Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Feb 2013 01:59 UTC
Internet Explorer "Internet Explorer 10 is available worldwide in 95 languages for download today. We will begin auto updating Windows 7 customers to IE10 in the weeks ahead, starting today with customers running the IE10 Release Preview. With this final release, IE10 brings the same leading standards support, with improved performance, security, privacy, reliability that consumers enjoy on Windows 8, to Windows 7 customers."
Order by: Score:
That's cool.
by Drumhellar on Wed 27th Feb 2013 04:44 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

That's cool. IE10 is a good browser. Now, IE users will be able to see this site ( http://sewingandembroiderywarehouse.com/embtrb.htm ) in all it's broken glory, since prior versions of IE render it like it was meant to look.

Which makes me wonder: Part of the HTML spec is that browsers do their best to render broken HTML. That site has broken HTML, but IE 7-9 render it correctly. Are they better at rendering bad HTML?

Reply Score: 4

RE: That's cool.
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Feb 2013 07:14 UTC in reply to "That's cool."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Removal of IE comments as well.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's cool.
by avgalen on Wed 27th Feb 2013 11:44 UTC in reply to "That's cool."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

It renders the same in IE10 on Windows 8 as in Chrome on Windows 8 (meaning badly). However, when I press the compatibility view in IE10 it renders "perfectly"

Conclusion: Both are standard compliant, but IE10 is better at rendering bad code then Chrome

I can't make a comparison with older IE's, but why would I want to use an older IE anyway?

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's cool.
by Lennie on Wed 27th Feb 2013 12:24 UTC in reply to "RE: That's cool."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

This is not true.

Different browsers render different broken HTML in different ways.

You can find broken HTML which renders better in Chrome, Firefox or Opera than IE too.

Also have a look at my other comment:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?553804

When you open the source code of the page it says Frontpage, not sure if that was actually used, if so my guess is that Frontpage created a page which is broken, but broken in a way that still displays correctly in IE.

Edited 2013-02-27 12:26 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: That's cool.
by smashIt on Wed 27th Feb 2013 12:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's cool."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

When you open the source code of the page it says Frontpage, not sure if that was actually used, if so my guess is that Frontpage created a page which is broken, but broken in a way that still displays correctly in IE.


the last frontpage-release was 2003
i'd say the site is as standards-complient as it was possible back then
which means there were no standards

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: That's cool.
by Bill Shooter of Bul on Wed 27th Feb 2013 20:46 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's cool."
Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Before there were standards, good web developers made sure that the sites worked on both browsers (Netscape & IE), by hook or by crook. If you used frontpage, you had to use extra caution to do it correctly.

Reply Score: 2

RE: That's cool.
by Lennie on Wed 27th Feb 2013 12:17 UTC in reply to "That's cool."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

No, you are mistaken.

Broken HTML is rendered differently by different browser (versions).

But HTML5 does specify how HTML5 should be parsed and how broken HTML5 should be handled.

So if someone changes the 'doctype' in that page to a HTML5-doctype then all HTML5 browsers should render it the same.

The advantage of that is that if someone makes mistakes creating a HTML5-page and only checks it with one browser and likes what he/she seems then the result will be the same in all HTML5-browsers.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: That's cool.
by avgalen on Wed 27th Feb 2013 13:49 UTC in reply to "RE: That's cool."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Nobody is ever going to change the doctype in that page and that was the point in that post. This is not about how browsers handle new broken HTML5 code, it is about how browsers handle ANCIENT broken code.

For that IE has a compatibility view that works very nice and that makes IE a great browser for viewing broken code

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: That's cool.
by Lennie on Wed 27th Feb 2013 14:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: That's cool."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

My point was: different broken code will render differently in different browsers and versions.

This means this broken page renders fine in IE, other broken pages render fine in Chrome or Firefox.

And for new pages (HTML5) this should not be a problem anymore. Till will look the same in HTML5-browsers now as they will look the same in HTML-browsers in 10 or even 20 years.

This is also the same the person making the page will see it now when creating the HTML5-page.

Edited 2013-02-27 14:36 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: That's cool.
by avgalen on Wed 27th Feb 2013 15:55 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: That's cool."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

No, the point is that all modern browsers are rendering that page with broken code badly, but that IE has a compatibility view that allows it to be viewed "as it was tested to work in the past". This compatibility view is the reason that IE is better at running broken code.

And if you think that HTML5 will still be there 10 to 20 years from now you should look back at HTML 10 to 20 years ago and see how well that is still working.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: That's cool.
by M.Onty on Wed 27th Feb 2013 16:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: That's cool."
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

No, the point is that all modern browsers are rendering that page with broken code badly, but that IE has a compatibility view that allows it to be viewed "as it was tested to work in the past". This compatibility view is the reason that IE is better at running broken code.


IE's compatibility mode is for viewing sites designed around IE5, IE5.5 & IE6 quirks. Therefore IE is only better at running broken code that was written specifically for it.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: That's cool.
by avgalen on Wed 27th Feb 2013 19:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: That's cool."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Which is 99% of all broken code according to 100% accurate guessing

Reply Score: 5

RE: That's cool.
by earksiinni on Wed 27th Feb 2013 16:36 UTC in reply to "That's cool."
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

On the other hand, that website provides awesome emo band names if you scroll down far enough:

"Damaged Hook"
"Missed Stitches"
"Wrong Needle"
"Bobbin Hook"
"Too Tight Or Too Loose"

Reply Score: 6

just tried it...
by smashIt on Wed 27th Feb 2013 16:04 UTC
smashIt
Member since:
2005-07-06

3 points:

+ finally a browser that's usable without tabs
+/- no adblock+ yet (but it's in the works)
- how the hell do you turn off that fucking font-antialiasing?!?

Edited 2013-02-27 16:13 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE: just tried it...
by Wafflez on Wed 27th Feb 2013 17:09 UTC in reply to "just tried it..."
Wafflez Member since:
2011-06-26

Also Ghostery doesn't work.

Reply Score: 3

RE: just tried it...
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Feb 2013 17:39 UTC in reply to "just tried it..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

You can't it is part of the rendering framework.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: just tried it...
by smashIt on Wed 27th Feb 2013 17:45 UTC in reply to "RE: just tried it..."
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

doesn't reflect well in the engine

at least in failfox you can deactivate the hardware-accelerated renderer to get rid of it
but in ie even that doesn't help...

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: just tried it...
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Feb 2013 18:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: just tried it..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

I found it quite odd to look at the rendering in IE9, but I have since got used to it.

Reply Score: 3

RE: just tried it...
by Drumhellar on Wed 27th Feb 2013 18:14 UTC in reply to "just tried it..."
Drumhellar Member since:
2005-07-12

Why they did away with ClearType in IE bothers the hell out of me. It ruins an otherwise excellent browser.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: just tried it...
by Tuishimi on Wed 27th Feb 2013 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE: just tried it..."
Tuishimi Member since:
2005-07-06

I thought it was just a limited version of cleartype? They removed the color rendering in favor of simpler black and white?

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: just tried it...
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Feb 2013 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: just tried it..."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Nope the rendering is done differently and is due to a set of reasons in this MSDN article.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh237264%28v=vs.85%...

I don't know why the other browsers don't do similar things. But IE is specific to Windows.

Reply Score: 4

Issues with Google Chrome
by rft183 on Wed 27th Feb 2013 21:18 UTC
rft183
Member since:
2005-08-11

Has anyone else had issues with Google Chrome since installing IE 10? Since I've installed it, many times it won't bring up google.com or gmail. Other browsers continue to work fine.

Reply Score: 0