Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 6th Jan 2010 20:01 UTC
Internet Explorer It would appear that Microsoft will finally take standards compliance in the browser world seriously, after dragging its feet for years. Back in November 2009, the Redmond giant already revealed that Internet Explorer 9 would come with CSS3 and HTML5 support, and now the cup runneth over, as Microsoft has requested to join the W3C's SVG Working Group.
Thread beginning with comment 402884
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Wed 6th Jan 2010 20:55 UTC in reply to "Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface
Member since:
2009-08-26

And when they do finally ship a reasonably decent browser


You do realize that CSS3 and HTML5 are draft standards, right? Is your definition of a "decent" browser to mean one that ships with unfinished standards?

I've worked with IE8 and I've had very few problems with it. I really think a lot of this IE bashing is carried over from the IE6 days.

As for trying to replace Flash with (draft) HTML5 it won't make a difference until Google switches youtube over. Google is actually in the best position when it comes to ridding the world of Flash but they seem to be taking their sweet time.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Kroc on Wed 6th Jan 2010 21:02 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Kroc Member since:
2005-11-10

IE8 is very good, but it still lacks decent JS, lacks Canvas, lacks HTML5 Video/Audio, lacks client-side databases, lacks web workers and lacks SVG (a 9 year old standard).

Edited 2010-01-06 21:02 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Wed 6th Jan 2010 21:47 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

IE8 is very good, but it still lacks decent JS, lacks Canvas, lacks HTML5 Video/Audio, lacks client-side databases, lacks web workers and lacks SVG (a 9 year old standard).


You want to complain about SVG, that's fine. I doubt there would be an SVG revolution even if it was widely supported but that at least is a fair complaint.

IE8 has decent JS, Google docs works in it just fine. Yes it loses to other browsers in JS benchmarks but that doesn't mean that AJAX developers are held back by IE. Those benchmarks are mostly used by Google for bragging rights. Real-world differences are minimal. Your browser is more likely to choke on a small Flash ad than a website filled with JS.

As for HTML5 the default video codec still hasn't been decided. People are arguing over the what the standard should be and yet you are bashing IE for not supporting it. Web workers are a draft proposal as well.

I've worked with IE8 on a very AJAX heavy website and it was an absolute pleasure compared to previous versions. I also preferred working with it to FF OSX which annoyingly cannot be counted on to render websites identically to FF Windows.

Oh and I browse with Google Chrome 90% of the time.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by kaiwai on Wed 6th Jan 2010 23:45 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

You do realize that CSS3 and HTML5 are draft standards, right? Is your definition of a "decent" browser to mean one that ships with unfinished standards?

I've worked with IE8 and I've had very few problems with it. I really think a lot of this IE bashing is carried over from the IE6 days.

As for trying to replace Flash with (draft) HTML5 it won't make a difference until Google switches youtube over. Google is actually in the best position when it comes to ridding the world of Flash but they seem to be taking their sweet time.


Agreed; that is the only reason why I have Flash installed - so I can watch YouTube. If there was no need to use Flash with YouTube, it would be the first thing I would uninstall if I had the chance.

The problem is that there are still large numbers of online stores that use Flash extensively unfortunately - and Microsoft dragging their heals isn't helping the situation.

As for draft; the whole HTML5 might be in 'draft' but there are parts of the draft that are finalised and static; they've already been hashed out and all the parties agree with it - why not implement those ones? Limur IIRC listed a huge array of technologies, some existing in stable form for over a decade that haven't been implemented by Microsoft yet. Lets not try to kid ourselves, the moment that HTML5 does gain traction I can assure you Microsoft and Adobe will be running for cover.

I suggest all those Microsoft apologists who can't help but apologise for Microsoft to have a look at over a decade of obstruction or non-participation by Microsoft when it comes to open standards. They sat on OASIS for the ODF specification, knew that it didn't fulfill the requierments of being suitable for Microsoft Office - but did they contribute *ANYTHING* so that it could be transformed into a first class file format for Microsoft Office? of course not. They sat by and did nothing - and when the format was finalised all they did was bash the OASIS group for having a format that didn't address all the Microsoft features (where the hell were you Microsoft when you could have provided input in the design phase?!).

Then there is HTML5, again, what contributions have they made - there is a stalemate when it comes to the default video format - why doesn't Microsoft office the VC-1 format royalty free for open source browser and CODEC projects? Silly me! that would actually require Microsoft to realise that the whole world doesn't revolve around them and that they do actually have to contribute something to the larger ecosystem besides obstructing the development of standards.

Quite frankly, to put up the issue about IE6 for the bad reputation of Internet Explorer in general is disingenuous - the issue goes well beyond simply that of Internet Explorer and covers the entire company culture that encourages balkanisation of standards, obstructing standards from being developed or simply standing back not doing anything to improve standards then turn around a month later after it has been standardised simply to bad mouth it.

Edited 2010-01-06 23:48 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by Nelson on Thu 7th Jan 2010 00:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29

I don't see the real urgency, when today, now, at this moment, you can write RIAs in Silverlight and be more productive than with anything HTML5/SVG/CSS3 could possibly offer up.

Nice additions sure, but its not the end of the world. Flash just gives plugin based RIAs a bad name, Silverlight runs circles around it performance wise.

Silverlight still does things faster than every browsers Javascript implementation, especially with the GPU support in Silverlight3.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by nt_jerkface on Thu 7th Jan 2010 04:19 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26

Agreed; that is the only reason why I have Flash installed - so I can watch YouTube. If there was no need to use Flash with YouTube, it would be the first thing I would uninstall if I had the chance. The problem is that there are still large numbers of online stores that use Flash extensively unfortunately - and Microsoft dragging their heals isn't helping the situation.


Why would those stores switch to HTML5 when everyone installs Flash? It isn't as if HTML5 offers bandwidth savings. There isn't a default codec so are you suggesting that those stores build multiple formats? What is to be gained?

If you want to blame anyone for holding back HTML5 video it is Google, not Microsoft. Google is the one that keeps youtube in Flash even though they have the resources to convert the videos to the Theora format. But guess what? They don't want to. Sure they ship Chrome with Theora support but that doesn't matter when they keep youtube in Flash. As you said that's why you install Flash in the first place. Most people will install anything to watch youtube. Does Google take advantage of this to move the web away from flash? Nope, in fact they have partnered with Adobe to bring flash to their phones.


As for draft; the whole HTML5 might be in 'draft' but there are parts of the draft that are finalised and static; they've already been hashed out and all the parties agree with it - why not implement those ones?


HTML5 is really all about video. Flash has been the bane for alternative operating systems which is why HTML5 is being pushed.

If you think browsers should support subsets of HTML5 then state them, but people shouldn't bash IE for not following HTML5 when the W3C explicitly describes it as a working draft.
http://www.w3.org/QA/2009/05/_watching_the_google_io.html


Quite frankly, to put up the issue about IE6 for the bad reputation of Internet Explorer in general is disingenuous - the issue goes well beyond simply that of Internet Explorer and covers the entire company culture that encourages balkanisation of standards, obstructing standards from being developed or simply standing back not doing anything to improve standards then turn around a month later after it has been standardised simply to bad mouth it.


You have a grudge against Microsoft that prevents you from judging their products individually. That's ok, it's a common bias.

However try not to let your hatred blind you from the current reality of Google buddying up with Adobe which will ensure that Flash is around for another 10 years.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by rayson on Thu 7th Jan 2010 06:11 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
rayson Member since:
2009-05-21

Agreed; that is the only reason why I have Flash installed - so I can watch YouTube. If there was no need to use Flash with YouTube, it would be the first thing I would uninstall if I had the chance.


+1

I have firefox and IE6 on my Win2k machine. Firefox for everything and IE6 with flash enabled for youtube. When I get my Win7 laptop later this year, I will finally "upgrade" from Firefox to Chrome -- ie. Chrome for everything and Firefox for youtube.

I really hate Flash, it's slow, and from time to time my broswer crashes because of it. All non-youtube flash sites won't be visited by me.

Rayson

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: Comment by Kroc
by smashIt on Thu 7th Jan 2010 10:13 in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by Kroc"
smashIt Member since:
2005-07-06

They sat on OASIS for the ODF specification, knew that it didn't fulfill the requierments of being suitable for Microsoft Office - but did they contribute *ANYTHING* so that it could be transformed into a first class file format for Microsoft Office? of course not. They sat by and did nothing - and when the format was finalised all they did was bash the OASIS group for having a format that didn't address all the Microsoft features (where the hell were you Microsoft when you could have provided input in the design phase?!).


what should they have done in your opinion?
make odf an ooxml clone and render it virtualy unimplementable for everyone else?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by Delgarde on Thu 7th Jan 2010 08:56 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

You do realize that CSS3 and HTML5 are draft standards, right? Is your definition of a "decent" browser to mean one that ships with unfinished standards?


Why not? All the other serious browsers do - Firefox, Chrome, Safari. More than that, the people making those browsers are, in part, the same people making the standards - implementing those drafts allows people to actually try them out, feeding their experience back into the standards process.

I've worked with IE8 and I've had very few problems with it. I really think a lot of this IE bashing is carried over from the IE6 days.


Agreed, IE8 is a huge improvement over it's predecessors, and a fairly decent browser - it's corrected the worst of those predecessor's idiosyncrasies, and it's design seems robust.

Problem is, it's still a long way behind where it's competitors are now, and with it's long release cycles, IE doesn't evolve quickly enough to catch up. By the time IE9 is released in a year or two, it's capabilities will probably be comparable to what the other browsers do *now*. Where will those browsers be by then?

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by pooo on Sat 9th Jan 2010 12:22 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
pooo Member since:
2006-04-22

You obviously haven't worked with ie7 much.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Comment by Kroc
by reez on Sun 10th Jan 2010 13:29 in reply to "RE: Comment by Kroc"
reez Member since:
2006-06-28

You do realize that CSS3 and HTML5 are draft standards, right? Is your definition of a "decent" browser to mean one that ships with unfinished standards?

I've worked with IE8 and I've had very few problems with it. I really think a lot of this IE bashing is carried over from the IE6 days.

As for trying to replace Flash with (draft) HTML5 it won't make a difference until Google switches youtube over. Google is actually in the best position when it comes to ridding the world of Flash but they seem to be taking their sweet time.


Yes, you can and should use HTML5. Here is why:
"Finished" is a big deal... You'll be able to use HTML5 long before then.(snip)

It is estimated by the editor that HTML5 will reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012. That doesn't mean you can't start using it yet, though. Different parts of the specification are at different maturity levels. Some sections are already relatively stable and there are implementations that are already quite close to completion, and those features can be used today (e.g. <canvas>). But other sections are still being actively worked on and changed regularly, or not even written yet.

You can use some of them now. Others might take a few more years to get widely implemented. Here are some sites that might help you work out what you can use in the meantime:

* http://diveintohtml5.org/

If you know of any more (or if you have some yourself) then add them to the list! If there are some on the list that aren't very useful compared to the rest, them remove them!

http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_HTML5_be_finished.3F
http://wiki.whatwg.org/wiki/FAQ#When_will_we_be_able_to_start_using...


The main reason is that HTML5 will become a recommendation, as soon as all bigger browsers support it. This won't happen until IE also adopts it (or it market share shrinks to a negligible size). So yes, IE needs to have HTML5 support to be decent!

Edited 2010-01-10 13:30 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1