Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 24th Sep 2009 19:17 UTC
Internet Explorer Earlier this week, Google launched Chrome Frame, a plugin for Internet Explorer 6/7/8 which replaces the Trident rendering engine with Chrome's rendering and JavaScript engine for better performance and superior standards compliance. Microsoft has responded to this release, claiming it makes Internet Explorer less secure. Note: What database category do I put this in? Internet Explorer? Google? Choices, choices!
Thread beginning with comment 386154
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:17 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
malxau
Member since:
2005-12-04

What I'd really like to understand is the meaning of "crap" in this context.

Microsoft was criticized for IE6 stagnation, so it re-formed the team and got to work. It was criticized for not having tabs, so it did tabs.

Then it was criticized for not being perfectly standards compliant, since IE5/6 predated the standards. So it worked on standards. And then it was criticized for that not being the default, so it broke IE5/6 compatibility - a huge leap in the dark - and shipped IE8, which gave everyone what they wanted, and struggled to gain any users in the process.

Now IE is just "crap." Not a good analysis of a clear deficiency, just "crap."

I don't work on IE, but I feel really bad for those guys right now. They've tried hard to give people what they want, and the result is just dismissive, unconstructive criticism.

Really, if you, the reader, want to see further standards compliance in IE, the best thing you can do is use IE8 to send a clear message that if Microsoft embraces standards, you will embrace Microsoft.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

What I'd really like to understand is the meaning of "crap" in this context. Microsoft was criticized for IE6 stagnation, so it re-formed the team and got to work. It was criticized for not having tabs, so it did tabs. Then it was criticized for not being perfectly standards compliant, since IE5/6 predated the standards. So it worked on standards. And then it was criticized for that not being the default, so it broke IE5/6 compatibility - a huge leap in the dark - and shipped IE8, which gave everyone what they wanted, and struggled to gain any users in the process. Now IE is just "crap." Not a good analysis of a clear deficiency, just "crap." I don't work on IE, but I feel really bad for those guys right now. They've tried hard to give people what they want, and the result is just dismissive, unconstructive criticism. Really, if you, the reader, want to see further standards compliance in IE, the best thing you can do is use IE8 to send a clear message that if Microsoft embraces standards, you will embrace Microsoft.


Microsoft doesn't embrace the standards.

Exactly those standards that can deliver a "rich, interactive, multimedia" performance from the web via a browser, those are the standards that Microsoft does NOT include in its browser.

Here is a short list where IE falls short:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested

IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid3ie8rc1.png

Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Acid_3_Test_Chrome_2.0.170.0.jpg

The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter). If there is no need for Silverlight or Flash, then one can run a compliant browser (and therefore fully functional) on ANY platform.

That is worth repeating: One can run a compliant and fully functional browser on ANY platform. This was always the design intent of the web in the first place.

One doesn't need Windows or IE to view the web in all its glory.

Edited 2009-09-25 03:06 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 03:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04

Here is a short list where IE falls short: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid3#Standards_tested IE8 incorporates only about 20% of that lot. Google Chrome Frame incorporates 100%. The reason why IE does NOT incorporate those standards? It is pretty simple, really. If IE incorporated those standards, there would be no need for Silverlight (or Flash for that matter).


Your theory is possible, although the official stance of the IE team is that Acid3 includes requirements that are not yet defined standards (HTML5, CSS3, etc.)

Microsoft previously got itself into trouble with IE4/5/6, trying to support things not fully standardized, ultimately resulting in a perception of non-standards compliance afterwards when the standards arrived. They are trying not to repeat a past mistake.

Other browsers are taking a different approach. FireFox 3.5 implements HTML5 video, for example, and did so before it was decided which codec(s) to use. A standard tag without a standard codec is not terribly useful. Obviously in the coming years we'll discover whether FireFox implemented video support "correctly" or not.

This example is not isolated. Firefox, Chrome and Safari have all implemented standards that are not yet standards. It will be interesting to see what the state of things will be five years from now; it's very unlikely that all of these implementations will be conformant with the final standard.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 08:00 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

You claim that Microsoft doesn't follow standards but you are aware that IE8 renders strict W3C standards by default, don't you?

So don't you mean that while they support current W3C standards you feel they should support more?

What you should have specifically said is that IE8 doesn't pass the Acid 3 test, which contains draft CSS3 elements that may in fact be changed or removed in the final proposal.

Here we have people calling IE "crap" for not following draft standards that may not even be part of a proposal that in itself is merely a suggested guideline.

Funny how that is rarely noted. Of course why bother stating the details when you are ideologically driven and just want people to use something other than IE.

Why not just state that you just plain don't want an MS browser to be dominate? It's intellectually honest at least and you'll find plenty of support.

Reply Parent Score: -1