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 354874
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
He should be...
by mrhasbean on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:04 UTC
mrhasbean
Member since:
2006-04-03

... a politician.

"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," Hodge explained


What a crock of crud. Do what the others do, support the emerging "standards" and make changes as necessary. All this translates to is "IE is too poorly coded to allow for fluid changes so we're not even going to try"

Reply Score: 7

RE: He should be...
by jbauer on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:16 in reply to "He should be..."
jbauer Member since:
2005-07-06

What a crock of crud. Do what the others do, support the emerging "standards" and make changes as necessary. All this translates to is "IE is too poorly coded to allow for fluid changes so we're not even going to try"


Sure. And then, face the flak that they will receive for sure when applications and pages that were made targeting those drafted standards break as a result of the changes. Because it's Microsoft we're talking about, and you know, no matter how they play it, they cannot win.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: He should be...
by Laurence on Wed 25th Mar 2009 09:56 in reply to "RE: He should be..."
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Sure. And then, face the flak that they will receive for sure when applications and pages that were made targeting those drafted standards break as a result of the changes. Because it's Microsoft we're talking about, and you know, no matter how they play it, they cannot win.


So they choose not to play at all?

Sorry, but that's a weak excuse for not keeping technology up-to-date.

sure, I can understand with not keeping various bleeding edge standards out of the build, but items like SVG aren't bleeding edge and are a recognised standard. Not building SVG support is just lazy and bad form.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: He should be...
by kaiwai on Wed 25th Mar 2009 11:15 in reply to "RE: He should be..."
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

Sure. And then, face the flak that they will receive for sure when applications and pages that were made targeting those drafted standards break as a result of the changes. Because it's Microsoft we're talking about, and you know, no matter how they play it, they cannot win.


How many of these specifications are changed on whim with no considerations of browsers who have implemented them in the draft form? if you're going to make such bold claims about compatibility as the standard rapidly evolves; show me a case scenario in Firefox, Opera or Webkit where a draft standard has been adopted, the standard has changed, the browser is changed to be compatible with the new standard - and a website is broken.

Reply Parent Score: 2

v RE: He should be...
by cptomlly on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:25 in reply to "He should be..."
RE[2]: He should be...
by middleware on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:36 in reply to "RE: He should be..."
middleware Member since:
2006-05-11

Watch your announcement. All other browsers have more than 30% market share. Your statement about FireFox on Acid3 might be valid, but your careless reasoning has counteracted its validity.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: He should be...
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 00:59 in reply to "RE: He should be..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Do what the others do...
The others being WebKit, Opera, and Gecko? Who have about a .9% broswer market share combine? Firefox 3 isn't supporting Acid 3. "

Firefox 3.1 scores 94 out of 100 for Acid 3 compliance.

IE8 scores only 20.

Reply Parent Score: 11

RE: He should be...
by Auzy on Wed 25th Mar 2009 02:06 in reply to "He should be..."
Auzy Member since:
2008-01-20

Actually.. I'd have to agree with Microsoft at this point. Its entirely valid.

Nobody should be using draft standards in their code anyway, even if browsers can use the standards. Otherwise later if the standards change, everyone will start crying "IE8 breaks standards" after changes are made to the standards, and Microsoft complies. Microsoft is in a position where people strike them down in ALL cases of operation. Hell, most mac users are still walking around telling people that "OSX doesn't bsod, and Vista BSOD's constantly". And they get away with it. Not everything MS does is right, but they best be cautious.

ACID3 is more of a marketing tool. Browsers like to make a lot of noise that they support it, but the reality is, only a few tests in ACID3 are valid (like the performance tests). Just because Safari or Opera supports ACID3 doesn't make them a good browser (I don't personally use IE8 or any of these).

What happens if the standards change? Even ACID3 will be broken then. We shouldn't encourage websites to be developed using standards which aren't set in stone, especially when there is no good reason to. There was a good reason to break standards with 802.11n (it offered genuine benefits, and the process was moving much too slow).

In this case, I'd rather Microsoft spends their time optimising IE, so that IE9's performance is finally at par, instead of WAYYY below.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: He should be...
by lemur2 on Wed 25th Mar 2009 02:21 in reply to "RE: He should be..."
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Actually.. I'd have to agree with Microsoft at this point. Its entirely valid.


No, it isn't. Not valid at all. I'll explain why in a bit.

Not everything MS does is right, but they best be cautious. ACID3 is more of a marketing tool. Browsers like to make a lot of noise that they support it, but the reality is, only a few tests in ACID3 are valid (like the performance tests).


Where did you get this from? Acid3 test compliance with recommended standards. Not with draft standards ... recommended standards.

What happens if the standards change? Even ACID3 will be broken then. We shouldn't encourage websites to be developed using standards which aren't set in stone, especially when there is no good reason to.


You mis-understand. Let me give you an example or two.

DOM level 1 ... all browsers comply with this.

DOM level 2 ... doesn't break DOM level 1, but rather adds to it. Webkit (Safari and Chrome) and gecko (Firefox) both comply with DOM level 1 and DOM level 2, whereas IE8 doesn't comply with DOM level 2. DOM level 2 isn't draft ... it became the recommended standard in 2000. Acid3 tests for compliance (amongst other things) with DOM level 2.

DOM level 3 might still be draft ... and AFAIK no browsers implement DOM to that level yet ... but Acid3 doesn't test for it and when it is implemented it won't break DOM level 2.

Similarly for SVG. SVG 1.0 is quite old now, Acid3 looks for compliance for SVG 1.1 (which doesn't break SVG 1.0), and the draft in-development SVG is 1.2 (which doesn't break SVG 1.0 or SVG 1.1).

There was a good reason to break standards with 802.11n (it offered genuine benefits, and the process was moving much too slow). In this case, I'd rather Microsoft spends their time optimising IE, so that IE9's performance is finally at par, instead of WAYYY below.


Only IE breaks these standards ... by not implementing them. Other browsers all comply to a very good level.

IE8 doesn't have a JIT Javascript compiler, so its performance is still WAYYY below par (as set by Safari, Firefox, Opera and Chrome).

Edited 2009-03-25 02:28 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 13

RE: He should be...
by obsidian on Wed 25th Mar 2009 07:53 in reply to "He should be..."
obsidian Member since:
2007-05-12

Exactly!

When it comes to "standards", MS were very quick to buy influence and votes to make their Office Open XML a "standard", as it could be used as a selling-point and hence there was money in it for them.

However, IE8 is free, so there's little pressure on them to make it standards-compliant. No money in it, unlike Office, hence the "take what you're given and be grateful" attitude of MS.

So it can be seen that this "the standards are only draft" thing is just a smokescreen.

Reply Parent Score: 2