| ActiveMac | Anonymous | Create a User | Reviews | News | Forums | Advertise |
|
|
|
User Controls |
|
New User |
|
Login |
|
Edit/View My Profile |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ActiveMac |
|
Articles |
|
Forums |
|
Links |
|
News |
|
News Search |
|
Reviews |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
News Centers |
|
Windows/Microsoft |
|
DVD |
|
ActiveHardware |
|
Xbox |
|
MaINTosh |
|
News Search |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ANet Chats |
|
The Lobby |
|
Special Events Room |
|
Developer's Lounge |
|
XBox Chat |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ's |
|
Windows 98/98 SE |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Windows Me |
|
Windows "Whistler" XP |
|
Windows CE |
|
Internet Explorer 6 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Xbox |
|
DirectX |
|
DVD's |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TopTechTips |
|
Registry Tips |
|
Windows 95/98 |
|
Windows 2000 |
|
Internet Explorer 4 |
|
Internet Explorer 5 |
|
Windows NT Tips |
|
Program Tips |
|
Easter Eggs |
|
Hardware |
|
DVD |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Latest Reviews |
|
Applications |
|
Microsoft Windows XP Professional |
|
Norton SystemWorks 2002 |
|
|
|
Hardware |
|
Intel Personal Audio Player 3000 |
|
Microsoft Wireless IntelliMouse Explorer |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Site News/Info |
|
About This Site |
|
Affiliates |
|
ANet Forums |
|
Contact Us |
|
Default Home Page |
|
Link To Us |
|
Links |
|
Member Pages |
|
Site Search |
|
Awards |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Credits |
 |
Versioning, Compatibility and Standards | |
|
||
| Time: 10:29 EST/15:29 GMT | News Source: Surfin Safari | Posted By: Michael Dragone | ||
|
We don’t talk much about what other browsers are doing on this blog. While we’re happy to collaborate on web standards and testing, and sometimes share a little friendly rivalry, we try to keep our focus on making the best Web browser engine we can, not on the competition. So we’re not going to give in-depth commentary on the IE team’s decision. Straddling compatibility and Web standards is a tough job requiring tough choices. However, some have asked if other browser engines, including WebKit, would adopt a similar version switch. For example, the original announcement asks, “I, for one, hope other browser vendors join Microsoft in implementing this functionality.” I can’t make any definitive statement for all time, but such an approach does not seem like a good idea to us currently. Why, you may ask? There are a few reasons. | ||
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:16:39 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
| #1 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/23/2008 2:32:33 PM |
| MS can no longer claim that IE8 passes ACID2. The ACID2 page will certainly not have an MS-specific tag in it, so IE8 will render it like IE7. |
| #2 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 1/23/2008 4:03:44 PM |
|
I find it amusing when an Asshat says things like "almost certainly" knowing full well they are lying.
For the non-Asshats, I found the list of quirks in Safari interesting: "WebKit, like most browser engines, has a quirks mode that is triggered by certain old HTML doctypes, or lack of a doctype declaration in text/html. Documents with newer or unknown doctypes, or sent as XML, are processed in standards mode. Like Mozilla and Opera, we apply only a limited set of nonstandard behaviors in quirks mode, and otherwise fix bugs across both modes, if they do not have a specific significant impact on Web compatibility. This is in contrast to the IE approach of completely freezing old behavior in quirks mode. We actually have a few modes besides that. A handful of doctypes trigger what is called “almost standards mode”, which is standards mode with one minor deviation, mainly affecting how images lay out in table cells; this is copied from Mozilla. In addition, we have a few rendering and DOM differences between documents served with an XML MIME type and those served with an HTML MIME type, but we are trying to reduce these over time. And finally, we have a Dashboard compatibility mode that has a few extra quirks beyond quirks mode, to handle Dashboard widgets that were coded to depend on old WebKit bugs." Wow. |
| #3 By 88850 (221.128.181.44) at 1/23/2008 10:08:37 PM |
| Holy crap! Apple blogging!! |
| #4 By 15406 (99.224.112.94) at 1/24/2008 7:32:51 AM |
| #2: Parkkker, you are without a doubt *the* biggest asshat this board has ever seen. I said 'will certainly', not 'almost certainly'. Since the ACID tests are meant to gauge compliance with standards, they are not targeted at any particular browser. This means no IE8 meta tag. That means IE8 will fail the test. Do you have anything of substance to counter that, or are you just going to wave your hands frantically and point at Apple? |
| #5 By 37 (192.251.125.85) at 1/24/2008 11:16:35 AM |
|
I am confused. MS (developers of IE8) said that IE8 passes the ACID2 test. Latch said IE8 will not pass the test.
I don't know who to believe. |
| #6 By 2960 (72.196.195.185) at 1/24/2008 11:39:26 AM |
| Now that there's funny :) |
| #7 By 16797 (65.95.26.87) at 1/24/2008 12:50:12 PM |
|
We'll see what happens.. If enough pressure builds up, Microsoft could make IE8 mode the default one.
Anyway, I don't think it is an issue. The most important thing is that IE8 is capable of passing Acid2. Sure, you'd have to add meta ie=8 tag, but so what, big deal, you only put it in your new pages and it will take a while before you'd want to do that anyway --- it will be some time before IE8 gets significant market share (compared to IE6 and IE7). |
| #8 By 92283 (64.180.196.172) at 1/24/2008 4:12:37 PM |
| This comment has been removed due to a violation of the Active Network Terms of Use. |
| #9 By 16797 (65.95.26.87) at 1/24/2008 4:18:22 PM |
|
One more thing: meta tag is not always required to set IE8 into IE8 mode :) Seriously, if you use DOCTYPE for HTML 5, it will do the same. So, everything should be fine..
Much ado about nothing. http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/ This really does change any frustration that someone should have concerning the new meta tag. This means that you can write your web pages in a completely standards-based way (CSS, HTML5, JavaScript) and not have to use a single browser-centric tag in order to do so. For those of you who aren't familiar with the HTML5 DOCTYPE, it looks like this: <!DOCTYPE html> You'll note that it's significantly simpler than most DOCTYPEs that you've seen - and that was intentional. A lot has changed in HTML5 in an attempt to make it even easier to develop a standards-based web page, and it should really pay off in the end. What's nice about this new DOCTYPE, especially, is that all current browsers (IE, FF, Opera, Safari) will look at it and switch the content into standards mode - even though they don't implement HTML5. This means that you could start writing your web pages using HTML5 today and have them last for a very, very, long time. If nothing else, this should be a good excuse to look through the changes in HTML5 and familiarize yourself with what's in the pipeline for browsers - Internet Explorer included. I really, really, wish this was made clear yesterday - it would've avoided a whole lot of pain and suffering on the part of the Microsoft Task Force of WaSP and of the Internet Explorer team as a whole. I'm really glad that this is happening, though - the future of standards-based web development still looks quite bright. This post was edited by gonzo on Thursday, January 24, 2008 at 16:19. |
| #10 By 92283 (64.180.196.172) at 1/24/2008 5:39:08 PM |
|
#4 Hey Asshat ... didn't you read the Buzz from the Acid2 group?
"Although members of the WaSP Microsoft Task Force were very much involved in this proposal, it is important to re-emphasise that this proposal is not one that every member of the Web Standards Project necessarily backs by default. Like many of you, many of us will (and do) have our own concerns about this and what it could mean for the web if enacted. However, that doesn’t mean we should dismiss it out of hand. A great deal of thought and research by people who know what web standards development means has gone into this. As a proposal, this should be greeted with the feedback and input it deserves. If Microsoft believe they have a solution which carries merit, then let’s look at that closely as a community of designers, developers and browser vendors, all together. This sort of discussion cannot happen in isolation." http://www.webstandards.org/buzz/ Latch, you are the number one Asshat. |
| #11 By 37 (66.188.104.250) at 1/24/2008 6:16:53 PM |
| Thanks for fixing that NotParkerToo. |
| #12 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/25/2008 8:38:32 AM |
| #8: What's the matter, Parkkker? Had a tantrum and needed to be spanked, did you? |
| #13 By 28801 (65.90.202.10) at 1/25/2008 9:38:43 AM |
| Why do you ask Latch? Are you offering? |
| #14 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/25/2008 10:03:16 AM |
|
#13: The spank has already occurred. I've been posting here for a few years now, and I've never had to have one of my posts modded. In that same time frame, I've seen several of Parkkker's posts nuked from orbit. Just sayin', that's all.
|
| #15 By 92283 (64.180.196.172) at 1/25/2008 10:05:12 AM |
| I just called you a word from your soundtrack. |
| #16 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/25/2008 10:23:43 AM |
| #15: Regardless, every time you get one of your posts deleted by mods, you lose the argument. And not only do you lose, you also get your ass publicly handed to you by AW staff. Could it get any sweeter? |
| #17 By 92283 (142.32.208.232) at 1/25/2008 11:55:47 AM |
|
Actually the rule is simple: If Latch comments on any subject, the position he takes automatically becomes the official Asshat position, and therefore can be immediately dismissed as being biased and ignorant.
Your posts on this subject just prove the rule. All you offer is bias and ignorance. |
| #18 By 15406 (216.191.227.68) at 1/25/2008 12:27:38 PM |
|
#17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection
|
|
Write Comment
Return to News |
Displaying 1 through 25 of 166 Last | Next |
The time now is
5:16:39 PM
ET.
Any comment problems? E-mail us |
