Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Internet Explorer The Internet Programming IT Technology

Making IE Standards Compliant 582

spin2cool writes "Dean Edwards has taken it upon himself to make Internet Explorer W3C compliant. How? Well, it isn't by patching the application, as you might suspect. He's created a stylesheet, dubbed 'IE7' that uses DHTML to load and parse style sheets into a form that IE can understand. Just include the style sheet in your HTML pages, and things should render correctly. The complexity of the CSS transformations is really amazing and shows off the power of this stuff."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Making IE Standards Compliant

Comments Filter:
  • by Zone-MR ( 631588 ) * <slashdot&zone-mr,net> on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:12AM (#8541722) Homepage
    I'm sure IE 6.05.1 will feature a small modification which happens to cause this fix to stop working. ;)
    • I have found that the DoNotUseIE.patch file has upgraded it to 100% open standards compliance, and this cannot be overridden by any future version of IE or other Microsoft extensions.
    • by peragrin ( 659227 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:35AM (#8541838)
      MS released a patch today to fix a major Security Bug in IE today. MS offcials say that a malisious hacker, is destroying websites around the world, by making them compatible with other web browsers. We at MS can abolutely not have any competion, so we are funding a $1 billion reward to the person who finds this man and breaks his even hack. We would do it ourselves but all 80,000 of our developers are busy trying to get longhorn out by 2010.
    • by nhorman ( 697930 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:59AM (#8541960)
      So I'll ask the burning question here: How is creating a stylesheet to be included in individual web pages considered making IE standards compliant? Wouldn'the the article be more acurate if it read "modifying web site allows it to be rendered correctly in IE6?"
      • by PeeweeJD ( 623974 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:59AM (#8542224) Homepage
        If you can just sniff and serve up IE a different style sheet to make your site render correct, who cares? No more hacking to make work arounds for IE. As long as you dont have to change the design of your site (except for a sniff for IE), who cares.
        • by I confirm I'm not a ( 720413 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @09:35AM (#8542416) Journal

          Just to clarify slightly - IE7 doesn't rely on serving up a different stylesheet, but an additional 'sheet. In other words, if you reference IE7 as your first 'sheet, existing stylesheets for compliant browsers will then render OK in IE.

          If I've read it right you don't even need to sniff (well, at least not in the old-fasioned, java-script or server-side script sense): it's all done through CSS.

        • by cayenne8 ( 626475 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @10:36AM (#8542812) Homepage Journal
          "f you can just sniff and serve up IE a different style sheet to make your site render correct, who cares?"

          The trouble is...what if you don't have a windows computer to see how 'it looks' under IE? I can run just about any other browser under the sun on my development stations, all linux....except IE.

          I'm still trying to figure how to run IE under wine...but, never have been able to do it with no windows partitions...

          • The trouble is...what if you don't have a windows computer to see how 'it looks' under IE?

            This is an age-old problem for web developers. Good developers test their work in multiple browsers, and should also do a test in browsers a few versions back. This might mean keeping an extra box lying around that runs Windows, or using VMWARE or WINE to run Internet Explorer. People might flame me and say that any good developer KNOWS what the content will look like in different browsers and tries to produce a browser-agnostic design, but experience tells me that there's nothing like a quick test to find your mistakes.

      • Wouldn'the the article be more acurate if it read "modifying web site allows it to be rendered correctly in IE6?"

        That's a pretty good question. But the beauty of this thing is that it allows web designers to use all W3C compliant techniques and then make them work correctly in IE6 without massive changes to their code. Just saying "modifying web site allows it to be rendered correctly in IE6" leaves people with the impression that they need to go through a re-coding project instead of just including a style sheet.

        Maybe a better headline would be: "New standards compliancy stylesheet for IE6 clients eases cross-browser development for web developers." Or something like that.

  • by blirp ( 147278 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:13AM (#8541727)
    All that's missing now, is a stylesheet that'll close all remaining security holes... :*)
  • Kudos, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Channard ( 693317 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:14AM (#8541731) Journal
    .. it's a sad state of affairs when a developer outside of Microsoft actually ends up doing something that MS should have done themselves. So they can say 'screw it' to standards and someone else does the finger-work.
    • Re:Kudos, but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:17AM (#8541744)
      It is even a sadder state of affairs that they are a large enough company for this fix to matter, all things considered when it comes to customer service as a whole.
      • Re:Kudos, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2004 @10:36AM (#8542813)
        I know. They are the largest software company in the world, they have billions in the bank, and it takes one individual without access to the source to fix up some of the most glaring errors that have lain there untouched for over two years. Microsoft ought to be ashamed.
        • Re:Kudos, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

          by blackbear ( 587044 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @11:46AM (#8543411)
          If you could build really bad software that looks good on the surface, get other people fix it for you for free, and still get paid, would you do it?

          I suppose that the reason I'm not rich yet is because I wouldn't. Building software is usually time consuming and costly. Building good software is more so. I wonder that the OSS movement didn't gain popularity so much because of a desire to contribute, as out of a sense of frustration that there was very little good software available at any price.

          The market dosen't reward good software because most users are so ignorant of what is good software that they just buy whatever is most shinny and pretty and expensive. The only alternative seems to be to write good software and give it away for free so that you don't have to sit in the Microsoft (and others) stench all day long. It's not just Microsoft, but they're the best example.
    • Re:Kudos, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by MartinG ( 52587 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:36AM (#8541845) Homepage Journal
      Not really. It's perfectly natural to many of us for someone to change things to work in the way they want them to. It's a basic freedom that many of us try to protect.

      What's unusual in this case is that closed proprietry software has been "changed" without access to the source.

      It's not sad that someone other than Microsoft had to do it. It's sad that people other than Microsoft can't do such things a whole lot more.

      (in reality, they can of course by not using closed source software, but for some it seems percieved convenience is more important than freedom, but I digress)
      • Re:Kudos, but... (Score:5, Informative)

        by kalidasa ( 577403 ) * on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:49AM (#8541914) Journal

        in reality, they can of course by not using closed source software, but for some it seems percieved convenience is more important than freedom, but I digress)

        What this does is allow developers of standards-based sites, which they have under their own control, to provide a stopgap for users who don't understand the issue of standards and so haven't themselves chosen freedom. So your digression doesn't quite match the facts. As a developer, I can choose to make my site work in Mozilla and KHTML - and will - but I can't choose to force my audience to use them. With this, if it works as advertised, I can choose to follow standards and still provide some means for those who have, for whatever reasons, chosen to use a non-free browser to use my content.

    • Re:Kudos, but... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by CeleronXL ( 726844 )
      This being the open source loving community it is, I'm pretty surprised to see diappointment at people doing work for a piece of software that the actual developers themselves did not or could not do. This is very often the way things are done in the open source world. Sure, this browser is not open source by any means, but still...
  • by plams ( 744927 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:16AM (#8541738) Homepage
    I think I'd personally be more interested in a stylesheet that redirects IE browsers to www.mozilla.org/ [mozilla.org] :) Or even better: crashes them.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:16AM (#8541741)
    This will probably get modded down - but this hack really does show the power of IE that you can deploy a script fix to browser problems.

    And before people start attacking ie for saying that mozilla supports xyz css and ie6 doesn't - mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was released 2+ years ago. Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released.

    Great to see the css3 support though - removes the need for so hard-to-manage javascript hacks.

    SharedID [sharedid.com] - Single Sign On for web applications
    • by Nadir ( 805 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:23AM (#8541778) Homepage
      Fact is that IE 6 doesn't even support CSS2 properly which became a W3C recommendation in 1998.
      • by ender81b ( 520454 ) <billd@[ ]braska.com ['ine' in gap]> on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:31AM (#8541824) Homepage Journal
        AFAIK there is no browser available that correctly renders CSS 2.0 -- the entire spec.

        IIRC Moz and Opera do render all of CSS 1.0 correctly and nearly all of CSS 2.0 correctly. But doing some advanced things with CSS 2.0 (especially doing all formatting with it, instead of old table hacks) you really run into problems with both Moz and Opera.
        • by next1 ( 742094 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:52AM (#8541924) Journal
          current project i'm working on i did all css layout (ie; no tables) and had opposite experience: same code was fine in moz / opera, needed completely different version for ie5 and ie6 due to various bugs in each.

          now actually reverting to tables for a lot of the layout because of it.
          • by Zaiff Urgulbunger ( 591514 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:09AM (#8541998)
            I feel your pain!

            I've had weirdness with different IE versions too, like where I have some content with images floated right; words okay in IE5 and IE6, but in IE5.5, the images cover the content. And don't forget that Mac IE is different again!

            But I have found myself that using standards compliant code, and then JavaScript to fix "anomalies" is pretty good. Using CSS hacks always seems to be asking for problems to me, whereas with JS you can target specific browser versions.
        • by JimDabell ( 42870 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:01AM (#8541969) Homepage

          AFAIK there is no browser available that correctly renders CSS 2.0 -- the entire spec.

          You are right, which is why some of the more esoteric features have been removed from CSS 2 and CSS 2.1 is about to be released.

          However this is a lot different to Internet Explorer 6's situation. There are massive amounts of CSS 2 that simply aren't implemented, such as a whole bunch of selectors and tables.

          The next time you see somebody complaining that CSS layout is hard, remember that there's probably a way to do what they want in a few lines of CSS, but that part of CSS simply doesn't work in Internet Explorer (but does in Mozilla, Konqueror, Opera, etc).

      • by gusnz ( 455113 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:56AM (#8541942) Homepage
        And what's more, it doesn't even fully support CSS1, which was released in 1996! Try the ComplexSpiral [meyerweb.com] demo, which is a neat demo of the effects possible in Mozilla, Opera and Safari with the 'background-attachment:' CSS1 property, which IE supports only on the BODY tag. Also, let's add 'position: static' support onto our wishlist (for watermarks/menus on pages) and PNG alpha support, and a whole bevy of regular CSS rendering bugs [positioniseverything.net] that have remained unsolved for years. MS claims "full CSS1 compliance", but in reality they only support the reduced CSS1 core spec.

        And to think it'll be a wait of several years before IE is updated with Longhorn... until then, writing pure CSS sites is going to remain a bug-whacking chore. Let's all be collectively glad that MS fought so hard for their "Freedom to Innovate" back in the anti-trust days ;).

        P.S. redesign slashdot [alistapart.com] using modern web standards, editors!
    • by minus9 ( 106327 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:23AM (#8541785) Homepage
      but this hack really does show the power of IE

      The power of IE is that it's broken but it may be possible to fix it?

      I have a powerful car for sale if you're interested.

    • by Anonymous Coward
      Why does every post, which starts with the statement "This will probably get modded down", "Mod me down, but..." or similar get +5 Insightful? Reverse psychology, anyone? Mod me down, but that's the truth.
    • by fidros ( 8566 ) <gilad AT benyossef DOT com> on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:45AM (#8541891) Homepage Journal
      > mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was
      > released 2+ years ago

      So, you're saying that the problem is not IE but the broken proprietry way of building softwarwe that can't can release new versions in time to answer real customer needs?

      I think I agree :-)

    • by weave ( 48069 ) * on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:34AM (#8542103) Journal
      And before people start attacking ie for saying that mozilla supports xyz css and ie6 doesn't - mozilla was last released yesterday - ie6 was released 2+ years ago.

      Remember when Microsoft was releasing and improving IE on a rapid basis? Let's see, when did Microsoft allegedly win the browser war? Oh, about two years ago. When did Microsoft stop innovating IE? Oh, about two years ago. Since then, Microsoft doesn't care cause they have the browser market locked up. Therefore we need to download stuff like this and google toolbars to add pop up blocking and all kind of other third party stuff to get IE up to some modern day level.

    • It shows very little about IE except that as a browser it is an obsolete, insecure and bug-infested piece of illegally commingled code, which is so entwined with the equally insecure and bug-infested OS that it can't be fixed.

      It does however show a great degree of skill on the part of the programmer, in the use of the limited and corrupt subset of CSS which actually works on the obsolete browser, and a great deal of patience in finding and working around countless undocumented bugs and features, despite the

    • by thesolo ( 131008 ) * <slap@fighttheriaa.org> on Friday March 12, 2004 @10:49AM (#8542923) Homepage
      this hack really does show the power of IE...ie6 was released 2+ years ago. Most of these css3 features weren't even finalised as w3c guidelines when ie6 was released.

      I call BS on that. Even features which IE did implement, it couldn't get right. For example, IE's implementation of getElementById is extremely flawed [mikepalumbo.com]. It also doesn't support lots of things, like the CSS Width property [mezzoblue.com], properly. (IE treats width as min-width, and doesn't provide real width support.)

      This isn't a testament to IE's scalability, hackability, or another ability you might come up with. It's just another reason why it's a piss-poor browser. We need additional code to make IE properly understand standards; that's atrocious.

      Also, if you want to see how IE stacks up against a browser like Firefox, I have made a quick comparison [realfx.com] between the two. Its a little old now, and it was using Firebird 0.7 (not Firefox), but it's still a valid comparison. IE 6 chokes horribly on CSS, plain & simple.
  • by maroberts ( 15852 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:17AM (#8541746) Homepage Journal
    Is ponder how to get over the Slashdotting of his site.

    I'm sure the CSS is a work of technical art; seeing it would be even better.
  • firefox (Score:5, Informative)

    by selderrr ( 523988 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:19AM (#8541757) Journal
    I wish someone would release such a sheet for firefox : /. itself still doen't render correctly on FFox 0.8 under XPpro. As shown here [kuleuven.ac.be], the left column tends to dribble into the article summary...
  • Wow... who woulda thunk it?
  • Google cache (Score:5, Informative)

    by Underholdning ( 758194 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:22AM (#8541775) Homepage Journal
    Site is already slashdottet. Here's Google's cache [] of the document.
    So - how are the plans going with implementing a slashdot cache?
    • Re:Google cache (Score:5, Interesting)

      by nacturation ( 646836 ) <nacturation.gmail@com> on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:58AM (#8541955) Journal
      I still don't know why Slashdot doesn't reference non-high bandwidth sites using the freecache service [archive.org]. All that needs to be done is prefix the URL with http://freecache.org/ and follow it with the full regular URL, eg:

      http://freecache.org/http://www.slowsite.com/big _p ictures.html

      It benefits the site owner by having reduced bandwidth costs and it also benefits Slashdot as we can read the articles.
      • Re:Google cache (Score:4, Informative)

        by nautical9 ( 469723 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:53AM (#8542188) Homepage
        Unfortunately, some (most?) sites are dynamic in nature, especially concerning advertising. By using the freecache service, a static version of the page gets cached and the same ad would _may_ appear if the site owner is using his own advertising code and not some remote service like google or doubleclick, likely going against the wishes of the website. Or perhaps the content itself requires dynamic code to work properly.

        Although this would be very useful for tiny sites like those hosted on cable connections, but it's hard to tell in advance which sites will be slashdotted.

        And either way, the choice should really be up to the web site owner. I'm sure most would prefer that people see their content versus having their server crushed, but you never know until you ask.

  • Id say (Score:5, Funny)

    by 222 ( 551054 ) * <stormseeker.gmail@com> on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:25AM (#8541794) Homepage
    Judging by the loading lag, and eventual time out hes managed to make his webserver IIS compliant also ;)
  • Get firefox. (Score:4, Informative)

    by MooKore 2004 ( 737557 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:26AM (#8541799) Homepage Journal
    If you havent already yet, you should of switched from IE to Firefox. It is now my default browser on Windows, and on Windows XP it even puts it as the top Start menu item. It is fast, light, small download (6Mb), Tabbed Browsing, Popup blocking, Download manager, Cute icon and standards compliance are all good reasons to use it. So don't use an ugly hack to transform your pages for IE, put a firefox icon on your site.

    So if you havent downloaded it yet, get it now! [mozilla.org]. Avalible for Windows, Linux, Mac OS X and more!
  • Nice (Score:5, Insightful)

    by foolip ( 588195 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:27AM (#8541802) Homepage
    The site is /.ed, but from what I can make out from the front page, this is making IE CSS standards compliant. Does it also work some magic to make it compliant with HTML (or even better, XHTML) standards (which would be far more useful), or is that just impossible?

    In any event, this may allow me to actually use some CSS 2, a standard that was published in May 1998 (almost 6 years ago!) and still isn't (fully) supported by the leading browser in the world...
  • by xxx_Birdman_xxx ( 676056 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:36AM (#8541843)
    Sometimes to me /.-ing a site doesn't compute with me- So the server has had so many incoming requests its gone kaput, but in all those hits not one person has kept a copy of this stylesheet.. ??
    It's just simple text!
    Do people just blindly click on links just because they are posted?
  • by androse ( 59759 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:40AM (#8541861) Homepage

    The title of the news is misleading : this JS component only corrects some CSS 2 selectors that IE doesn't natively support.

    So it doesn't really make IS standards compliant, it just extends some functionnality. It doesn't, for example, correct the box model of IE5.

    So I'm afraid it doesn't spare us of using CSS hacks [centricle.com] to filter out IE.

  • Dean Edwards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by amigoro ( 761348 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:44AM (#8541889) Homepage Journal
    I thought this was something about the democratic nominations, but then saw Kerry [mithuro.com] was missing.

    Flippancy apart, I think using CSS to make IE7 W3C compliant is a really brilliant idea. However, the browser itself is a small part of the equations. Very few websites are W3C compliant. Vast majority of them are geared to a certain browser, depending on the whim and fancy of the designer.

    For my part, I run my sites thru Anybrowser [anybrowser.com] to make sure they will render on, well, as the name suggests, any browser.

  • by SlashMaster ( 62630 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:48AM (#8541908)
    Anyone who cares this much about the company's product should be given serious consideration for employment.

    Microsoft should hire him...
  • Mirror made (Score:5, Informative)

    by paulproteus ( 112149 ) <slashdot@a[ ]esh.org ['she' in gap]> on Friday March 12, 2004 @07:51AM (#8541918) Homepage
    I made this mirror [jhu.edu] based on the Google cache. It has the full source code, as well as the docs he wrote.

    This is temporary, of course.
  • by lortho ( 700090 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:05AM (#8541981)
    Quoted from the main page of the site:

    • This is my site
    • for my personal use
    • running on my machine
    • in my kitchen!

    I imagine his ISP's going to want to have a few words with him about bandwidth usage... ;)
  • Microsoft can fix IE (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:08AM (#8541995)
    If what I have seen in the "file list" from the leaked MS code still holds true, all the HTML rendering, CSS, PNG and etc stuff is in DLLs that are totally seperate from the OS and could easily be updated independantly.

    When Microsoft says "we cant fix xyz", it usually means "we cant fix xyz because it would cost us more (in money, programmer time etc) than we are going to gain (in sales, PR etc)"
    • by hattig ( 47930 )
      It wouldn't be a quick and simple task but ... ... couldn't someone somehow port the rendering part of Mozilla/Firefox/Konqueror to Windows, in such a manner that they export the same interface as those DLLs, and hence simply replace the rendering component of IE with something decent?
  • by EqualSlash ( 690076 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:13AM (#8542019)
    via Google Cache : IE7.htc [google.com]
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:30AM (#8542086)
    Seriously the slashdot effect is one of the reasons that Bittorrent was originally developed.

    If somebody had grabbed the files we could had a torrent mirror delivering the files in seconds.
  • This is a great idea (Score:5, Informative)

    by seldolivaw ( 179178 ) <me.seldo@com> on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:39AM (#8542127) Homepage
    The code itself at the moment is 27k, which is kinda hefty for most pages on initial load (though you'd only have to load it once per site). However, it includes loads of comments, which might slim it down to about half that if you stripped them out. And the savings in other code areas by not having to write double-code and browser-detection are probably worth it overall.

    This would certainly make development a lot easier... I look forward to trying it out :-)
  • Mirror (Score:4, Informative)

    by DeanEdwards22 ( 761579 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @08:40AM (#8542131)
    Can someone temporarily host my site? some of it is php4. is that ok? mail me at dean@edwards.name and cc 9jack9@msn.com. i can chat on the msn account if necessary. thanks. dean edwards
  • by Sophrosyne ( 630428 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @09:04AM (#8542244) Homepage
    It would be nice if IE could view transparent PNG files
  • by armando_wall ( 714879 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @09:25AM (#8542356) Homepage

    Rather than fixing IE, how about using the same method to make Mozilla render pages designed for IE correctly?

    Mozilla is my favorite browser in both Windows and Linux platforms, and it works so well that whenever I stumble with a broken page, I blame it to site designers, not Mozilla, and move along.

    However, sometimes I need to browse the broken page. Wouldn't it be cool if you could fire up some DHTML code to parse the broken page and make it standards compliant, so Mozilla (and others) can read it flawlessly?

    This wouldn't encourage correct site design, but while in that fight, it would be a nice temporary solution.... do you think this could be done?

  • by Mr_Silver ( 213637 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @09:33AM (#8542403)
    This would be useful for something like AvantBrowser [avantbrowser.com], CrazyBrowser [crazybrowser.com] or MyIE2 [myie2.com] which use the IE rendering engine but add other nice features such as pop-up blockers and tabbed browsing.

    It would be pretty simple for them to have a local copy of the stylesheet and modify the HTML from the server to include this before rendering.

  • Cute, but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by SloppyElvis ( 450156 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @09:43AM (#8542459)
    This type of solution doesn't really fix the problem that the CSS2 W3C standards aren't correctly supported in any browser. We deal with having to support old browser versions all the time, and believe me, the W3C standards (particularly the DOM), really help to reduce the amount of logic we need to duplicate for various user agents. However, we haven't the luxury of saying, "bah, forget the old browsers, our users have only the very best". So, our server scripts output HTML 4.01 and scripts redirect on failed functional tests and noscript tags to non-script versions of the site.

    The point is, CSS2 doesn't fill its intended purpose for those who must support legacy apps. Its faster to bite the bullet and format layouts with tables, and it works for ancient browsers (Netscape 4.x anyone?). To me, that's one of the main advantages of JSP, PHP, ASP, and the like: I can include complex logic in my site and output lame ole' HTML 4.01. Code and UI are separated, and everyone is happy.

    Besides, take a lesson from Google, simple layouts are best.
  • by SeaDour ( 704727 ) on Friday March 12, 2004 @09:49AM (#8542490) Homepage
    Did you hear? McDonald's heard about this move by Microsoft, and was inspired to imitate their strategy. McDonald's is now pushing through the Department of Agriculture to add "Big Mac" and "Chicken Nuggets" to the Food Pyramid, placing them just below the highly-coveted "Dairy Products" block. McDonald's argues that since such a huge percentage of the population is eating their food, everyone should consider their products a nutritional standard.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday March 12, 2004 @10:38AM (#8542830)
    Still no cure for bug #97283 in Mozilla [mozilla.org]. Simple thing:
    <div style="overflow:auto; height:50px; width:50px">

    1<br />
    2<br />
    3<br />
    4<br />
    5<br />

    Mousewheel: Does not scroll down
    Space: Does not page down
    Page-Down: Does not page down
    Cursorkey-Down: Does not scroll down

    "Microsofts Invention", the iframe works like a charm in Mozilla, simple W3C CSS fails. Since 2001.
  • The correct way (Score:5, Insightful)

    by at2000 ( 715252 ) * on Friday March 12, 2004 @12:20PM (#8543691)

    It is meaningless to comment by saying "hey I use firefox", because the rest of the world is not using it. Now still 25% of my visitors are using IE 5.5, given that IE 6.0 is there 4 years ago.

    Yes, it is much easier to make Mozilla/Opera more IE-complaint. [See IE Emu [eae.net]]

    It is also quite easy to design a new set of API such that they are deligated to the correct version supported by the browser in runtime. [See DHTMLLib [siteexperts.com]] [See CBE [cross-browser.com]]

    But these are just the wrong way.

    1. It gives excuses for IE people to think that they are right. It works well for all sites. (but of course we can't afford IE not supported (tm)
    2. It makes our code bad. We are not coding for the standard, but for the bad browsers. It created the economics that bad browsers will never be gone.

    A patch to IE means:

    1. We are coding for the standard. Sooner or later when there is no more IE, just remove the line and our code works pretty well.
    2. IE works by emulation. This means it will definately be made slower. When there are enough such sites, it gives people one more sites to move away from IE. That is, IE works, but not as good.
    3. IE is considered second class. We focus on standard, and IE just work, by mistake. This is important when IE-to-Mozilla has become 50%-50%. It gives people more comfort to use Mozilla because it has the "brand" to work better.
    4. Be prepared that IE can stop working at any time. When IE-to-Mozilla has become 30%-70%, we can start withdrawing this script, forcing extinction of IE.

    It is exactly something like Cygwin, which implies UNIX-style programs are correct programs. When you move to Linux is just your choice.

As of next Tuesday, C will be flushed in favor of COBOL. Please update your programs.