Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 27th Feb 2013 01:59 UTC
Internet Explorer "Internet Explorer 10 is available worldwide in 95 languages for download today. We will begin auto updating Windows 7 customers to IE10 in the weeks ahead, starting today with customers running the IE10 Release Preview. With this final release, IE10 brings the same leading standards support, with improved performance, security, privacy, reliability that consumers enjoy on Windows 8, to Windows 7 customers."
Thread beginning with comment 553753
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
That's cool.
by Drumhellar on Wed 27th Feb 2013 04:44 UTC
Drumhellar
Member since:
2005-07-12

That's cool. IE10 is a good browser. Now, IE users will be able to see this site ( http://sewingandembroiderywarehouse.com/embtrb.htm ) in all it's broken glory, since prior versions of IE render it like it was meant to look.

Which makes me wonder: Part of the HTML spec is that browsers do their best to render broken HTML. That site has broken HTML, but IE 7-9 render it correctly. Are they better at rendering bad HTML?

Reply Score: 4

RE: That's cool.
by lucas_maximus on Wed 27th Feb 2013 07:14 in reply to "That's cool."
lucas_maximus Member since:
2009-08-18

Removal of IE comments as well.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: That's cool.
by avgalen on Wed 27th Feb 2013 11:44 in reply to "That's cool."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

It renders the same in IE10 on Windows 8 as in Chrome on Windows 8 (meaning badly). However, when I press the compatibility view in IE10 it renders "perfectly"

Conclusion: Both are standard compliant, but IE10 is better at rendering bad code then Chrome

I can't make a comparison with older IE's, but why would I want to use an older IE anyway?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: That's cool.
by Lennie on Wed 27th Feb 2013 12:24 in reply to "RE: That's cool."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

This is not true.

Different browsers render different broken HTML in different ways.

You can find broken HTML which renders better in Chrome, Firefox or Opera than IE too.

Also have a look at my other comment:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?553804

When you open the source code of the page it says Frontpage, not sure if that was actually used, if so my guess is that Frontpage created a page which is broken, but broken in a way that still displays correctly in IE.

Edited 2013-02-27 12:26 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: That's cool.
by Lennie on Wed 27th Feb 2013 12:17 in reply to "That's cool."
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

No, you are mistaken.

Broken HTML is rendered differently by different browser (versions).

But HTML5 does specify how HTML5 should be parsed and how broken HTML5 should be handled.

So if someone changes the 'doctype' in that page to a HTML5-doctype then all HTML5 browsers should render it the same.

The advantage of that is that if someone makes mistakes creating a HTML5-page and only checks it with one browser and likes what he/she seems then the result will be the same in all HTML5-browsers.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: That's cool.
by avgalen on Wed 27th Feb 2013 13:49 in reply to "RE: That's cool."
avgalen Member since:
2010-09-23

Nobody is ever going to change the doctype in that page and that was the point in that post. This is not about how browsers handle new broken HTML5 code, it is about how browsers handle ANCIENT broken code.

For that IE has a compatibility view that works very nice and that makes IE a great browser for viewing broken code

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE: That's cool.
by earksiinni on Wed 27th Feb 2013 16:36 in reply to "That's cool."
earksiinni Member since:
2009-03-27

On the other hand, that website provides awesome emo band names if you scroll down far enough:

"Damaged Hook"
"Missed Stitches"
"Wrong Needle"
"Bobbin Hook"
"Too Tight Or Too Loose"

Reply Parent Score: 6