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 355203
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Laugh, Laugh, I thought I'd die
by deathshadow on Thu 26th Mar 2009 14:30 UTC
deathshadow
Member since:
2005-07-12

It seemed so funny to me...

Reading some of these comments are a hoot... Got news for folks - When did CSS2 exit draft? 1998... When did you start to see it's widespread use in the manner it was meant to because it was real world deployable? 2004-2005 ish.

Is support for CSS2 complete TODAY over a decade later? NOPE.

Just because the browsers support it does that make it deployable? Nope.


As I've said before several places I do not expect the majority of CSS3 to be real world deployable until sometime around 2015 to 2020.

... and I actually APPLAUD the IE team's deciding to try and focus on getting CSS2 correct before moving on to CSS3 - lands sake if only the mozilla folks bothered with that we'd not have a buggy inline-block that most developers are claiming works properly, and we'd have properly working colgroups, correct default positioning of elements inside inline-block ones, working @page, working attr=, fully styleable psuedo-elements, proper behavior of white-space on textarea, working pre-line, working display:run-in, properly triggering blur when onchange is tripped, properly implemented print properties... Hell, none of the browsers even implement float:right and float:left 100% correctly yet! (rarely an issue, involves line-collapse upwards)

As I said on the DECADE OLD UNRESOLVED bugzilla #915, maybe they should concentrate on finishing off HTML4 and CSS2 before having people wasting time on specifications that aren't even out of draft? (HTML 5 and CSS3)

Glad to see somebody listened, too bad it wasn't Mozilla.

Oh, and as to SVG, Adobe dropped it hard because they realized it couldn't compete with Macromedia Flash, so they took a page out of Symantec's playbook and bought out macromedia, buried their own product and rebranded Flash as their own...

Wait, no, my bad... Adobe has a history of doing that too - see what happened to Aldus.

Edited 2009-03-26 14:32 UTC

Reply Score: 2

werpu Member since:
2006-01-18

It seemed so funny to me...


Oh, and as to SVG, Adobe dropped it hard because they realized it couldn't compete with Macromedia Flash, so they took a page out of Symantec's playbook and bought out macromedia, buried their own product and rebranded Flash as their own...



Yes but show me one open standard doing decent vector graphics implemented by many browsers pluginless and you will end up with SVG, we do not have an alternative, period!
If you can show it to me I will be happy to stop my ranting!

The history of SVG is pretty well known, but that does not make it a pointless or useless standard, in fact it is one thing most web designers today really miss, the possibility of scalable resolution independend graphics. I am not even talking about the advanced capabilities of this format (which btw. would make most of flash obsolete) I am just talking about plain vector rendering as it was specified by SVG 1.0.
That Adobe dropped it was clear, they got possiblity to buy their strongest competitor and got basically an industry defacto standard into their hands with a superset of SVGs functionality so why still bother with SVG. Again that does not make the standard itself pointless in fact it is very important!
Important enough that Microsoft saw the need to fork it away and rename it to XAML!

And so far Microsoft is the one party to the browser mix who again prevent the widespread usage of an important technology, just like they did so many times. All I may say here is PNG transparency and how many years people had to suffer through transparent gifs or browser hacks which slowed the IE rendering down!

Reply Parent Score: 2

deathshadow Member since:
2005-07-12

I actually agree SVG is an important technology - but I have the same trepidation about it's use I have for flash, since open/closed so far as standards means shit to me.

Just as flash is ABUSED for things like headers, text replacement, navigation and other applications where it is an accessability fail and bloats out the page needlessly, SVG runs the same risk. In a lot of cases it will be a bandwidth saver where vectors are smaller than fixed images and will resize better - and I'm all for that... The problem is in a lot of cases it's just going to be used and abused by people who have no business designing websites in the first place - you know, the people commonly known as 'flashtards'. After all there's a reason it's called flash and not substance.

As to transparent png, all supporting that does is increase the sizes of websites up into the stratosphere, as if we don't have enough of that drek already with many websites peaking out over a megabyte all to deliver under 2k of text content... Then trying to use technologies like Ajax, flash (and soon SVG) to try and save bandwidth or compensate for CSS being 'too hard' to understand, and instead accomplishing the exact opposite. (Have a look at the steaming pile of manure known as the code behind the latest incarnation of hotmail for an example of bloating out a page and making it slower in the name of saving bandwidth and increasing speed!).

Rarely are alpha transparent .png neccessary for a layout, and usually result in fat bloated rubbish that just costs bandwidth for something that can usually be pre-composited... The only people that REALLY give a flying fig about alpha .png are the same art faygala's who forget that users do not visit websites for fancy bandwidth chewing layouts crammed full of "gee ain't it neat" technologies like flash banners.

Users visit websites for the content - frankly if you are kvetching over alpha .png, the site in question is probably not doing all that well in that department as more time is being spent on goofy graphics than anything of value the end user might actually visit the site for.

Oh, and don't forget IE has supported palettized transparent .png since IE4... The only REAL complaint I have about .png is that it doesn't color-match becuase the artificial gamma correction IE applies to .gif, .jpg and CSS/HTML color values is not applied to .png - oh noes, I might have to use a .gif or .jpg - aah, it's the end of the world...

NOT

Reply Parent Score: 2