Currently you have to jump through several hoops and it is near impossible to get a foolproof date input.
'Bout time (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh sure, NOW people understand we need vector graphics.
I saw NeWS demo'd by sun in 84. I used native postscript extensively in 88+.
Then I watched html make a mess out of nearly everything to do with the network (html email? huh?).
Bout friggin time poeple woke up.
it's WHAT time? (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like that it is time for all browsers, in particular, IE, to seriously consider supporting standards-based vector graphics.
Right. How could Microsoft, a company with 90,000 employees and a market cap of over $250 Billion, possibly fail to respond to the desires of a hundred customers who spent a grand total of $0.00 on Internet Explorer?
2D drawing and vector graphics? (Score:3, Insightful)
So basically, Canvas and SVG? Both supported by Opera, Safari and Firefox (AFAIK). In fact, Opera currently has the best SVG implementation, period. Best Canvas support, I'm not sure, but since Apple invented it I guess that could be Safari.
Because too many end users still use IE (Score:4, Insightful)
I tought SVG is already implemented in most modern browsers...
Not when you weigh each browser by its usage share on home and business workstations. As long as Windows Internet Explorer doesn't implement SVG, and as long as Windows Internet Explorer has more than 50 percent usage share, "most modern browsers" don't implement SVG.
Re: (Score:2)
You mistake IE for a modern browser. Be mindful of the fact that the only reason why you're still not using a seven year old release of IE6 is because Firefox lit a fire under their ass.
Re: (Score:2)
Semantics is a fun game, but being realistic, if you don't consider the market leader to be a "modern browser" then the concept is pretty useless, because pretty much anyone writing a modern web site is likely to want to cater for IE users -- however much you might wish they'd upgrade to a better product like Firefox, Opera, or Safari.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, I'll agree it's a bit of semantic fun to make fun of IE, but it's up to us to try and influence users to start using decent web tools (no, IE is not decent). It's not like web application designers are advocating the use of something superfluous (like Gnome over KDE or something) -- IE is a very, very poorly made browser (though, it's getting better, slowly).
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd say that making "modern" become a synonym of "widely deployed" is what makes the concept useless. If you want to write a modern website, it's ok to exclude MSIE. If you want to make a popular website, then perhaps it doesn't. But why can't we say "modern" when we mean modern and say "widel
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, they have IE8 coming up which borrows features from Flock in the way that IE7 borrowed all their features from Firefox. IE8's compliance mode often renders "compliant" code worse than IE7, and it is boat loads slower. Oh, and still no SVG/Canvas support. But IE8 will be the newest, most-modern browser on the market!
It's called preinstalled IE (Score:2)
I've messed around with it a bit, some really neat stuff can be made with SVG.
Right. But other than Apple, which major home and business PC maker installs a web browser that implements SVG on new PCs that it builds? As far as I can tell, most PC makers install IE 7 as the suggested (or only!) web browser without an SVG plug-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Dell? At least they probably do on their Ubuntu pre-installs (Firefox).