Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
Internet Explorer Earlier this week, Google launched Chrome Frame, a plugin for Internet Explorer 6/7/8 which replaces the Trident rendering engine with Chrome's rendering and JavaScript engine for better performance and superior standards compliance. Microsoft has responded to this release, claiming it makes Internet Explorer less secure. Note: What database category do I put this in? Internet Explorer? Google? Choices, choices!
Permalink for comment 386162
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 03:21 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
Member since:

"Here is a short list where IE falls short: IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot. Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%. The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter).
Your theory is possible, although the official stance of the IE team is that Acid3 includes requirements that are not yet defined standards (HTML5, CSS3, etc.) "

There are a very few tests in the acid3 suite that are not yet finalised W3C standards.

However, if one were to make a browser that passed only the acid3 subtests for standards that have been established for over, say, five years ... then one would still socre over 90 on the acid3 tests.

IE8 scores just 20.

Microsoft previously got itself into trouble with IE4/5/6, trying to support things not fully standardized, ultimately resulting in a perception of non-standards compliance afterwards when the standards arrived. They are trying not to repeat a past mistake.

The fact that MOST of the tests within acid3 are for standards that are over 5 years since they have become a W3C recommendation (and therefore stable) well and truly debunks this contention.

Here is just one example ... the acid3 tests include some tests against SVG 1.1.

SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.

Over six years ago. IE still, after six years, includes absolutely no SVG functionality.

IE8 could at least quadruple its score against acid3 simply by incorporating agreed standards the have been stable and standard for over 5 years now.

That is how far behind IE is.

PS: from the same page: "SVG 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation on September 4, 2001". Now I can almost hear your protest ... "see, it isn't stable". Sorry, but that just isn't so. SVG 1.1 is a superset of SVG 1.0, and not a revision of the earlier standard.

Other browsers are taking a different approach. FireFox 3.5 implements HTML5 video, for example, and did so before it was decided which codec(s) to use. A standard tag without a standard codec is not terribly useful. Obviously in the coming years we'll discover whether FireFox implemented video support "correctly" or not. This example is not isolated. Firefox, Chrome and Safari have all implemented standards that are not yet standards. It will be interesting to see what the state of things will be five years from now; it's very unlikely that all of these implementations will be conformant with the final standard.

The only reason why there is any contention here is that the vested interests who want to require you to have their particular platform to view the web have sabotaged agreement on the codec(s) for the HTML5 standard.

It is not hard to replace a codec, or indeed support a few different codecs simultaneously. This is no reason to defer from going ahead with HTML5.

Every browser apart from IE supports HTML5 with Theora. Even Safari will support Theora if one simply downloads the codec.

Now, happily, with Google Chrome Frame, even IE8 will support this.

So it will become a defacto standard, even though the vested interests have successfuly delayed it becoming a formal de jure standard.

Edited 2009-09-25 03:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6