Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Mar 2009 23:26 UTC, submitted by inkslinger
Internet Explorer Recently, Microsoft released Internet Explorer 8, which boasted much better standards compliance than previous iterations of the browser. While it passed the Acid2 test, IE8 failed miserably in the Acid3 test, and many people criticised Microsoft for it. Microsoft Australia's Nick Hodge has stated that Microsoft purposefully decided not to support Acid3, because the test tests against draft standards.
Thread beginning with comment 354871
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Fair enough
by chekr on Tue 24th Mar 2009 23:45 UTC
chekr
Member since:
2005-11-05

I think it's entirely fair that they do not have to support a moving target. Sure it would be nice but I think this is a reasonable argument as to why they are currently not trying to pass 3

Reply Score: 14

RE: Fair enough
by Ventajou on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:27 in reply to "Fair enough"
Ventajou Member since:
2006-10-31

It's a flawed argument. We're already stuck supporting piles of dung like IE6 and IE7, now IE8 comes around and it's still years behind the other browsers.

What they're doing is hold the market back. We (developers) can't fully take advantage of more advanced features because they would only be used on a fraction of the browsers...

I guess it's a good way to push silverlight...

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE: Fair enough
by tyrione on Wed 25th Mar 2009 01:32 in reply to "Fair enough"
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

His comment:


“The concern Microsoft has is that if we burnt [draft standards] into Internet Explorer 8 and passed Acid3 with 120 percent and then deploy it on so many machines, especially in the enterprise, [we have made draft standards de-facto standards] when the W3C will then want to innovate on the [evolving] standards,” Nick Hodge, a Professional Geek for Microsoft Australia said.


How can any professional take him serious when he leveraged a fallacious analogy to justify why they still can't be current with competing browsers on their own platform?

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Fair enough
by sbergman27 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 18:14 in reply to "RE: Fair enough"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

That is beyond bizarre. So many machines? Enterprise? IE8? Not any time soon.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: Fair enough
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 02:24 in reply to "Fair enough"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

I think it's entirely fair that they do not have to support a moving target. Sure it would be nice but I think this is a reasonable argument as to why they are currently not trying to pass 3


It isn't a reasonable argument. The standards asked for by Acid3 are five years or more old. Current and future further developments of those standards won't break lower levels, so passing Acid3 now won't be a nugatory effort as Microsoft imply.

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE: Fair enough
by Deviate_X on Wed 25th Mar 2009 11:36 in reply to "Fair enough"
Deviate_X Member since:
2005-07-11

They should only implement standardised standards and not standards which are non standards, otherwise they will have a non-standard browser incomplient with the great push for a standardised world.

Edited 2009-03-25 11:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

MS is only partially right
by KugelKurt on Wed 25th Mar 2009 11:46 in reply to "Fair enough"
KugelKurt Member since:
2005-07-06

MS is right in this respect that draft standards should not be widely used, but that doesn't mean that a rendering engine shouldn't implement them.
This helps finding bugs early on and tweaking the rendering engine to support the final standard is easy when almost every foundation is laid. MS once again wants to hold back web innovation by beginning to implement standards years after they are final.

Microsoft has MSDN to tell web developers that a set of implemented features is work in progress. Web devs may use them internally for preparing the next release of their web site, but should also be aware that changes can occur and that those features should not be used until a final standard is agreed upon.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: MS is only partially right
by Michael on Wed 25th Mar 2009 14:04 in reply to "MS is only partially right"
Michael Member since:
2005-07-01

MS is right in this respect that draft standards should not be widely used, but that doesn't mean that a rendering engine shouldn't implement them.

In the general case this is true. For IE, however, implementing something makes it a standard whether we like it or not. In the past MS hasn't worried about this, giving us the nightmare that was IE6.

I think this is a very positive sign that MS is finally treating it's position as market leader responsibly. They are conforming preciesly to the published standards of the W3C and no more. This leaves the W3C free to make ammendments to their draft standards that won't conflict with the most widely deployed implementation.

This is the exact opposite of the old, infamous "embrace, extend, extinguish" policy of the early days of the web.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: Fair enough
by gustl on Wed 25th Mar 2009 14:39 in reply to "Fair enough"
gustl Member since:
2006-01-19

Acid 3 is about bringing movies, animations and the likes to the net in a standardized manner.

As Microsoft's Silverlight tries to cannibalize the market again in a "Microsoft only" way, it is not entirely believeable that "not wanting to create a Microsoft variant again" is the true motive.

Microsoft should have done to the standards in question for ACID3, what OpenOffice and KOffice did for ODF: Implement not-yet finished proposed standards, giving feedback to the standardization organization, so they can improve the standard as it is implemented, which again can benefit the implementers.

In one two words: Working together.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Fair enough
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 22:07 in reply to "RE: Fair enough"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Microsoft should have done to the standards in question for ACID3, what OpenOffice and KOffice did for ODF: Implement not-yet finished proposed standards, giving feedback to the standardization organization, so they can improve the standard as it is implemented, which again can benefit the implementers.


AFAIK, there aren't any "not-yet finished proposed standards" in Acid3. They are all five+years-old-recommended standards.

If that is not correct, and there is a level of a standard in Acid3 testing that has not been stable and had recommended status for over five years, can you say what it is?

Reply Parent Score: 4