The first beta of IE 7.0 isn’t expected for a few more months. But information on Microsoft’s security, standards and interface plans are trickling out now.
Microsoft Internet Explorer 7.0 Details Begin to Leak
About The Author
Eugenia Loli
Ex-programmer, ex-editor in chief at OSNews.com, now a visual artist/filmmaker.
Follow me on Twitter @EugeniaLoli
61 Comments
2005-03-16 1:21 am
2005-03-16 1:23 am
2005-03-16 1:57 am
2005-03-16 1:58 am
2005-03-16 1:59 am
2005-03-16 2:22 am
Anonymous
Why does it have to be this way? Why should I rely on the rendering engine for a web browser for looking at help files? Why can’t this be done using a different engine?
I’m not quite sure I understood your question correctly, but I’ll try answering it in both ways.
HTML is very powerful documents that are either changed very often or need to look decent. In the old days we used to pack readme’s into txt’s (some still do obviously) but that is both unpleasant to the reader and to the person writing/maintaining it. For something as a help file HTML is nearly a perfect solution today. There’s also better (or not) alternatives for such documents like pdf or doc (or any formatted text document) but these rely on user to have installed either a pdf reader or a office suite.
The other reason why you must view help files (not: I’m thinking about chm files, not htm(l)’s although in some cases it applies to both) is consistency. Even a chm file from over 7-8 years ago will display almost perfectly in IE6 as it did then in IE5 (or lower version). The reason for this goes way back to the “first browser war”. Back then web standards was something to laugh at and users wanted features, features,… (side note: you think Javascript was started by the W3C when Netscape integrated it into their browser?) As we know Microsoft put a lot of effort into IE making it (at that time) the most feature packed browser, and beat Netscape. Then (from nowhere) came the so-called “W3C standard” and it was expected from Microsoft to support it and thereby break the compatibillity which would mean messing up like 95% of web pages (back then, that is) and completely f*ck up the chm files. This of course never happened and I beilive it never will, because Microsoft always keeps backwards compatbillity (at least tries to). There are also many corporate sites based on (what we call) IE bugs and breaking those would cause a lot of anger.
You can expect them adding features (like additional CSS2 support, maybe even some CSS3) but do not expect them to fix their rendering “bugs”, because there are to many sites depending on them. Let’s say IKEA’s entire intranet is based on ActiveX, DHTML and “broken” IE’s HTML. Imagine telling them their network will no longer “work” because there is someone named W3C who doesn’t like this.
The requests for PNG support show that it indeed can do more than currently supported technology.
Just because it may not seem to have any apparent functional advantage over GIFs or the current level of PNG support, it doesn’t mean that a way to use alpha transparency in a functional rather than visual way won’t be discovered, and it doesn’t change the eye-candy appeal.
I know it can be used to achieve nicer looks, but I haven’t seen (yet) a page that would need PNG transparency support to work. There is always a workaround, perhaps more work is required but it gets the job done, just as PNG. I think people are seriously over-hyping PNGs, but I guess we’ll se if IE actually does have PNG support, what can be made out of it.
The argument that “it isn’t used much so we don’t know how insecure it is” is destroyed with every Apache web server install.
This has been brought up quite some times now and I think it is time to end this myth. Just for the record, both Apache and IIS are extremely good web servers. But there seems to be a myth that Apache is more secure even though it is the most used (Apache 70%, IIS ~28%, says Netcraft). A simple browse to Secunia will show you the truth.
Microsoft IIS 6: 3 exploits (moderately critical)
:: http://secunia.com/product/1438/
Apache 2.0: 24 (less critical)
:: http://secunia.com/product/73/
Apache 1.3: 15
:: http://secunia.com/product/72/
I encourage you to check IIS’s vulnerabilities and compare them to Apache’s. Also take a look at Michael’s blog (link below), he did an extensive research comparing the two. In his second research he took suggestions from comments upon testing and all the security reviews are done by an independant company so you can be sure there’s not a trick here.
http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/2004/10/15/242966.aspx
http://blogs.msdn.com/michael_howard/archive/2004/10/18/244181.aspx
You can also read through the comments, he answers a lot of questions.
I’m not trying to flame you or anything, it’s just that this seems as the “new thing” to always expose Apache/IIS when people suggest that security exploits may be related to use. Now when everyone mentiones the opposite you can point them to the Secunia site 
you are completely wrong. first of all, activex is reinventing the wheel, it is a half finished ripoff of applets that was pushed out the door before they considered the ramifications of what they were doing. it is the biggest reason that it is impossibe to safely browse the web with pre-sp2 ie.
ActiveX is not an applet of the kind you’re talking about. ActiveX is highly usable on local companie’s intranet networks as it provides all of Win32 functionallities.
2005-03-16 2:29 am
2005-03-16 3:34 am
2005-03-16 3:35 am
2005-03-16 4:02 am
2005-03-16 4:44 am
2005-03-16 4:48 am
2005-03-16 5:39 am
2005-03-16 6:41 am
2005-03-16 6:47 am
2005-03-16 6:50 am
2005-03-16 7:25 am
2005-03-16 7:26 am
2005-03-16 7:47 am
2005-03-16 7:48 am
2005-03-16 8:32 am
2005-03-16 8:41 am
2005-03-16 8:41 am
2005-03-16 9:26 am
2005-03-16 9:27 am
2005-03-16 2:00 pm
2005-03-16 3:02 pm
2005-03-16 3:14 pm
2005-03-16 4:31 pm
2005-03-16 4:55 pm
2005-03-16 5:08 pm
2005-03-16 5:35 pm
2005-03-16 5:54 pm
2005-03-16 6:54 pm
2005-03-16 8:36 pm
2005-03-16 9:05 pm
This, my friends, is NEWS! Transparent PNG, CSS2, and IDN support mean that the web as we know it is going to change. Within 2 years, we’ll see transparent PNGs on TONS of websites, and we’ll see amazing new CSS tricks becoming more common.
This is a big deal.
that’s not mentioned
i guess the wine guys will figure out how to do that.. although that’s of no use for me as i’m on linux/ppc 
to my point: hopefully everyone will have switched to firefox (or anything a bit closer to the HTML and CSS standards) by then…
..i’m still skeptical about PNG, it’s been a _long_ time they promised full PNG support..too long for my taste..
Did I not read it right or is it not going to be available for win2k-sp4, that would be dumb. The college I’m currently at spans four campuses, doted over an area of 25 miles, more computers than I can count. With every box running win2k and no plans to go to XP, this maybe just what we at the lab need to convince to top techs to install Firefox.
The article says that the CSS 2 support is likely to be partial. It’s partial now. I wouldn’t get my hopes up yet for the end of CSS hacks – even in strict mode, IE still has layout errors that if fixed would make a lot of noncompliant (IE-compatible) web sites look strange.
Tabs is enough for me to switch from Firefox back to IE.
Rather, the article said that CSS2 was likely to be expanded upon. I’m not sure why they need to do this. Isn’t CSS2 reasonably okay as it is? And if they want changes, why not go to the w3c and get them formalised for *everyone*.
It sounds like a trick that they (and Netscape) have pulled before… Yeah, it’s being a bit anti-MS, but it’s annoying having to deal with non-standard browsers (whether not good enough or too full in features).
Within 2 years, we’ll see transparent PNGs on TONS of websites, and we’ll see amazing new CSS tricks becoming more common.
90% of which will be nothing but even more annoying ads
Sometimes, I wish we could simply go back to static text and images as it was in the mid-90’s when I first got on board. Personally, I don’t care if I ever see another site with Flash for as long as I live.
Darius, so we should go back to the bad ol’ days when disabled users couldn’t use the Web? When you embed formatting into the page source, which is how it was done before CSS separated style from content, a screen reader can’t make heads or tails of the content.
Personally, I don’t care if I ever see another site with Flash for as long as I live.
Ditto. It’s rarely related to the site content, just obnoxious ads.
-Bob
Recently, I’ve come to the conclusion that IE7 won’t just include tabs (if they decide on that route), but that they’ll improve on the tabbed browser concept in some way that will be difficult or impossible to do with current Mozilla layout technology. Just catching up to da Fox shouldn’t be enough for the developer’s egos.
“90% of which will be nothing but even more annoying ads
Sometimes, I wish we could simply go back to static text and images as it was in the mid-90’s when I first got on board. Personally, I don’t care if I ever see another site with Flash for as long as I live.”
Never thought I’d hear that from a web developer. Thought all of you were in favor of these big splashy pages that take forever to load if you’re on dial up (like this one: http://www.lucasarts.com/games/swkotor_sithlords/). But yep, I sure agree with you there. Surfing the internet is just like driving past an endless string of flashing, neon, glitzy billboards to where you can’t even see the scenery any more.
>Within 2 years, we’ll see transparent PNGs on TONS of websites, and we’ll see amazing new CSS tricks becoming more common.
90% of which will be nothing but even more annoying ads
LOL
Do you know what transparent PNG means? This is not animated GIF
I don’t know how we could use it to create a new form of ads. You seem uninformed…
Darius, so we should go back to the bad ol’ days when disabled users couldn’t use the Web?
Back in the 90’s, I used to do tech support for an ISP and we had a blind person that used to surf the web using Lynx and a screen reader. I don’t even know if that’s possible anymore.
Wanna get me to switch back to IE? Gimme tabs and DUMP ACTIVEX altogether! Then we’ll negotiate the switch back to IE.
Partner sources say Microsoft is wavering on the extent to which it plans to support CSS2 with IE 7.0. Developers have been clamoring for Microsoft to update its CSS support to support the latest W3C standards for years. But Microsoft is leaning toward adding some additional CSS2 support to IE 7.0, but not embracing the standard in its entirety, partners say
They don’t want to support CSS, because they want to extend the whole thing with Avalon. I think Firefox and everyone else have had an opportunity that they’ve missed to use CSS2 and 3 and to work with the W3C on pushing them forwards so people have had something more compelling to use. Alas, Microsoft will embrace and extend CSS – whatever form that that takes.
Not only that but separate the program from the OS and make it a stand alone application.
WoW!
1 year for the security patch!
So, finally, we will have solid rock IE with antivirus eating 50% cpu to monitor it!!! 🙂
And don’t forget PNG!
As far as more and more sites started to use PNG more people are asking “why I see badly this picture”.
CSS2 – They just can’t.
They suddenly desided to do a big 7 even noone knows what it will be. It took several years to Mozilla to rewrite old Netscape code. Now imagine this task in 10 months. They definitly won’t start from scratch so the process will be patching… patching…
I really wish Microsoft luck with it (all we are stuck with MS, but being pragmatic do it or die…).
Goodnight Firefox… It was a good run. But hey, thanks for the ideas and wakeup call to Microsoft.
Sadly, this is what the vast majority will be saying when the damn thing is actually released 😐
Luckily, however Firefos still has some time to make a name. Until the beta of IE7 is released that is. I like both browsers, although Firefox (1.0.1) has let me down for several times now, it makes up with extensions. And while IE is a large security hole, it is noticibly faster with loading plugins (particularly Flash, Javascript and embeded video/audio).
Don’t get me wrong, I am all for pushing web technologies. I don’t think much has changed in the web in the last 5 years or so. Our CPU speeds quadrupled and we still see some web pages looking like crap. But I can (to some extent) see Microsoft’s position in this whole “web standards war”. I mean, take a look at W3C. It’s not an ISO standard or anything international. Although their website says:
Organizations located all over the world and involved in many different fields join W3C to participate in a vendor-neutral forum for the creation of Web standards. W3C Members and a dedicated full-time staff of technical experts have earned W3C international recognition for its contributions to the Web. W3C Members (sample testimonials), staff, and Invited Experts work together to design technologies to ensure that the Web will continue to thrive in the future, accommodating the growing diversity of people, hardware, and software.
It is a company run by a director who gives a final word on what will “be” the web. The web is not something to be defined by a single company no matter what they call themselves. It should be an ISO comitee with everyone able to suggest new technologies. And while Microsoft “ownes” 90% of the web, I think they feel as if they’re in the position of defining the web, not W3C.
There should have been an ISO comitee with as much companies as possible, releasing public drafts of new standards for anyone to comment on and make suggestions (I know they do this already, but even if all W3C members agree upon something, W3C still has the final word). That’s what I call a standard.
Not only that but separate the program from the OS and make it a stand alone application.
And what good would that bring?
1. You need mshtml.dll to view most (a lot?) of your software on Windows. Even the Add/Remove application is generated using IE’s rendering engine.
2. You also need mshtml.dll to view almost every help file included in a Windows application. Even if the help if pure htmll, most programs still call iexplore.exe when using help.
3. You need IE to visit Windows Update and any other site depending heavily on ActiveX.
IE uses ActiveX while the Mozilla guys though it would be cooler to reinvent the wheel = XUL. They claim XUL is more secure then ActiveX and since literally nobody uses it (to my knowledge) they are right. Come one people, it’t not like we’re in third grade. If you want to exploit something, you look at the most used software and search for the part that can do most damage.
You can read about ActiveX here: http://www.ensight.org/archives/2005/02/16/yes-activex-is-secure/
And don’t forget PNG!
When you show me one web page that takes usefull use of PNG transparency then I will be convinced. But today, there is nothing that can be done with PNG that absolutely couldn’t be done with todays technologies. And I’m not talking about those “PNG rocks” demo pages. I am talking about a usefull feature, not possible without it.
They suddenly desided to do a big 7 even noone knows what it will be. It took several years to Mozilla to rewrite old Netscape code. Now imagine this task in 10 months. They definitly won’t start from scratch so the process will be patching… patching…
Where did you heard Mozilla rewrote the Netscape (Gecko) rendering engine? You are right, they won’t start from scratch, because it’s not usefull to do so. Do Linux developers start from scratch when writing a new kernel? Linux is based on a 13 year old code and has its roots in an OS from 70’s. But it gets the job done, so why rewrite it?
> Darius, so we should go back to the bad ol’ days when disabled users
> couldn’t use the Web? When you embed formatting into the page source,
> which is how it was done before CSS separated style from content, a screen
> reader can’t make heads or tails of the content.
Not quite – he said mid 90s rather than late 90s so I’m guessing Darius was referring to a time when web pages were just simpler – before Frames, layout tables and other hideous designer mandated mistakes were commonplace. In fact not too far from where we’re going, only without the stylesheets! It’s that ‘full circle’ thing again.
And microsoft windows NT is a rewritten VMS kernel too, and IE was a rewritten spyglass from mosaic.
Why does MS always have to be last at everything, Opera and Firefox allready have these things..
http://bitsofnews.com
Now that there is an Internet Explorer 7 working fine on thousands of computers and under a new name (Maxthon).
What Microsoft has to do is basically benchmark Maxthon: http://www.maxthon.com
And you have a brand new browser
Thank you Firefox for participating. Try again later
say many things about micrsoft, but one thing is fact: they do their best work when they have competition
Not only that but separate the program from the OS and make it a stand alone application.
And what good would that bring?
1. You need mshtml.dll to view most (a lot?) of your software on Windows. Even the Add/Remove application is generated using IE’s rendering engine.
2. You also need mshtml.dll to view almost every help file included in a Windows application. Even if the help if pure htmll, most programs still call iexplore.exe when using help.
3. You need IE to visit Windows Update and any other site depending heavily on ActiveX.
Why does it have to be this way? Why should I rely on the rendering engine for a web browser for looking at help files? Why can’t this be done using a different engine?
IE uses ActiveX while the Mozilla guys though it would be cooler to reinvent the wheel = XUL. They claim XUL is more secure then ActiveX and since literally nobody uses it (to my knowledge) they are right. Come one people, it’t not like we’re in third grade. If you want to exploit something, you look at the most used software and search for the part that can do most damage.
You can read about ActiveX here: