homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.205.189.156
register, free tools, login, search, subscribe, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Pubcon Platinum Sponsor 2014
Visit PubCon.com
Home / Forums Index / Code, Content, and Presentation / HTML
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: incrediBILL

HTML Forum

    
Internet Explorer 9 Preview
bill




msg:4027804
 5:42 am on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Internet Explorer 9 Preview [winsupersite.com]

Performance
The company explained this week that it examined how similar sites actually tax browsers in different ways--some are script-heavy, for example, while others are not--and its architecting IE 9 to handle these different needs properly.

Interoperability standards
Microsoft has taken a lot of flak for its lackluster adherence to web standards, but the company appears ready to reverse that reputation in IE 9.

Hardware acceleration
"We've moved the IE rendering engine from GDI to DirectX."

As an early Alpha build they still have a lot of work to do on this product. It is nice to hear that they are moving forward with IE development and not letting it stagnate like they did in the past. Standards compliance would be nice!

 

benevolent001




msg:4027844
 8:15 am on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Will this version be Html 5 and CSS 3 version compliant ?

johnnie




msg:4027845
 8:16 am on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

HTML5? CSS3?

jamiembrown




msg:4027861
 9:12 am on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

From the article:

More specifically, this means adhering to the latest web standards, such as HTML 5 and CSS3 Selectors. At the keynote, there was a demo with CSS-based rounded corners in an element border. That's very specific, of course, but it's something that IE 8 doesn't do properly today. The current, very early IE 9 version correctly utilizes 41 of the 43 CSS Selectors and scores 574 out of 578 in its CSS3 Selectors test, a big improvement over IE8, which scored 330 out of 578.

swa66




msg:4027901
 10:35 am on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Why call it IE9 ?

It's not like Microsoft has a tradition to keep up in sticking with numbering releases: Win 3; win3.1; win95, win98, ME, NT3.5, NT4, 2000, XP, 2003, 2008, Vista, win7 (which identifies itself as ... 6.1 sigh).

Why not just call it IE8 build 9876.54 so people aren't afraid of upgrading.

Right now we're already forced to deal with 3 different versions of IE, each with their own unique set of bugs and features that never seem to get fixed.
unless they are ready to get rid of all of them out there, they should focus on fixing the old ones instead of adding a fourth to the list.

We've seen plenty of promises with every version it would be different this time, only to discover after a while it's going to be yet another instance of the same. Even IE8 still has "hasLayout" in IE8 mode: where is that property mentioned in the CSS2.1 standard over at w3.org?

On the list of HTML5, CSS3: add SVG, it's far more important than ActiveX, DirectX, VML, backward rendering modes and whatnot they stuffed in that browser!

carguy84




msg:4028149
 4:55 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Uhg, MSFT needs to SLOW DOWN. Each of the last versions of IE displays the same webpage differently, and I'm sure IE9 will be no different. 1/3 of our traffic is IE6, 1/3 is IE7 and 1/3 is IE8. I really don't want it to go to quarters...

mack




msg:4028162
 5:21 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Remember IE 5. That "thing" just didn't get updated or changed for what felt like ages, then with XP came 5.5

Now Microsoft just appear to want to push out the numbers. I think someone in the marketing department wants IE X out asap because it sounds cool.

My personal view is that only major builds should get a whole number. And I don't mean the underlying technology, I mean how it looks and performs from an end user point of view. I think ie8 should still be ie6. Something.

Mack.

mcavic




msg:4028214
 6:13 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

I think ie8 should still be ie6. Something.

Agreed, but I also think IE8 should render a page the same way as IE6.

swa66




msg:4028240
 6:55 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

IE8 should render a page the same way as IE6

Actually No, certainly IE6 cannot be the leader: it's already a major roadblock on the way to the future.
Wha they need to to is just fix all versions of IE to render it like firefox/safari/chrome/opera etc render it. There is a massive consensus how it should work, even Microsoft employees have their name all over the standards themselves, yet their implementation of those standards are the very worst there are out there, and they never bother to fix their mistakes not even for many years in the case of IE6.

ergophobe




msg:4028253
 7:08 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

IE8 should render a page the same way as IE6.

No! Browsers that render pages the same way as IE6 should DIE.

Maybe it's utopian, but browsers that respect standards will make things easier on us in the long run.

Microsoft has taken a lot of flak for its lackluster adherence to web standards, but the company appears ready to reverse that reputation in IE 9...
More specifically, this means adhering to the latest web standards, such as HTML 5 and CSS3 Selectors. At the keynote, there was a demo with CSS-based rounded corners in an element border.

My emphasis. You can't have it both ways and I for one would like to get rounded corners with .htc files (among other items on my IE laundry list).

Above all, I don't want four different box models and code riddled with conditional comments for IE. And yes, I understand, updates to IE mean *more* conditional comments in the short run.

Anyway, IE6 is finally dying. I just checked some stats for a site that was designed to render fine in IE6 and has a very non-techy demographic. IE6 is under 9% of visitors. A substantial number, but less than Safari. Almost that many Chrome users actually.

On a more tech-oriented site, I only have 3% IE6 visitors (and only about 8% IE7) and both Chrome and Safari are above that and Opera is close.

Fotiman




msg:4028257
 7:13 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Microsoft has taken a lot of flak for its lackluster adherence to web standards, but the company appears ready to reverse that reputation in IE 9...

I think I heard the exact same message about IE8 before it came out.

ergophobe




msg:4028271
 7:44 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

I'm not saying they will or won't deliver, but asking them to keep rendering the same as IE6 is not going to make people happy.

In other words, I'm not saying they will live up to the hype, just trying to answer the previous poster as to why there's no way future versions of IE should be rendering everything like IE6.

Fotiman




msg:4028281
 7:55 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Clarification: I agree... no future versions of IE should be rendering everything like IE6. I was just pointing out that Microsoft seems to make all sorts of promises, but ultimately IE always manages to disappoint.

IE8 Acid3 test... 20%
IE9 Acid3 test... 32%
Google Chrome Acid3 test... 100%

I mean, come on!

StoutFiles




msg:4028311
 8:24 pm on Nov 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

IE9 Acid3 test... 32%

Let's wait till the browser is completely finished before we laugh at IE for bombing the Acid3 test.

JAB Creations




msg:4028467
 1:36 am on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

What the heck is this talk about a fourth browser to code to? That's the whole point of IE9; to get IE to where Firefox and Safari are.

General IE9 support specs...
Windows XP:
Not confirmed
XHTML:
Not confirmed
SVG: confirmed
CSS3 Selectors: confirmed
CSS3 Properties: one property confirmed

Additionally any one who pays attention to Opera knows about Vega and thus any one who's read about Vega and noticed Microsoft showed up to an SVG event a couple months ago knows that we're likely to see additional CSS3 properties beyond border-radius.

90% of the complaints I've seen are not substantiated; the only thing any one has said that is agreeable at this point in regards to IE9 is that what we've been previewing is nothing new to other browsers.

On top of that Microsoft more then has enough resources to implement all the missing standards and not simply cherry-picking what they deem to be worth supporting.

- John

swa66




msg:4028744
 12:41 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

That's the whole point of IE9; to get IE to where Firefox and Safari are.

Wasn't that what we were promised with IE8 already ? Deliver on the promises in IE8 by fixing the reported problems before making yet more promises (only to find them broken once again as long as they don't start to fix their bugs and mistaken choices).

Promises: I ain't buying it anymore. Deliver first on what was already promised, then I'll believe (maybe).

Fotiman




msg:4028845
 4:13 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

SVG: confirmed

Source? Last I heard this was still unconfirmed. Also, assuming they DO implement it, we won't know until IE9 comes out whether they've implemented it correctly or stuffed in a bunch of proprietary stuff.

JAB Creations




msg:4028960
 7:13 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

No, 90% of IE8 was about CSS 2.1 compliance.

Microsoft knows SVG support is critical. They already have VML so it's not like they don't already have something they can rework. Also they've showed up last minute at a big SVG meeting a couple months ago. I doubt we'll see full support of any of the existing SVG standards; we're likely to see reasonable support for it.

XHTML or fail. Microsoft has hinted that the ground has been slowly been laid out for XHTML support and there isn't any excuse. They bring in billions a year and they've been holding the web back. As far as I'm concerned if we don't see XP, XHTML, JavaScript 1.6+, reasonable SVG, and reasonable CSS3 property support I will ban IE users on non-business related sites permanently.

- John

ergophobe




msg:4029039
 9:47 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

>>XHTML or fail.

Why XHTML? Is anyone here actually creating XHTML pages served up as application/xhtml (otherwise it's really just HTML with obligatory closing tags isn't it)? If not, is it because of inadequate browsers?

Honestly, I don't speak XML and I really don't keep up on this sort of thing anymore. I think of XHTML as pretty much a failed experiment and HTML5 as showing a lot more promise for a usable web in the long run.

So at the risk of exposing my ignorance, why should I care about XHTML? Or actually, wrong question - why should I prioritize XHTML 1.? support over HTML5?

swa66




msg:4029077
 11:11 pm on Nov 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

I author everything in xhtml for it is far more strict (hence my code doesn't contain unexpected implicit closes (they still happen in html 4.01 strict).

In addition it means the content can be parsed as if it is xml: I can use tools to manipulate xml at will on my xhtml to e.g. make changes on a site wide scale that I failed to anticipate in my server side includes: I can still do them easily enough no matter how complex the get without having to rely on a html parser.

html5: there is still xhtml5 as well. so you do not have to choose between xhtml and html5: you can have both.

ergophobe




msg:4029228
 8:48 am on Nov 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

Check. I never could get used to implicit closing tags in HTML. I'd forgotten they were permitted even in HTML 4.01 strict.

Like implicit variable declarations in PHP, such things avoid syntax errors at the cost of creating logic errors (or whatever the equivalent is for markup).

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