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 354952
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
MS is only partially right
by KugelKurt on Wed 25th Mar 2009 11:46 UTC 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

werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

[q]
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.

I would applaud that attitude if they really followed it. The biggest gripe since the standardisation it was even worse than ignoring png until ie7 was the non implementation of SVG in IE.
As I said Microsoft was able to fork an incompatible clone of it for Silverlight, but yet they are not able to implement the proper W3C standard for the IE! The same goes for a load of other finalized standards tested in ACID3. The funny thing is that history seems to repeat itself with EcmaScript4. Everybody wants to integrate it into the browsers. Microsoft does not!

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: MS is only partially right
by ba1l on Wed 25th Mar 2009 15:15 in reply to "RE: MS is only partially right"
ba1l Member since:
2007-09-08

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.


Except there's plenty of stuff IE 8 doesn't support that's a recommended standard. DOM level 2, for example. Most notably, the event model, and everything based off it. This stuff was promoted to "recommended" status back in 2000.

There's hardly anything in Acid3 that isn't a recommended standard.

Besides, the W3C won't generally promote a standard from proposed to recommended until there are a couple of implementations of the thing out in the wild. Someone has to step up and implement them, so the bugs can be worked out. Although, from past history, Microsoft are probably the worst to do it.

The issue with IE 6 wasn't so much that it implemented incomplete standards. It was that it didn't implement even the proposed standards correctly, passed those off as finished implementations, and then wasn't updated for five years. Developers were forced to work around it, causing all kinds of havoc when Microsoft eventually did change some of this behaviour.

Compare that with the approach used by everyone else. Anything non-standard is marked with a browser-specific prefix. So are implementations of draft or proposed standards, or implementations of recommended standards that don't entirely match the behaviour expected. Anything unmarked is generally completely compatible between all those browsers (assuming they all implement it), and anything marked is a big warning sign telling developers not to rely on it, because it's behaviour may change. Or it may disappear completely.

Reply Parent Score: 4

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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.


Not a bit of it. Microsoft are miles short of meeting W3C standards that have matured to the point of finality. DOM level 2 was published in 2000, and hasn't changed since. SVG 1.1 was published in January 2003, and hasn't changed since.

Microsoft are 5 or more years behind the times when it comes to "conforming preciesly to the published standards of the W3C".

Reply Parent Score: 4