Site Compatibility and IE8 214
Kelson writes "As the release of Internet Explorer 8 approaches, Microsoft's IE Team has published a list of differences between IE7 and IE8, and how to fix code so that it will work on both. Most of the page focuses on IE8 Standards mode, but it also turns out that IE7 compatibility mode isn't quite the same as IE7 itself."
Great.... (Score:2, Interesting)
Wow now i need to test my site in at least 4 browsers, this is getting fucking ridiculous.
I say forget IE (Score:4, Interesting)
My websites will block IE8, and a message will pop up telling people to go download Firefox, Opera, or Chrome.
I tried IE8, and it is a pitiful joke. I'm not going to work around it, and Microsoft should realize I'm not gonna jump through hoops just to please their idiotic decisions.
*fully extends third finger in direction of Microsoft*
Re:My favorite (Score:5, Interesting)
Acid2 isn't a standard. It also isn't a part of the test suite of W3C. Acid3 isn't a standard. It also isn't part of the test suite of W3C. It's a marketing gimmick of Opera and people lap it up like it is more important than real standards work from the W3C. Plus, Acid3 is more about DOM than CSS, and Acid3 tests for features that have not yet been standardized.
You can push for implementation of standards, but to knock someone's products because they haven't implemented DRAFT standard recommendations is just stupid.
And your claims that Microsoft isn't really implementing the CSS 2.1 standard correctly and that they're just "checking a checkbox" don't actually stand up to the test of reality:
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2009/01/27/microsoft-submits-thousands-more-css-2-1-tests-to-the-w3c.aspx [msdn.com]
Your arguments are a subjective standard, you want to appeal to the W3C for "standards" authority, but then set the bar for judgement to be whatever "people are using" or whatever marketing gimmick "standards" test IE fails and others ALSO fail, just fail less.
Stick to the W3C standard test suites for an actual measure of standards compliance and leave the Acid tests to the fanbois who are out to prove a point. And don't talk about "standards" that are not yet standards.
Re:My favorite (Score:3, Interesting)
Can you explain why that page indicates all green for CSS 2.1 on WebKit based browsers, except for the "static" classifications, yet WebKit claims that their CSS 2.1 support is not yet complete?
Perhaps using the W3C standard test suites would be a better measure than some guy putting green boxes next to features?
If WebKit claims their CSS 2.1 support isn't done yet, I'm going to take their word for it.
Bring back JAVA (Score:5, Interesting)
JAVA: ahead of its time! NOW the things we want to do are what it could have been doing way before Flash could have filled the demand.
Applets were dismissed back when our needs were simple and our computers were slow.
1) Javascript is SLOWER than JAVA! (browser and flash use it)
2) Flash started out as a vector graphics format; now its a Director/HyperCard mess that is moving towards becoming an Applet platform itself. Flash 10 is NOT anywhere near the same as Flash 1. Its not just an animation format.
3) We have battles over JavaScript 2 at ECMA trying to turn JavaScript into a clone of Java and now the browsers are runtime compiling the script-- next will we start seeing pre-compiled javascript bytecode? (Maybe in Flash?)
4) "safe" platform independent access to web cams and audio hardware-- we have people running ARToolkit in FLASH from a webcam in real time! Its not a vector format anymore... its another kind of applet.
5) Java Applets need better integration; they've not progressed since people dismissed them in the 90s. Now its open; we should be trying to integrate it; catch up to where it should have been now if it were not so ahead of its time.
6) Java was designed to take on massive projects; flash and javascript are not. Java Applets should get DOM access so complex web apps can be made without making javascript a rerun of java-- this means tight integration and FASTER startup times. It could be done.
7) New formats can be done using Java without installing client-side plug-ins. Sure, it is not quite as fast and has overhead; these issues can be addressed-- Flash games are not so simple to startup-- its pre-loaded with the browser... and it has built-in loading screens... Java sure beats being unable to access something in Flash 10 when your setup is too old to install Flash 10. JVM is open now; flash is still risky (and crashes my browser more than anything else.)
Re:My favorite (Score:5, Interesting)
Amusingly, I never stated that ACID2 and ACID3 were standards. I stated that supporting these tests are a pragmatic approach to optimizing resources for implementing parts of the standards. (The stated purpose of the ACID tests is to promote implementation of standards with immediate applications.)
The truth is that the fine details of the CSS standards are hard for EVERYONE to support. Including Microsoft. No one except Microsoft claims 100% CSS 2.1, because it would be disingenuous to do so. I've only heard that claim (incorrectly) assigned to Microsoft.
This would be a good argument, except for one problem: Microsoft is implementing DRAFT standards while NOT implementing the RECOMMENDED standards they're based on. Want an example? Look up to the top post. Cross Document messaging is not yet recommended, but Microsoft is bound and determined to mis-implement it.
In any case, your argument betrays a misunderstanding of how web standards work. The current approach being used is that standards will not reach a recommended status until at least two successful implementations of the standard exist. The idea is that this will determine if the spec is actually implementable or not. (One of the primary reasons why CSS 1 & 2 are not fully implemented is because the spec was written without implementations. The spec ended up being extremely difficult to implement correctly.)
Now if Microsoft wanted to be the browser that would only implement recommended standards I would be fine with that. But they're not. They're explicitly picking and choosing, being careful to avoid the standards implemented by everyone else. ESPECIALLY the RECOMMENDED standards that would make IE compatible with other browsers.
What is the point of standards compliance if you're explicitly trying not to be compatible?
And that right there is why their standards compliance is a farce. A sick joke that's all about control for Microsoft. It's just sad that people are buying into Microsoft's friendly veiner, all while Microsoft slides the knife even deeper in their backs.
I hate IE8 (Score:5, Interesting)
We have an online shopping cart system that renders correct in most browsers even going back to MSIE 5. We have a lot of users still browsing the site with IE 6 because of where they work and their lack of ability to install anything else. Still 70%+ of the traffic is MSIE. It renders fine on all platforms with Opera, FireFox, Safari, and Chrome. Even works on most cell phones with a javascript enabled browser including LG phones, Opera Mini, Blackberrys with 4.7 or greater installed, Blackberry storm, android, and of course the iPhone.
But MSIE 8.....the div with the "Add to cart" button doesn't even render. In MSIE 7 compatibility mode, it renders, but it splits the div into two elements on separate sides of the page for no reason that I can find. I am considering redirecting MSIE 8 users to page that says:
"Due to incompatibilities Microsoft creating in MSIE 8, we are unable to support your browser type. Our website will work with previous versions of MSIE or any standards compliant browser such as firefox, opera, safari, or chrome. We recommend you switch to one of these browsers for improved browsing of the internet."
Re:PRESCRIPTION FOR THE SHORTSIGHTED (Score:3, Interesting)
Is this a joke, or are you serious?
Does the web seem like a trivial thing to you? Are you one of those people who says "oh, it's just another thing on the Internet -- no need to take it seriously"?
No. No.
You think that it's okay to pain "a very, very small percentage of the population" with compatibility problems?
Sure.
I guess you wouldn't give a damn about sewer system engineers or transportation system engineers or power grid engineers either, eh?
I'd wager that the web environment already has *orders of magnitude* more standardization than any of those jobs. But let's assume that's not true: you're asking:
"Do you also think that sewer system engineers should have to do more work because of a lack of standards in sewer systems?"
If that additional work is tied in to the success of their business, then hell yes I do. I think you were trying to paint me as a hypocrite there, but I'm not entirely sure.
"Yeah, you're suffering. Big deal, there aren't many of you. Just relax." Fuck that.
I'm not against web standards. You seem to think I'm opposed to them; I'm not, I just don't think they're that big a deal. I'd much rather see Microsoft (or Mozilla or Apple or whoever) add more features for *users* of the browser and fewer for web developers. Web developers are already getting their share, let's make browsers easier for mom and pop for a change.
For example, Word has had splittable scrollbars (allowing you to see two parts of a document at once) for close to 20 years now. There's a standard OS widget for it in Windows and OS X. Why has *no* browser implemented this? I'd find that 100 times more useful than Microsoft making "object.textContent" work.
What, you never had to clean up a friend's IE6-spyware-infested machine?
You're changing subjects. The insecurity of IE6 has nothing to do with its lack of standards support. There's extremely little in the standards relating to security, and IE6 had all those parts nailed anyway.
99% of spyware is installed by people who pressed "Ok" when asked whether to install the software. I agree it's a problem, but it's a human problem and has nothing to do with the quality of IE6 as a product.
(Note: the only time I got a virus from the web was when using IE7. And the virus installed itself using a *Java* exploit.)
Only when their dominance was threatened did they rouse themselves to make any changes.
Ok...?
And now you think "they're making a good try here at fixing the problems"?
Yes, I do.
And you're ready to take what they serve you? You trust these guys? The same purveyors of stagnation?
Yeah. But part of the reason is that I'm not a brainwashed zealot like you are.
BTW "Purveyors of Stagnation" would be an awesome band name.
You are the other half. Ignorant users (and developers) who fail to see the importance of standards and who are either virtual amnesiacs about Microsoft's track record of standards subversion or are just acting like battered wives.
Explain to me the importance of standards. Pretend I'm the average man-on-the-street, and tell me why Firefox's rendering of webpages is better than IE's. Seriously.
(It's hard, isn't it? Standards don't benefit anybody except web developers.)
What happens with standards and the web is pretty damn important.
Please. I'm a *web developer* and I don't think it's "pretty damn important." This is what I do for a living. The difference is that I started my career writing actual software, so I understand this concept that a lot of web developers have issues with, called "QA".
See, whether or not Microsoft or Mozilla or Apple or whoever follows the standards, you *still* have to QA in every browser. People on this thread are griping, gnashing their teeth, because Microsoft makes web developers (a tiny percentage of the population) do a couple more rounds of QA on their product. Get a grip.
Re:Target a standard (Score:5, Interesting)
You're kidding, right? Please tell me you are...
Flash certainly is popular, but I would not describe it as "fast". Its power comes from how easy it is to create flash stuff. Not from having a great backend.
Problems with Flash:
-Huge memory leaks
-Shitty scripting performance
-Mediocre rendering performance of rasterized graphics
-Poorly designed input handling (makes it unsuitable for games - ironically)
Problems with Java:
-Slow start time
-No easy to work with vectorized graphics
-Java is "Java", and thus is bad (because java is bad)
Here's the proof.
Claim 1: Flash rendering performance is very poor.
http://www.newgrounds.com/portal/view/408513 [newgrounds.com]
Most flash game designs do silly stuff like putting a semi-transparent invisible square over the screen to manage fading. Those alpha-shades every rendering operation on the CPU, and precludes all hardware acceleration.
This game has very poor performance on a 2.2ghz Athlon XP w/ 1GB RAM + 7800GS. It uses many final-fantasy-style sprites/graphics, in addition to vectorized graphics for dialog and the interface.
In Java, even in an applet, simple sprite blits like that would run fine on a 300mhz P2. However, character portraits and the interface would have to be rasterized to work in Java.
Verdict: Both have negatives. Flash runs (very) slow, but is fast to create. Java runs fast(er), but is (very) slow to create.
Claim 2: Flash input handling makes it unsuitable for most games.
http://armorgames.com/play/2893/achievement-unlocked [armorgames.com]
http://bugs.adobe.com/jira/browse/FP-542 [adobe.com]
When a flash "movie" tries to run at a high framerate... Flash allows it. And then it fails.
Flash rendering slows down, but input does not. This means that if a game wants 200fps, but the computer can only render 20fps, input can lag up to ~10 seconds because of how the flash input handling works. It buffers input, but doesn't skip any slots in the buffer. You get 200 slots per second at 200fps, but if it takes 10 seconds to clear the buffer, oh well. Once the buffer is clear, it accepts another second of input, then waits for it to clear again.
This makes playing flash games on slower computers (such as netbooks) quite challenging.
It's worth noting that flash also interferes with general IO. While the input buffer is overflowing (the time between the first second of receiving input until the buffer is clear) it garbages your keyboard presses and mouse movement/clicks, and also does something that screws up other IO on your system.
It has been reported that flash messes up monitoring software like SpeedFan, MBM, etc.; it's like it gets caught in an endless loop saturating all IO. I've seen systems reboot because they thought they were overheating, because of a flash movie not playing at 100% speed.
Adobe is ignoring these issues.
Verdict: It falls to the developer to pick a framerate that will run on slower systems.
Claim 3: Flash data handling makes it unsuitable for most games.
http://www.thewayoftheninja.org/n.html [thewayoftheninja.org]
Remarkable game. Unfortunately, your saved games may be cleared upon upgrading your flash player. Also, there's the insane input lag on slower systems.
Frequently I go to a website after upgrading my flash player, and all my old scores are gone. Oh well? I guess that may be a good thing - it also means every flash tracking cookie vanishes at the same time.
Verdict: Flash needs a second kind of storage - persistent storage - which is guaranteed not to be cleared at random intervals, or by upgrading the player.
Claim 4: Flash leaks like a bitch.
http://www.warpfire.com/ [warpfire.com]
http [armorgames.com]
Re:No need for an article (Score:4, Interesting)
Quite honestly, I love the browser. I have always been an Opera user from way back when I ran Win3.1. Opera was the smallest fastest graphical browser at the time and is still one of the best by those metrics. It has also always been ahead of its time in the feature war.
And even though its "browser share" is pretty pathetic, that doesnt count the real business that Opera is in: Browsers for devices, where it is pretty much the indisputed king.