Author Topic: Current IE8 build renders the ACID2 Test correctly! (Read 66,205 times)

nontroppo · « **Reply #50 on:** January 25, 2008, 02:20 PM »

Sheesh, even Joe Wilcox is now skeptical about the Microsoft splinter strategy:

Quote

What are Microsoft's real objectives here? I ask, because to me they are suspect. Wilson argues that the new "http-equiv='X-UA-Compatible'" switch is a necessary compromise to ensure backwards compatibility while allowing Microsoft's browser to better adhere to Web standards. But the approach really requires adherence to an IE standard that benefits Microsoft's dominant Web browser.

I would like to see Microsoft educating Web designers and developers about writing to standards supporting any browsing engine. I find it ironic that by default Microsoft's Expression Web creates standards-based Web pages that IE 7 might gag on.

I ask: Is the IE 8 switch a competing browser kill switch?

http://www.microsoft-watch.com/content/web_services_browser/fliipping_the_ie8_kill_switch.html?kc=MWRSS02129TX1K0000535

app103: being able to handle errors consistently in CSS *is* part of the standard:
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/syndata.html#parsing-errors

justice · « **Reply #51 on:** January 25, 2008, 02:41 PM »

I seem to change my mind on this every now and then, and am still quite confused.. but:

Seems to me the switch will result in better fitting websites, but not by using more standards. But I noticed this at the whole Eolas patent debacle: the IE team doesn't take enough responsibility regarding standards. Even though the code was fine they wanted developers to implement a javascript workaround for their own workaround solution in all their pages with embedded content. They didn't want to (or couldn't) pay Eolas so people now have to click to start embedded media. Even though it's a browser issue.

And the same happens in this case: if the browser vendor took its responsibility and improved its implementation, it wouldn't be the webdeveloper's responsibility if their sites written to standards (and valid) don't display properly. So the whole "the users have to be protected from broken pages" card is a smoke screen in my opinion.

Just be frank then: corporate partners costcutting is more important to Microsoft than the freedom of the web.

Lashiec · « **Reply #52 on:** January 25, 2008, 07:29 PM »

Yes, I think Microsoft is showing up with this move that their engineers are very lazy, expecting web developers to specify what IE must do when confronted with their page. This could be OK if IE was the only browser around, but this is not the case.

Besides, I find ironic that after the web started to move towards standard compliant websites, and IE stayed behind, thus forcing web developers to code workarounds for IE (and hurting other browsers in the process) or even dumbing down their sites with quite simplified layouts, now Microsoft expect them to do the same, but for compliance! It's ridiculous, there's a single standard, but Microsoft wants people to follow their tune, while other browsers had been implementing workarounds for IE (the defacto HTML standard) shortcomings during years.

I hope that after all the backslash, Microsoft sees this is not the right path, and either does the same as the competing browsers, or calls all the companies involved in the W3C to come up with a sensible solution.

Something that worries me is that, if they decide to continue this nonsense, and even if most web developers ignore them, they'll try to impose this "solution" by force, like making the future versions of Expression Web write this metatag by default to HTML files.