homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.161.247.22
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

HTML Forum

This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 ( [1] 2 > >     
Outdated IE6 May get Makeover before Longhorn
IE may get rescued before it hits obscurity and obsolence
Brett_Tabke




msg:560555
 2:52 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

[news.zdnet.co.uk...]

Some analysts believe the appointment means that the much criticised browser will get a polish before Longhorn is released and IE's importance begins to fade.

 

encyclo




msg:560556
 3:07 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

This has been floating in the air for a little while - I think Microsoft are feeling the heat. Mozilla/Opera are taking hold in the web developer communuity (if not in the "real" world), and MS do understand the importance of looking after developers.

The biggest threat to IE dominance comes from the browser's security failings, with the popup problem to be dealt with in XP SP2, next on the list may be scumware and browser-hijacking problems. With Longhorn so far away, they're more-or-less forced to shore up IE.

Of course, as the article mentions, Longhorn promises a move away from the browser model to a more integrated approach built on MS proprietary technology - they are still trying to make HTML etc. obsolete, so I don't expect any move towards better support of web standards.

Hester




msg:560557
 3:11 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I've been reading a lot about this on various sites recently. On one hand it's easy to criticise Microsoft for letting their browser become stagnant, with no major work being done on it for several years. On the other hand, they claim any changes must be tested on about 400 different PCs, due to the different language versions of Windows.

It's also easy to see this as a loss to the web, but it might turn out for the best, because it's allowing competitors to get a much bigger share of the market. If IE6 was at the same level of quality as say Mozilla, in terms of CSS, HTML and XML support etc, then who would want to try Mozilla? But because that and other browsers have raced ahead, they are currently seen as a much more attractive proposition.

Even if IE6 was improved above the level of its competitors, I doubt many users would switch back. It's not just about browser quality, but a mistrust of Microsoft's business practices and security record.

I hope they do improve IE6 though, because of the large majority of users either unwilling to change, ignorant of other browsers completely, or stuck with it as part of Windows in a work environment. If designers can start using the full pallete of CSS and XHTML commands then web pages will surely benefit.

DrDoc




msg:560558
 3:12 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

What are we planning for Internet Explorer? ... In my new job role I'm very interested in hearing about what you the customers would like to see. I know that there are many requests already out there around CSS support, transparent PNG support etc. and we do read every single one of them. I can say though that somewhat vague requests for "better standards support" are not as useful as a specific example of what you'd like to see changed and specifically why it would improve things. Obviously I cannot guarrantee [sic] that every request will be implemented but please let me know what you'd like to see. Probably the best place to do that is on the Internet Explorer Wiki on Channel 9...

I can't promise a response to every question or request but I will read and consider everything.

Let's just hope it is as good as it sounds... Wiki has some really good suggestions on it ;)

dillonstars




msg:560559
 3:43 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

When it comes to W3C's standards etc.. I think you shouldn't embrace everything in the documentations strictly. Developing for Mozilla is a pain in the ass. The W3C's box model is not intuitive at all. For this reason I suggest that IE team keeps the IE's box model.

Sounds great ;)

isitreal




msg:560560
 4:58 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I checked out the channel 9 wiki, it doesn't fill me with faith that MS is going to start taking the problem of IE seriously, something about the level and quality of posters, not to mention how poorly designed the wiki is in terms of functionality (they should have just copied WebmasterWorld style)... they are noticing the competition, obviously, they know that among developers IE is considered a poor product, but they also know that they have a huge chunk of windows market share, that tends to make MS lazy.

One thread there, for example, claims 93.9 percent IE marketshare, but uses only the stats from a single online statsite, which have very low reliability, but not one poster questioned the validity of those stats, this is typical MS type monoculture thinking, boring.

It strikes me as markedly revealing that only as of June 22 of 2004 does MS actually even begin to think of presenting the appearance of starting to work on IE again. This seem exactly in line with MS's consistent inability to grasp how the web is really developing, a problem they've had since the beginning, and continue to have (pre 2004, oh, search engines, no big deal, 2004 version, oh, top priority... ).

irock




msg:560561
 6:10 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

"Of course, as the article mentions, Longhorn promises a move away from the browser model to a more integrated approach built on MS proprietary technology - they are still trying to make HTML etc. obsolete, so I don't expect any move towards better support of web standards."

What? Make HTML obsolete? Does it mean MS wants to use XHTML instead or just block users from using every single website other than MS?

isitreal




msg:560562
 6:23 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

In the new project leader's blog he asks for specific problems re standard support be given to him, this alone is incredibly sympomatic of the IE culture problem, if that guy was as into the web and browsers as many of WebmasterWorld better posters and moderators, he would already know what was wrong with IE, he wouldn't need to be told, he'd have a shopping list of fixes in place now, just like Opera and Firefox developers do, now.

If he started reading, and had been reading, WebmasterWorld type forums, he'd find out what IE 6 bugs exist quickly. But instead he asks 'tell me specific things that aren't working'. This is just sad to me, MS just doesn't get it, and neither I guess do their project leaders. Which is great, it means that the alternatives are going to be able to survive and thrive.

What? Make HTML obsolete? Does it mean MS wants to use XHTML

No, it's some other proprietary technology they would want to use if left to their own devices, and would already be implementing if they had managed to achieve a full monopoly of the web browser, MS doesn't like open standards or open formats, their vision of the computing world is one OS, one set of standards (their own), and then all the problems will go away. They really believe this, it's deep in their corporate culture.

vkaryl




msg:560563
 6:48 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

....their vision of the computing world is one OS, one set of standards (their own), and then all the problems will go away.

No. That's not it at all. While I'm NOT a MS basher at all, and Bill Gates is NOT the devil in a button-down and pullover, the reality of the corporate culture there is this: they don't care about eliminating problems - why would they? They thrive on "fixing" them, don't they? They make money that way. And THAT'S the bottom line: if MS products are 95% of the computing world, if their solutions run that much of the web world, the business world, etc. then THEY HAVE ALL THE MARBLES.

EOS.

Farix




msg:560564
 7:18 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Longhorn promises a move away from the browser model to a more integrated approach built on MS proprietary technology

In other words, more potential security problems. Why doesn't MS let the web browser be a standalone product instead of reengineering the OS to be the web browser?

When it comes to W3C's standards etc.. I think you shouldn't embrace everything in the documentations strictly. Developing for Mozilla is a pain in the ass. The W3C's box model is not intuitive at all. For this reason I suggest that IE team keeps the IE's box model.

That still doesn't address the problem of IE using a different box model then all of the other popular web browsers, which makes it a bigger pain in the ass then dealing with cross-browser rendering. And I like to hear how developing in Mozilla is a pain in the ass. Is it because it renders what is coded instead of covering up the errors like IE.

chadmg




msg:560565
 7:38 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Of course, as the article mentions, Longhorn promises a move away from the browser model to a more integrated approach built on MS proprietary technology - they are still trying to make HTML etc. obsolete, so I don't expect any move towards better support of web standards.

I think you have misunderstood. They didn't say move away from HTML, they said move away from the browser. They want to integrate the browser and the web more into the operating system, instead of stand-alone software. I haven't seen Longhorn though, so I can only guess at what they mean. Microsoft isn't some evil corporation. They've actually worked quite nicely with developers and maybe even put out a few good products. I guess you can't please everyone.

That channel 9 wiki doesn't seem to be very productive. It just appears to be a bunch of angry geek flame wars. Ahhh, the joys of being a member of WebmasterWorld, where a geek can live in peace.

It's pretty sad that Dave Massy, the new IE project leader, flat out asks the web community to spell out everything wrong with IE. It definitely comes off like they haven't looked at IE since version 6. Then when someone says, try just implementing the features that are available with Opera/Mozilla, they respond with "could you be more specific." Like they couldn't even be bothered with going to the Opera website and looking at the features page. Not that I know anything about Dave Massy, but I haven't known a single project leader who actually knew much about the project. They just know how to wear a suit and schedule meetings.

bcolflesh




msg:560566
 7:43 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

but I haven't known a single project leader who actually knew much about the project. They just know how to wear a suit and schedule meetings.

;)

digitalv




msg:560567
 7:53 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

It's also easy to see this as a loss to the web, but it might turn out for the best, because it's allowing competitors to get a much bigger share of the market. If IE6 was at the same level of quality as say Mozilla, in terms of CSS, HTML and XML support etc, then who would want to try Mozilla?

Kinda how Microsoft became the number one browser in the first place, eh? Version 4 was a huge turning point for IE before they started making it a part of Windows because it was a better browser than the Netscape equivalent. At least that's how the general population felt. When Internet Explorer 4.0 came out, the other browsers were the ones who had to "catch up".

When it comes to W3C's standards etc.. I think you shouldn't embrace everything in the documentations strictly. Developing for Mozilla is a pain in the ass. The W3C's box model is not intuitive at all. For this reason I suggest that IE team keeps the IE's box model.

Glad I'm not the only one saying it :)

That still doesn't address the problem of IE using a different box model then all of the other popular web browsers ... Is it because it renders what is coded instead of covering up the errors like IE.

First, all commercial browsers do this. I'm a Firefox user myself and I don't get any errors when someone forgets to close a table, doesn't declare their document type, forgets </body> and </html>, etc. Those errors, which would be considered catastrophic enough to make W3C's head pop, don't cause Firefox not to display a page the way the designer intended it to look. So don't even give me that crap and imply that IE is the only browser that fixes errors.

That aside, you have to understand that ANY browser who came forward with 100% standards compliance would be a browser that NOBODY WOULD USE. The majority of the sites on the web aren't compliant - whether it's due to errors or unsupported code (understand that there is a difference between the two) doesn't matter. If IE7 was fully standards-based with no fault tolerance, once people saw they couldn't use ebay, CNN, microsoft.com, webmasterworld.com (yes, THIS site is not valid HTML by W3C's standards), and so on... they would IMMEDIATELY switch to another browser and the entire project would be a huge flop.

Bottom line is you can't enforce a standard that has been "open" for this long. I think the W3C realizes this and that's why they're not spending much time refining HTML and have moved on to newer projects. It would be a really bad move for Microsoft or ANYONE to make a standards-only browser, and that's why none of them have done it.

isitreal




msg:560568
 7:57 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Re the question of what format MS would like the web presented in:
The view of Microsoft: the replacement of existing open standards such as HTML with their own proprietary platform based on XAML (a Microsoft XML variant) and Avalon (procedural programming model), and development moving away from the browser into integrated applications. recent thread [webmasterworld.com]

Again, the MS vision of the world, and from their perspective it's not evil, they really believe this as a merely self evidently true proposition, if all servers, all client pcs, ran windows, with MS created data formats, and ideally, applications, all computer related problems would vanish. They really believe this, it's not a question of good or bad, it's how they see the world, it's why they have so much difficulty understanding how people can criticize them, and why they are so blind to their own failings, especially in security.

irock




msg:560569
 8:01 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

isitreal,

So you are saying SEO, small guy websites, amazon, ebay, google will cease to exist if MS goes its way of eliminating the HTML and other open standards?

isitreal




msg:560570
 8:06 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

So you are saying SEO, small guy websites, amazon, ebay, google will cease to exist if MS goes its way of eliminating the HTML and other open standards?

No, of course not, MS has lots of plans and dreams all the time, and it has to abandon them when confronted with market realities all the time, in the last 2 or 3 years several make or break MS plans were completely rejected by the market, totally, Longhorn itself has already shed several such proposed 'features' due to heavy market resistance. This doesn't mean that internally they don't believe that the world would really have been a better place if for example MS, who can't even secure their own servers, were to have controlled all of their client corporations data on MS server farms, can't remember the name of that failure, totally rejected by said corporations, who are perfectly able to see MS's security track record for themselves, but you get the idea, MS thinks one way, and it's their way, sometimes it works for them, like with Windows and MS Office, sometimes it doesn't.

However, if Mac had vanished, Linux not appeared, Mozilla and Opera not been developed, it's completely possible it would be a different story.

DigitalV, re standards support, I think when IE talks about having better standards support, it just means that IE would support standardized CSS 1 and 2 better, maybe a few others, like SVG, mime type XML, full PNG support, etc. IE will I suspect never give up its truly astounding ability to render what you mean, not what you coded.

chadmg




msg:560571
 8:29 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

digitalv, I don't think anyone wants a standards-ONLY browser, we just want a browser that supports all of the standards, and displays what is intended by the W3C. They can do all of the html error correcting they want.

digitalv




msg:560572
 8:45 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I think when IE talks about having better standards support, it just means that IE would support standardized CSS 1 and 2 better, maybe a few others, like SVG, mime type XML, full PNG support, etc.

I know that, I was responding to the people who are irritated by IE's error correction. There are many people, especially on this board, who believe that IE shouldn't do any error correction and I was reminding them that IE isn't the only browser that corrects errors.

DrDoc




msg:560573
 10:22 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

Of course IE should do error correction!
Just don't break things! ;)

If I write crappy code -- by all means, try to make sense out of it.
But if I write valid code -- don't you dare break my page!

If I say position:fixed, that's what I mean. If I say max-height: 200px, take my word for it. Don't claim to support things, and then totally ignore my code. And, while you're at it -- fix those 3px jog bugs, doubled-margin bugs, and all others :)

Farix




msg:560574
 10:37 pm on Jun 22, 2004 (gmt 0)

I know that, I was responding to the people who are irritated by IE's error correction. There are many people, especially on this board, who believe that IE shouldn't do any error correction and I was reminding them that IE isn't the only browser that corrects errors.

It would help if you actually read my comment in it's context before going off and putting words in my mouth.

And I like to hear how developing in Mozilla is a pain in the ass. Is it because it renders what is coded instead of covering up the errors like IE[?]

You originally snipped out the first part in bold and railed against the question I had asked. By snipping out the first part, you had completely misrepresented what I had said. Even if I did use a period instead instead of a question mark in the second part, it was still an obviously question to the first.

isitreal




msg:560575
 4:01 am on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

There are many people, especially on this board, who believe that IE shouldn't do any error correction and I was reminding them that IE isn't the only browser that corrects errors.

I've also read many people suggest this on this board, not in this thread, but elsewhere. Makes no sense, would fail instantly in the real world, but it is frequently suggested, especially in threads about validation of code, there's almost always at least one person who will say that non valid html should not be displayed, like non valid xml, just a parse error.

Purple Martin




msg:560576
 6:00 am on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

With all this debate about standards-only vs error correction, how about using doctypes to decide which to do? If there is a strict doctype, serve up the page as standards-only with no error correction. If there isn't a doctype, correct errors as much as you like.

tedster




msg:560577
 7:50 am on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Interesting idea, PM - but as far as I know all the browsers already do error correction, even in standards mode with a strict doctype. So it's probably an idea whose time will never come.

grelmar




msg:560578
 8:48 am on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Hmmm, I read through all of this, and I'm just going to try and add a few thoughts without getting confrontational.

Personally, I think its a good thing IE is going to get an overhaul before Longhorn of the vanishing-point deadline. Not because I expect them to fix all the bugs, but because, like MS always seems to do, they'll come out with 20 new ideas, and one or two of them will actually be interesting and worthwhile. The other browsers will quickly pick up the good ideas, and ignore the bad ones. (seems to be the way the browser market has worked over the past couple of years).

W3C support: MS doesn't get it. Really doesn't get it. Support W3C first, and add on whatever special proprietary bells and whistles you want second. Working from a common ground so that anyone who wants to put in a bit of time and research can build a good interactive site for your browser can do nothing but good for the web as a whole. (IMHO)

Proprietary IE: Of course they're going to do it. And from a business standpoint, its a good idea, too. Having things that only your product can handle sets it apart and gives it intrinsic value. As much as it annoys me, I keep IE installed on this machine, because there are some very good sites out there that only work on IE, and provide excellent services. Expanding the list of proprietary tools is smart business. Period. Argue it all you want, but that kind of thinking is exactly what will keep IE on top for a very long time.

More integration of Browser with OS in Longhorn: That thought just gives me the willies. Security is bad enough with the (relatively) low level of integration IE has with the OS now. If MS fully integrates IE with the OS for Longhorn, then I think I'll go take a course in machine code, and maybe assembler, forget about seeing the sun for the next ten years, and go and work with the the uber-pale crowd of the Computer Security set. Because that's where the real money's going to be in computers.

caine




msg:560579
 3:43 pm on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

anywhere up to 18 months - to see this new update. Liked the part about Opera's Ex IBM director talking about Standards though of a future development or upgrade of the current internet explorer - I.E. does not have any at the moment!

Purple Martin




msg:560580
 11:07 pm on Jun 23, 2004 (gmt 0)

Maybe MS should poach the team leader from Mozilla or Opera - someone who knows the value of standards, features and speed.

MatthewHSE




msg:560581
 12:42 pm on Jun 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

I can't believe that guy thinks it's hard to develop for Mozilla. It's far easier than trying to get everything right in IE. I've spent much more time tweaking, muttering, adjusting, hacking, and getting frustrated when testing in IE than in Mozilla. It all depends on what you train yourself to do.

I have found, however, that learning to develop "for Mozilla" results in less overall troubleshooting and de-bugging per project than developing "for IE."

Wonder if it's ever crossed Microsoft's mind that they don't have to have a browser at all? That maybe they could just make operating systems and let people choose their own browser right from the start? ;)

RammsteinNicCage




msg:560582
 3:17 pm on Jun 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

@MatthewHSE, most people prefer to buy a car with tires. ;)

Jennifer

isitreal




msg:560583
 3:29 pm on Jun 24, 2004 (gmt 0)

Wonder if it's ever crossed Microsoft's mind that they don't have to have a browser at all?

Microsoft firmly committed themselves to the model of using components of IE as internal objects in Windows, when you use something like Windows Explorer, you are using the internet explorer engine, at least in part, I believe that is now quite widely used in Windows apps in general.

They want to go even further in that direction with longhorn, so there's pretty much zero chance of them returning to a standalone version, that's why they are not even going to have a standalone version available anymore for download.

They tied this stuff together initially during the early phases of the browser war, if I remember right, so that they could in fact claim that it was an internal component of the OS, the same strategy they are now trying with Windows Media Player.

Unfortunately, what happens when they do this is that the application is actually integrated into the OS. At least as I understand this stuff, even though it doesn't start out that way.

The main problem as far as I can see is that MS simply does not care about improving IE at this point, PR stunts like the subject of this thread aside, and even if they have had a sudden turnaround, I don't believe that their internal culture supports a new updated high end browser initiative, one look at the wiki site, the blogs, etc, should show that immediately, those are not the products of rabid web enthusiasts.

Even if they do undertake some improvements, who will install such updates? And how will you test for them? Will it be IE 6.5?

ergophobe




msg:560584
 3:42 pm on Jun 24, 2004 (gmt 0)


The W3C's box model is not intuitive at all.

I've mentioned this before, but I'll say it again. It is not intuitive in a web environment, but it does match certain traditions in a print environment. When I prepare camera-ready copy of my books, my publisher gives me dimensions that correspond to the text block, discounting any borders or margins. In this case it saves on math because paper sizes differ. It's less confusing to just give the size of the text block to the compositor (in this case the author) and the printer and anyone else who needs to know, and let them work it out for their own equipment.

So in a print world, the W3C box model is more convenient and sensible.

Sometimes floats also seem odd in the web world, but again, they behave as they would in the print world. One can argue that it's stupid to set web conventions based on print conventions, but remember

- printing has a long history of trial and error and I think everyone would agree that the conventions in printing make books much easier to read.

- the CSS recs were designed with multiple media in mind and in some of those media, the W3C box model remains the most sensible.

As a general rule, I think the W3C was wise to look to a community with 500 years of publishing experience, rather than 5 years. It *may* have been a mistake in the case of the box model, but it was not mere stupidity or hubris as people often imply.

Note that in the same article O'Grady says that the goal of Longhorn is to make the divide between the web and OS seemless and that the browser will no longer be the user's primary link to the web. Perhaps in the long run, the W3C's grandiose vision will prove correct. Perhaps not.

Tom

This 42 message thread spans 2 pages: 42 ( [1] 2 > >
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved