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 355115
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Poor excuse!
by jayson.knight on Thu 26th Mar 2009 03:18 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Poor excuse!"
jayson.knight
Member since:
2005-07-06

No worries, I've seen your mis-information all over this thread and was waiting for your response.

Browsers are free, no one cares about lock-in...if you don't like what a browser does (as an end user), then move on. If you don't like what it does (as a developer) then don't develop for it, or figure out ways around whatever isn't working for you.

Sometimes I wonder if the only people who jump up and down screaming "standards standards standards" are people who've never actually developed real world web apps, simply because they have nothing better to do.

Have you ever wondered why these standards are still just in 'recommended' or 'draft' standard? Because no one out in the real world of web development cares about them...at least not the ones mentioned over and over in this thread.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Poor excuse!
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 03:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Poor excuse!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

Browsers are free, no one cares about lock-in


Programs which create web content, and also servers which can deliver web content, satisfying secret proprietary plug-ins, are not free. People very much do care about lock-in.

Have you ever wondered why these standards are still just in 'recommended' or 'draft' standard?


'Recommended' is not 'draft'. 'Recommended' is 'published and stable'.

Because no one out in the real world of web development cares about them...at least not the ones mentioned over and over in this thread.


The ones mentioned over and over in this thread are just becoming available in browsers. They are therefore useful only for the next generation of web content.

And extremely useful they will be. Check this out:

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2008/08/firefox-to-get-mass...

http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2009/02/mozilla-demos-impre...

JIT javascript compilers deliver very impressive performance and open up entirely new capabilities.

Perhaps, as a web developer, it is time that you updated your skills to encompass these new emerging standards-based features, rather than relying on the already-on-its-way-out non-standrad quirks of IE and proprietary plugins for it.

Edited 2009-03-26 03:51 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[4]: Poor excuse!
by lemur2 on Thu 26th Mar 2009 03:57 in reply to "RE[3]: Poor excuse!"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

No worries, I've seen your mis-information all over this thread and was waiting for your response.


By the way, how is it exactly that you think you are able to claim "misinformation" when I am the only one of the two of us to have provided any links or quotes?

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Poor excuse!
by Jack Matier on Thu 26th Mar 2009 18:37 in reply to "RE[3]: Poor excuse!"
Jack Matier Member since:
2005-07-17

Have you ever wondered why these standards are still just in 'recommended' or 'draft' standard? Because no one out in the real world of web development cares about them...at least not the ones mentioned over and over in this thread.


The ones mentioned like PNG, SVG 1.2 (or 1.1/1.0)?

I haven't met anyone "in the real world" who isn't about standards for a while, about 3 years. Maybe I'm not in the same environment as you.

"In the real world" standards save time, and because time is money it saves money too. It means with the exception of IE, I can trust that my site will work (with about 99% certainty) on the next iteration of their browser engine. And here's a kicker, I charge extra on a monthly fee for testing when new browser versions come out. It's about keeping the site updated.

"In the real world" it's really important that browsers implement these standards correctly and keep up to date with new ones to push the web forward, not their own agenda.

One thing I don't see mentioned as a reason for implementing drafts of standards with specific tags is so developers can start testing them before using them on live sites. As more developers test the more likely a glitch will happen. The more likely a glitch is found before real world implementation of the spec, the less likely it will hinder the web.

It's like a beta period before implementing the real thing.

Edited 2009-03-26 18:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[5]: Poor excuse!
by jayson.knight on Thu 26th Mar 2009 18:43 in reply to "RE[4]: Poor excuse!"
jayson.knight Member since:
2005-07-06

Some standards should of course be adhered to, and the ones you mentioned are decent examples. But everything in Acid3? Sometimes I feel that many developers do frilly stuff like that just because they can, not because they should.

I'm with MS on their decision...the entire kitchen sink approach just isn't worth it.

Reply Parent Score: 1