Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Internet Explorer Microsoft

Adding CSS3 Support To IE 6, 7 and 8 With CSS3 Pie 142

Posted by Soulskill
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

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

Comments Filter:
  • IE? Seriously? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by jon42689 (1098973) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @01:52PM (#32937836) Homepage
    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?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:00PM (#32937870)

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

  • Re:some people? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bunratty (545641) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:00PM (#32937876)
    It depends on the site. Some sites have 95% of users using IE. Others have 30% of users using IE.
  • Re:Pointless. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by yoyhed (651244) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:05PM (#32937902)
    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.
  • Re:some people? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Your.Master (1088569) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:05PM (#32937904)

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

  • LET IT DIE (Score:4, Insightful)

    by v1 (525388) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:23PM (#32937996) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • Re:IE? Seriously? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by JansenVT (1235638) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:26PM (#32938024)
    Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.
  • Re:IE? Seriously? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SashaMan (263632) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @02:51PM (#32938162)

    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."

  • by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @03:53PM (#32938490)

    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).

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 17, 2010 @04:35PM (#32938744)

    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.

  • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @05:33PM (#32939136)

    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.

  • Re:IE? Seriously? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MyDixieWrecked (548719) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @06:26PM (#32939462) Homepage Journal

    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.

  • by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Sunday July 18, 2010 @04:45PM (#32944964)

    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.

  • by man_of_mr_e (217855) on Sunday July 18, 2010 @04:49PM (#32944980)

    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.

Top Ten Things Overheard At The ANSI C Draft Committee Meetings: (8) I'm on the committee and I *still* don't know what the hell #pragma is for.

Working...