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 386157
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 02:46 UTC 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[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 03:21 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"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.) "

There are a very few tests in the acid3 suite that are not yet finalised W3C standards.

However, if one were to make a browser that passed only the acid3 subtests for standards that have been established for over, say, five years ... then one would still socre over 90 on the acid3 tests.

IE8 scores just 20.

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

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.


The fact that MOST of the tests within acid3 are for standards that are over 5 years since they have become a W3C recommendation (and therefore stable) well and truly debunks this contention.

Here is just one example ... the acid3 tests include some tests against SVG 1.1.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scalable_Vector_Graphics

SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.


Over six years ago. IE still, after six years, includes absolutely no SVG functionality.

IE8 could at least quadruple its score against acid3 simply by incorporating agreed standards the have been stable and standard for over 5 years now.

That is how far behind IE is.

PS: from the same page: "SVG 1.0 became a W3C Recommendation on September 4, 2001". Now I can almost hear your protest ... "see, it isn't stable". Sorry, but that just isn't so. SVG 1.1 is a superset of SVG 1.0, and not a revision of the earlier standard.

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.


The only reason why there is any contention here is that the vested interests who want to require you to have their particular platform to view the web have sabotaged agreement on the codec(s) for the HTML5 standard.

It is not hard to replace a codec, or indeed support a few different codecs simultaneously. This is no reason to defer from going ahead with HTML5.

Every browser apart from IE supports HTML5 with Theora. Even Safari will support Theora if one simply downloads the codec.

Now, happily, with Google Chrome Frame, even IE8 will support this.

So it will become a defacto standard, even though the vested interests have successfuly delayed it becoming a formal de jure standard.

Edited 2009-09-25 03:41 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by werpu on Fri 25th Sep 2009 07:33 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
werpu Member since:
2006-01-18


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.)

Please read the list instead of quoting Microsoft fud and lies. ACID 3 does neither test for CSS3 nor for HTML5 all it does is to test against existing standards.
One of the reason why Microsoft falls flat for at least 20% is the absolute non compliance to any SVG.
The other 60% simply are bugs or half implemented other standards! The only thing IE8 is really good at is CSS 2.1 compliance, kudos to them that one is really excellent, the rest is still shoddy.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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

RE[4]: Comment by Kroc
by lemur2 on Fri 25th Sep 2009 12:12 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by Kroc"
lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

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


It follows a small sub-set of W3C standards, but it doesn't implement most of them.

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


No, I mean that IE8 doesn't support most of the current W3C standards.

Which is what I said.

What you should have specifically said is that IE8 doesn't pass the Acid 3 test,


That is true as well.

which contains draft CSS3 elements that may in fact be changed or removed in the final proposal.


Here is the list of W3C standards that acid3 tests.

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

The following standards are tested by Acid3:

* DOM Level 2 Traversal (subtests 1–6)
* DOM Level 2 Range (subtests 7–11)
* Content-Type: image/png; text/plain (subtests 14–15)
* <object> handling and HTTP status codes (subtest 16)
* DOM Level 2 Core (subtests 17, 21)
* DOM Level 2 Events (subtests 17, 30–32)
* CSS Selectors (subtests 33–40)
* DOM Level 2 Style (subtest 45)
* DOM Level 2 HTML (subtest 60)
* DOM Level 2 Views
* ECMAScript GC (subtests 26–27)
* Unicode 5.0 UTF-16 (subtest 68)
* Unicode 5.0 UTF-8 (subtest 70)
* HTML 4.0 Transitional (subtest 71)
* HTML 4.01 Strict
* SVG 1.1 (subtests 74, 78)
* SVG 1.1 Fonts (subtests 77, 79)
* SMIL 2.1 (subtests 75–76)
* ECMAScript Conformance (subtests 81-96)
* Data URI scheme (subtest 97)
* XHTML 1.0 Strict (subtest 98)
* HTTP 1.1 Protocol


Sorry, but there is no CSS3 tests there, the only CSS tests are CSS 2.1.

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.


Did you actually read the list of tests included in acid3?

Which of these is still draft, do you think?

I can give you some help if you want:

- DOM Level 2 was published in late 2000.
- CSS level 2 was developed by the W3C and published as a Recommendation in May 1998.
- The first edition of ECMA-262 (ECMAScript) was adopted by the ECMA General Assembly of June 1997.
- Unicode 5.0 July 2006
- December 1997 HTML 4.0 was published as a W3C Recommendation
- December 1999 HTML 4.01 was published as a W3C Recommendation.
- SVG 1.1 became a W3C Recommendation on January 14, 2003.
- The HTML 4.01 specification references the data URI scheme
- XHTML 1.0 Strict is the XML equivalent to strict HTML 4.01, in January 2000 it was officially adopted as a W3C Recommendation.
- The HTTP 1.1 standard as defined in RFC 2068 was officially released in January 1997.
- SMIL 2.1 became a W3C Recommendation in December 2005.

Funny how that is rarely noted.


That is because it isn't actually true. That means that most people don't "lie for Microsoft", I suppose.

Of course why bother stating the details when you are ideologically driven and just want people to use something other than IE.


How many details did you want?

Since I have supplied the details, don't you look more than a little silly now?

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.


Sigh!

Please read the list of web standards tested by acid3, compare that to my list of dates provided above, and then point out which are still draft, and only then get on your high horse.

-- I don't suppose I am ever going to get an apology from you, am I? Oh well, c'est la vie.

Edited 2009-09-25 12:25 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4