Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 22:11 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Internet Explorer "There, I said it. Microsoft has been bombarding the media with claims about how much better IE9 is than all the other browsers, more HTML5 and CSS3 compliant than any other browser that ever existing and ever will. It's the only browser that passes all the tests they made up. And, Microsoft has finally implemented the CSS3 selectors that were implemented by other browsers back in, what? 2003? Because Microsoft has updated IE to support CSS3 selectors and rounded corners, they want us to believe that somehow IE9 magically supports the whole slew of CSS3 visual styling. I'm afraid it doesn't. As a matter of fact, IE9's support for CSS3 visual styling is so poor that the results are shocking."
Thread beginning with comment 446769
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Ow!
by Driht on Sat 23rd Oct 2010 19:45 UTC
Driht
Member since:
2010-08-16

Sorry, Thom, but I think you did a mistake posting some FUD about Microsoft made up by some moron who knows exactly what he is doing.

That moron has made on pourpose a page which can only work with Webkit specific experimental features no other browser engine shoud use. And then went bashing Microsoft for being incapable of doing something they must not do.

In fact, the rendering of that page works is very similar in his IE9 and in my Opera 10.63, but Opera doesn't do rounded corners or the shadows. Firefox doesn't do the shadows, so I assume he has used some Webkit-only thing.

Looking the code, the reason for the lack of rounded corners is pretty obvious: it uses -webkit and -moz properties for rounded corners, which should only work on Webkit (Chrome, Safari...) and Gecko (Firefox...). Opera follows the standards to the letter here, and only supports rounded corners without those prefixes.
So what's shocking me now is the fact that IE9 is painting round corners, because, following the standards, it shouldn't.

Every modern browser has mistakes in standards support; they are very well known by web developers, so making a test to make any of them look bad is usually a matter of knowing how to use Google.

The promise of "Same Markup" is a noble goal, but no browser has ever been able to attain it. Some of the reasons are technical (it is a very, very difficult thing to do), but I think that nowadays no browser vendor can achieve a complete standards support because of two reasons:
- Standards are not as precise as they should. There are some obscure issues not covered by them; it is usually solved by agreements between browsers to do it the same way, or by copying the first one who implemented it.
- Standards are a work in progress. CSS 3 is only a draft! HTML 5 is being written! They aren't even standards; they will be standards once they have been completed and approved, but they aren't now, it may requiere years to get there! W3C could decide to kill them, or make radical changes, and what then? We would have a world wide web full of non-standard pages running in non-standard browsers. They would not do as much (they would get the worse of it), but it should be expected little changes, which are going to break current browsers and pages. Anyway, by definition, if a standard is not finished, you can't say you are following it.

This is a publicity stunt by a moron with a blog nobody reads, and you are giving him a lot of visits and misleading your readers. Please, Thom, remove the link, or make an update with a correction. I love your work to much to see it ripped by this mistake.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Ow!
by google_ninja on Sun 24th Oct 2010 19:42 in reply to "Ow!"
google_ninja Member since:
2006-02-05

Actually, the reason it is getting torn apart is because it appears everyone here thinks they know what they are talking about, even though they dont.

MS said that IE8 would not try to implement emerging standards. IE9 on the other hand is supposed to have great css3 and html 5 support, the implication being they aren't so far behind everyone else.

Now the way that w3c standards work is they become recommendations AFTER there are working implementations. Since the w3c is the browser vendors (this is a consortium, not a standards body), it is the vendors job to actually implement them as they are getting written, so that the final versions actually have the kinks worked out.

During that process, vendors use the proprietary extension syntax (like -webkit, or -moz) until they are happy enough with the results, at which point they support the version without prefixes as well.

So according to MS, IE9 is throwing their support behind emerging standards. They are doing it, but only for a handful of things, pretty much where the rest of the world was at a year and a half ago.

The reason this is such a big deal is because safari, chrome, and opera users tend to upgrade in under a month after the release of a new version. Firefox it is more like 6-8months. IE it is measured in years. So 5 years from now when IE9 has enough marketshare to actually care about, we will be dealing with a browser that is just starting to implement the newest generation of standards, while all of the other browsers around now are almost done.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE: Ow!
by vodoomoth on Mon 25th Oct 2010 12:20 in reply to "Ow!"
vodoomoth Member since:
2010-03-30


Sorry, Thom, but I think you did a mistake posting some FUD about Microsoft made up by some moron who knows exactly what he is doing.
[...]
This is a publicity stunt by a moron with a blog nobody reads, and you are giving him a lot of visits and misleading your readers. Please, Thom, remove the link, or make an update with a correction. I love your work to much to see it ripped by this mistake.

Please, see my comment (http://www.osnews.com/permalink?446938) where I give my point of view about this. I don't think we should mangle the news item. I don't think Thom having posted a user submission is wrong or that the member who submitted did anything wrong. An open mind receiving educated opinions is better equipped. Don't you think? I, for one, didn't know about the w3c's standards adoption process, and that's just an example.
Anyway, I'm sure the true content (and intent) of the blogger's post is less likely to mislead people now that we've debated about it here.

Edited 2010-10-25 12:22 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2