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This discussion has been archived.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.

      • by jon42689 (1098973)

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

        I get that... I just hate having to intentionally break things to make it appear to work.

        • 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.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by cavebison (1107959)

              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

          • by bunratty (545641)

            IE6 wasn't very good even right when it came out. At the time, Mozilla was at version 0.9.x and had far better standards support. Remember the issue with alpha transparency in PNGs, for example? Or not handling documents served with Content-Type application/xhtml+xml properly?

            The difference was that Netscape 4 (virtually no CSS support) and Opera 6 (no dynamic reflow) sucked even worse than IE6. Even Mozilla 0.9.x had quite a few problems. Today, Firefox, Chrome, Safari and Opera are all strong browsers, so

            • IE6 was actually quite good. It actually had better CSS 1.0 support than Mozilla or Opera. CSS 2 was lacking, of course, but CSS2 had only been out for about a year when IE6 began development. CSS2 had so many problems though, that they finally had to give in and create CSS2.1 that's a subset of CSS2 because *nobody* fully implemented CSS2, not even today.

              Yes, IE6 is old and dated and crusty, but in 1999 it was the new hotness in comparison.

              • by bunratty (545641)
                Ah, the famous moving goalposts. Yes, IE6 had good support for CSS, as does IE8 today. But IE's support for many other standards, in both IE6 and IE8, was and is sorely lacking.
                • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

                  by man_of_mr_e (217855)

                  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

          • 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.

            • Uhh... what?

              What universe do you live in? That never happened. MS originally lost the DOJ case in regards to browser tying, but that had nothing to do with standards compliance. Especially if you consider there was no other standards conformant browser out there (Mozilla had just started development)

              The tying argument was overturned on appeal, though and that had nothing to do with jackson's behavior, the appeals court found no evidence to support the claim.

              • by 99BottlesOfBeerInMyF (813746) on Sunday July 18, 2010 @12:55AM (#32941018)

                You can read the internal memos [justice.gov] 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.

                • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

                  by man_of_mr_e (217855)

                  Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers"

                  The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.

                  Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect. And the argument

                  • Nice goalpost move. Why not stick to what you originally said, that they "went to court and lost over intentionally plotting to break compatibility with both published standards and other browsers" The fact is, that's not true. The court of appeals specifically said that the justice department did not prove their case regarding browser tying, much less what you are claiming.

                    Technically, they were convicted, it was just overturned later. Of course the latter part of the case was a sham.

                    Further, the phrase "embrace, extend, extinguish" goes back much further than this case, so you are again incorrect.

                    What, it's specifically in the memos I linked to. That's where the term comes from. Do you have an earlier citation?

                    he link you reference does not support your claim, and in fact the only reference to "standards" in there is that Microsoft wanted to influence and control them, not deliberately violate them.

                    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.

                    • 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.

            • That lawsuit was initiated by Netscape over bundling not standards.

              And if you think IE had 'poor standards compliance' you must have never targeted Netscape.

              • Netscape had great standards compliance. It supported all of Netscape HTML. You could even go to their web site, read the tags that Netscape HTML supported, and download a little 'designed for Netscape Navigator' button if you used it!
          • by dangitman (862676)

            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.

            You must hang out with some really unusual web developers. Most web developers I know are almost slavishly devoted to testing on IE6 and not adopting new standards unless they can be tweaked to work in IE6. Most also really like Flash. While some of the more progressive developers are into things like HTML5, they are the minority.

            I think you have a distorted perception. There are vast numbers of people out there doing HTML who have barely progressed beyond Microsoft FrontPage, and struggle with things like

          • 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.

            Agree with your overall point, but IE6 does support the W3C box model (except for a number of bugs) with certain DOCTYPEs. You're confusing it with IE5.

          • 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.

            I agree that people drastically underestimate how good a browser IE6 was. It got 95% market share because it was the best browser at the time, period. However, this specific statement of yours is wrong, as far as I know. CSS2 clearly specified the box model [w3.org] and the meaning of the "width" property in 1998. IE6 was released on August 2001, IE5.5 in July 2000, IE5 in March 1999.

            Thus IE6 must have still been in the design phase by the time that the box model was officially clarified, and its team must hav

      • by Tumbleweed (3706) *

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

        I hate developing for unicorns - they always prefer Opera.

    • Unfortunately that can't always be your answer, especially when your site is an enterprise application, and the bread and butter of your system. As much as we would like to shun users of old or crummy software, sometimes, they're the ones keeping the lights on. Any help with allowing us to support them is help worth taking advantage of, in my opinion.
    • "are the wheel nuts tight?"

      "tight as a nun's cunt."

      "you'd better give them another turn then."

      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?

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mad Merlin (837387)

        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.

        • by Xtifr (1323)

          But plenty of other browsers are supported on those systems. I don't know of any system that's forced to use IE6 for technical reasons. Usually, it's political (i.e. management doesn't want to replace in-house apps that are IE6-only). I think IE6 can definitely be considered on-the-bubble on the open Internet. The cost of supporting it is steadily increasing and the potential benefits shrinking.

          • But plenty of other browsers are supported on those systems.

            Which ones and how old are they?

            Of their Windows versions:
            Firefox 3.6.6 requires [mozilla.com] Windows 2000 or newer.
            Chrome (all versions) requires [google.com] Windows XP or newer.
            Opera 10.60 requires [opera.com] Windows XP or newer.
            Safari 5 requires [apple.com] Windows XP SP2 or newer.

        • In fact you need XP SP2 or higher to install IE7.

          IE6 was actually a great browser when it came out - the best browser in existence, hands down (its main competition was Netscape 4), and became something like 90% of the total browsers in use. But that was nearly 10 years ago... Nobody should be using it today, yet it's still 5-15% of the browsers in use.

          The situation isn't IE6's fault, but it is Microsoft's fault for not making IE7 backward compatible with Win2K and early XP at the least. Actually, nobody sh

    • by yoyhed (651244)
      I want to do web development for whoever pays you to do it. Not having to code for IE would be heaven, but 95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it. This is the terrible world we live in.
      • 95% of my clients want their shit to work well in IE because, unfortunately, most people still use it.

        First make your clients' shit look good in Google Chrome and IE 8, which is far less broken than 6 or 7. Then set your site to use Chrome Frame, a plug-in that uses Chrome's engine on pages that opt in.

        • by yoyhed (651244)
          You don't seem to understand - this requires the viewer to install Chrome Frame. As sweet as CF is, the reason these people are running IE6 or IE7 is because they're too ignorant/apathetic/incapable to upgrade their browser. You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?
          • by tepples (727027)

            You really think they'll install a plugin if even Windows Update's prompts for IE8 haven't gotten through yet?

            For users on Windows XP, put up a video walkthrough of Windows Update in both Flash and Windows Media Player formats. For users on Windows 2000, put up a link to getfirefox.com.

            • by yoyhed (651244)
              I'm not concerned with babysitting users. I'm concerned with having my sites work on their browser. The most work I do to that end is a warning for IE6 and IE7 that they should upgrade to IE8, Chrome, or Firefox (with links).
          • For those of us who operate in the real world.

            Are you *really* going to say no when a you can get $0000's (yes that's 4 zeros) from a big company by developing a web app/site for them because they require it to work in IE6/7? There are lots of reason's why this might be the case, not just slow/lazy/non-existent IT department. Some dept's have to audit and justify all software upgrades to some kind of higher tier of management, even "free" ones, some have backwards compatibility issues with their existing in

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by JansenVT (1235638)
      Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.
      • Because it's our job to make the website look nice for everyone.

        No it's not, because that would involve supporting every single browser, however old and however non-compliant.

        You draw the line somewhere (or the client does). If that line is the wrong side of IE6 you have my pity. Mine is elsewhere (not involving any version of IE whatsoever).

      • by Xtifr (1323)

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

        Really? And just how much effort do you put into testing with Mozaic and Lynx? :)

        The fact is that there's almost always a point of diminishing returns. IE5 and Netscape4 are both past it, and IE6 is rapidly approaching it.

        • Testing in Lynx is fairly important if your client is subject to section 508 of the US Rehabilitation Act (or foreign counterparts) because a lot of web browsers designed for blind people act like Lynx.
          • by PRMan (959735)
            OK, I always find this funny. Of all the sites I go to, the only ones that don't work in Firefox are government sites.
    • by Luckyo (1726890)

      Question would be "why". Being essentially an add-on, this really won't solve anything for those that IE as a browser is designed for - the average mom and pop crowd that won't even know what CSS stands for.

      This sounds like a technical solution to a social problem of people generally not understanding the tools they're using and not caring about them.

      • by XanC (644172)

        Why wouldn't it? It doesn't require them to actually do anything. This is for developers.

        • by Luckyo (1726890)

          Well, it still won't work on IE installation without it, so you would probably want to test it on IE without the library rather then with it.

          And for proper testing, there are much better alternatives then IE. IMHO.

          • by XanC (644172)

            What are you talking about? This is a library that you include as part of your page when serving it to IE. End-users don't need to install anything.

      • by yoyhed (651244)
        This is a method for developers to get sites to look nice in IE easily, this has nothing to do with end users. Coding for all the good browsers -and- IE usually just means a terrible headache where you spend 2/3 of your time fixing shit that won't work in IE. This seeks to eliminate that nightmare situation, as far as the making-websites-pretty side of development goes.
    • by nmg196 (184961)

      > I realize that there are some people out there using IE,

      What do you mean "some" - the majority of people use IE. It has by far the biggest market share. I'm sure you realise that. And you're talking about IE like all versions are the same. IE 8 renders almost identically to Firefox/Chrome etc. It's only IE6 and 7 which were the problem.

      If you're not making it a priority in development, then I hope your business fails because you obviously don't care about the majority of your customers.

    • Although I still feel that way, I've been forced on several occasions to make things look and function in IE (8 or newer only, luckily). One customer hounded us to get their site working in 6, and after we spent a week building a system to detect the browser and output different HTML and were only 1/2 done, they changed their minds.

      It's sometimes difficult for non-technical customers to understand that each version of IE is a different beast and requires you do do much of the front-end work over again for e

      • by narcc (412956)

        a good chunk of windows users on the public internet have not installed an alternate browser. I just don't get it.

        That's easy. The majority of internet users are completely computer illiterate. They don't know what a browser is, don't distinguish the terms 'the internet' and 'the web', don't know what a web address is, they don't even know what files are (even the ones that "do a lot of pictures").

        The vast majority of internet users will say things like 'I have yahoo as my internet' -- and be completely confident in that answer!

        If you think I'm only talking about the over-50 crowd, kids aren't any better. I had a kid

        • Re: (Score:3, 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 consume

    • 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 nmg196 (184961)

      Any chance of posting your company name, so I know who to avoid when I want my website to render properly for the vast majority of my users?

    • by westlake (615356)

      Honestly, while I realize that there are some people out there using IE, I almost never make it a priority in development.

      I would be interested in knowing who your clients are.

      IE's global market share is 60%. IE 8's share alone is 25%. Browser Version Market Share [hitslink.com]

      The mobile platforms remain quite insignificant in terms of web browsing. Operating System Market Share [hitslink.com]

    • by outZider (165286)

      How to find a bad developer 101.

  • If CSS3 Pie can gain traction among developers this will push the benefits of a unified Code Standard massively.

    A site can be written in CSS3 now and work almost everywhere. If IE9 can get it all right the transition to an open
    playing field for any group creating a browser will make life easier for developers and i hate to say it but users too.

  • 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.

    • If anything, we need more of the web dev tools to make pages that are outright guaranteed not to work with IE6-7.

      That's a fine philosophy when you're sitting in your armchair, but do you think that people who use websites to generate revenue are really going to say, "Well, the extra profit would sure be nice, but instead we're going to take a moral stand and let the IE6 users slip away to our competitors"?

      The main concern is for your visitors to see what you want them to see, not to propagate software evangelism. Hopefully hacks like this will ease the burden on developers, and end-users can migrate as their old sy

      • by v1 (525388)

        That's a fine philosophy when you're sitting in your armchair,

        No, that's "thinking of US instead of thinking of ME". Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

        Please try to start thinking about US instead of ME ME ME.

        • by spongman (182339)

          i suggest you start a web design company that states outright that it refuses to design any sites that work on IE6.

          don't worry about getting web design skills first, you won't need them - you won't get any clients...

        • by Dhalka226 (559740)

          What's the difference?

          We have to operate in the real world. Maybe we can make a principled stand on our personal blogs or websites or what-have-you, but so long as there is more profit left on the table by ruining the experience of IE6 users than there is extra cost for working around it, the companies and websites that the majority of people care about will still demand support for IE6, and anybody who wants to collect a paycheck in the web development field will do it or they will be replaced by somebo

        • No, that's "thinking of US instead of thinking of ME". Too many people thinking of ME is why things like IE6, that are just plain bad for the public as a whole, are still so prevalent.

          Please try to start thinking about US instead of ME ME ME.

          You can't. Because if you do, then your business fails, your website goes down, and your principled stand no longer has any impact. It's natural selection, survival of the fittest. Businesses aren't self-interested because businessmen are nasty people: it's because if you aren't self-interested, your business fails. Period. Nice guys finish last, like it or not. Businesses can only tenably act against their self-interest if their competitors also do, which requires active coordination, which is imposs

    • Do you and everyone else bitching about IE6 / IE7 understand that this adds a bunch of features even to IE8 that web developers waste a huge amount of time implementing IE-only cruft for? (Eg: border-radius).

      You can spend your years focusing on ideology and waging a war to rid the world of a browser you don't like if you want. I'll be back here in reality making beautiful web sites quickly and efficiently and accomplishing things in my life. For people like me, this kind of solution is a god send.

  • by Zarel (900479) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @03:01PM (#32938222)

    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) [wikipedia.org]

    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.

    • The only solution is to flush IE down the toilet, seriously...
      It is either, designing webpages the proper way or doing gruntwork for IE and trying to guess how it behaves, trying to fix flaws by javascript and CSS hacking and hoping for the best.

      • by spinkham (56603)

        If you have a way to do this, we're all ears.

        If you had a good way to rid the web of IE6, google among many others would throw money at you to implement it.

        • Google is already doing it they already stopped support for ie6 for gmail and youtube.

          • by spinkham (56603)

            Unfortunately, where IE 6 is still used (mostly large corporations) not having access to gmail and youtube would be considered a benefit, not a drawback..

            • Jepp, I am glad that corporations are slowly moving away now, I already know at least 2 big ones which are in the transition phase, and as it seems, IE7 will be mostly skipped which is another pain in the ass browser from the IE team, IE8 while still being buggy is the first version which I would consider bearable.
              (although they have the tendency to implement everything which is not clearly specced out on the dom model differently than the rest of the world, for instance try to use an an apply function on t

    • ... and vertical-align:middle. The float hacks that people have to use to simulate display:table are truly awful, quite probably the very worst thing about CSS nowadays.
  • by iamsure (66666) on Saturday July 17, 2010 @04:44PM (#32938808) Homepage

    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 [about.com] ), and then another to fix the png transparency issue ( http://code.google.com/p/ie7-js/ [google.com] ), and another to add canvas support ( http://excanvas.sourceforge.net/ [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.

    • No it is the absolute worst way. Since it is an enabler. It supports people’s lazy asses and weak spines. The lazy asses of those who prefer complaining to taking about 2 minutes to update their piece of shit browser, and the weak spines of the so-called web developers who prefer to spend 80% of their time working around IE bugs, because they fear they might lose a tiny bit of the dumbest of their users, because they would not want to upgrade. While at the same time those same idiot users update their

      • by Bungie (192858)

        I really like your idea of laying out the problems with IE6 to the end user and providing solutions for them to upgrade, but your other comments about people being spineless and greedy because they can't do the same makes you look like a fanatical asshole.

        Your job as a developer is to develop code that meets the needs of your users and customers, not to dictate what you like to them and make an ideological stand. If you tell your boss or customers to fuck off because you don't like their browser then they f

    • 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.

      Users are impatient.

      Users don't give a damn why your page loads slowly and they won't take the time to hear you out. They will be gone before you can put up your Chrome or Firefox logo.

      The one website that has defeated every browser I've tried is Slashdot. There is no more quirky and unresponsive a front page on t

  • 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!

  • I suppose that you're no worse off it they don't. Folks who turn JavaScript off are used to pages looking awful.

Mommy, what happens to your files when you die?

Working...