Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 16th Mar 2010 16:54 UTC
Internet Explorer As predicted, more Microsoft news from MIX10, and this is some big stuff: Internet Explorer 9. As we all know, Microsoft really let Internet Explorer rot away, allowing competitors to make much better browsers with better standards compliance and performance. With IE9, Microsoft is aiming to not just close that gap - but to overtake the competition. Update: Ars has an in-depth look at the platform preview.
Thread beginning with comment 413877
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: Not actually new...
by beowuff on Tue 16th Mar 2010 18:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Not actually new..."
Member since:

Well, there use to be a ton of IE specific tags that were not part of any specification. They tried to do the same thing with the MS Java VM. And are currently doing it with XML in Office.

I think the non standard tags helped kill off Netscape's popularity, though they had their own non standard tags as they were trying to do the same thing to IE. It back fired with the MS JVM partly because Sun owned Java. XML in Office appears to be working. This is, of course, simply my opinion.

Also, I am not arguing moving more towards a standard base. You can support a standard base while still adding in extra stuff that doesn't break the standard. It can be part of what helps one to differentiate yourself from the competition.

Edited 2010-03-16 18:52 UTC

Reply Parent Score: -3

RE[3]: Not actually new...
by google_ninja on Tue 16th Mar 2010 19:26 in reply to "RE[2]: Not actually new..."
google_ninja Member since:

So, your first two examples were good examples of the whole "embrace, extend, extinguish" thing, but we're talking about 15 years ago now, and they got in a lot of trouble for both. Your third example is wrong, they are not trying to extend xml in any non standard way, peoples problems were binary bits in the xml that weren't documented (although that is still valid xml)

When it comes to web stuff, the problem wasn't html, it was javascript and css. IE7 fixed most of the worst css problems, IE8 was fully css 2.1 compliant (so propriatary extensions are prefixed by a -ie-, just like the other vendors do)IE9 is actually adopting emerging standards, which is something we haven't seen the IE team do before.

As a web developer, the only thing better then this is if IE suddenly disappeared overnight one day and I didn't have to worry about it at all. We haven't seen any evidence of extending standards into propriatary places yet, and while some of the changes aren't as good as they could be (like filter becomming -ie-filter instead of rgba, opacity, and transform), overall there hasn't been any moves in bad directions.

Reply Parent Score: 5

v RE[4]: Not actually new...
by tylerdurden on Tue 16th Mar 2010 21:29 in reply to "RE[3]: Not actually new..."
RE[3]: Not actually new...
by BluenoseJake on Tue 16th Mar 2010 21:31 in reply to "RE[2]: Not actually new..."
BluenoseJake Member since:

used to be...

Reply Parent Score: 2

modmans2ndcoming Member since:

Reality calling... you can't mess up XML... it has a single set of conventions and no standard tags. If it is well formed, that is all that is required. So try something else pal.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: Not actually new...
by JPowers27 on Tue 16th Mar 2010 22:13 in reply to "RE[3]: Not actually new..."
JPowers27 Member since:

Actually MS messed up XML...

In XML you can encode characters using one of two formats; however, MS created a third one.

Can't find the references right now...

Reply Parent Score: 0