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 386181
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 08:00 UTC 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

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by malxau on Fri 25th Sep 2009 14:25 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
malxau Member since:
2005-12-04


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


That's true of the Wikipedia page. However the official page (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3) is quite clear that CSS3 is tested.

Your earlier point that this does not fully explain IE8's low score remains valid.


Since I have supplied the details, don't you look more than a little silly now?...I don't suppose I am ever going to get an apology from you, am I? Oh well, c'est la vie.


I dream of a time when Internet discussions can be factual without escalating interpersonal conflict. It's strange that web discussions tend to go to a level which would never occur face-to-face. I still don't understand why.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Fri 25th Sep 2009 19:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Well I think you have learned a lesson in not putting too much faith in wikipedia.

Funny how your post was modded up and mine down even though the Acid 3 test clearly contains CSS3 elements:
http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid3

Interesting how your position has gone from "doesn't embrace standards" to "supports a subset" in a few paragraphs.

Since IE8 supports HTML 4.01 strict please tell me what you mean by IE only supports a subset.

Reply Parent Score: 1