...

View Full Version : Ie 8??!!?



jcdevelopment
01-15-2008, 12:56 AM
I have been hearing alot of talk on the release of IE8 that it will be absolutely w3c compatible and that it will be exactly as FF is? Is this true? I have read a few articles but i dont get out much so im not sure if this is true, and if anyone has any links to info, please post them!!

Sman5109
01-15-2008, 06:14 AM
IE8 is still going to fail like all the rest. they say it might be like FF, but their talking about FF2. By the time IE8 comes out, FF3 or maybe even FF4 will be out. No matter what, IE is going to be one step behind.

awatson
01-15-2008, 06:18 PM
It'd be nice, but I'm not holding my breath!

Apostropartheid
01-15-2008, 08:13 PM
Come on, that's rubbish. No browser is fully compliant. Ffx only just got around to getting a CSS1 property out in their third release.

IE8 Standards Mode looks very, very promising, though. I shall like to see it in action.

Aradon
01-15-2008, 09:48 PM
If internet explorer does become like firefox and allow for neat little addons like downthemall! then I'll go right back to it. After all, IE tends to be less of a memory hog.

jcdevelopment
01-16-2008, 04:20 PM
ok, lets just say IE8 comes fully standard and compatible, would we now have to go back and change every IE hack on our sites to accomidate to them?

VIPStephan
01-16-2008, 08:57 PM
ok, lets just say IE8 comes fully standard and compatible, would we now have to go back and change every IE hack on our sites to accomidate to them?

Only if you didnít write your CSS forward compatible. Conditional comments wonít break for sure.

evo
01-16-2008, 10:20 PM
I've read at El Reg (www.theregister.co.uk) that it passes the Acid Test. That says something.

liorean
01-17-2008, 03:35 AM
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=367207

abduraooft
01-17-2008, 07:55 AM
Look at this comment on msdn blog (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/19/internet-explorer-8-and-acid2-a-milestone.aspx#6811389)

VIPStephan
01-17-2008, 02:24 PM
That poses the question: Will the HTML/CSS forum become obsolete with all websites working alike in all browsers and nothing to worry about anymore? :D

liorean
01-17-2008, 03:22 PM
That poses the question: Will the HTML/CSS forum become obsolete with all websites working alike in all browsers and nothing to worry about anymore? :DIn our dreams alone:)

Ie8 won't be out for a year, as predictions go, and it'll still not have caught up with op/wk/moz (no SVG, no Canvas, no application/xhtml+xml, no XML namespaces support, probably nothing from HTML5, probably nothing from ES4 or Mozilla JavaScript 1.5-1.8, less DOM than the other browsers already support), and it'll handle all current content the same way as ie7 (standards or quirks), we need to add some specific "I want standards and really mean it!" marker comment to turn ie8 standards mode on.

TheShaner
01-17-2008, 03:25 PM
That poses the question: Will the HTML/CSS forum become obsolete with all websites working alike in all browsers and nothing to worry about anymore? :D
That's like physicists agreeing on the Grand Unified Theory! Sure, we all want to believe it'll happen because that'll make all laws (browsers) agree on one standard. But to me, it's like a mirage; no matter how close we get, we'll always still be a ways off :p

-Shane

Skyzyx
03-13-2008, 07:06 AM
Ie8 won't be out for a year, as predictions go, and it'll still not have caught up with op/wk/moz

Perhaps, but we don't know that yet. ;)


(no SVG, no Canvas, no application/xhtml+xml, no XML namespaces support, probably nothing from HTML5, probably nothing from ES4 or Mozilla JavaScript 1.5-1.8, less DOM than the other browsers already support)

Again, this is not a definitive statement. I've only done minimal testing with Internet Explorer 8.0 Beta 1 so far, but I believe I read that it has some preliminary/partial support for HTML5. I would guess that you're right about SVG and <canvas> (Microsoft is pushing Silverlight, and <canvas> isn't a formal standard yet).

EMCAScript 4 (colloquially JavaScript 2.0) is also unlikely because Microsoft has a "don't break the web" stance (you need to be involved in these discussions to understand the statement... and it makes sense from a usability perspective, although not if you view the statement from a CSS point of view) and ES4 has some substantial changes in it from their existing support for JavaScript/JScript 1.3. Unless they integrate Spidermonkey with ES4 support (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!... whew... *wipes eyes*).


and it'll handle all current content the same way as ie7 (standards or quirks), we need to add some specific "I want standards and really mean it!" marker comment to turn ie8 standards mode on.

This stance was changed based on web developer feedback. Enterprise customers will be pissed off because this will absolutely affect them negatively, but it will be fantastic for the rest of us building for the web who are educated about standards and layered semantic markup.

liorean
03-13-2008, 02:03 PM
Perhaps, but we don't know that yet. ;)Yes we do. Microsoft has made a few statements that make it clear they're not going to do a few things. They are not finished with patent analysis for the new media elements or canvas for instance, and they are not going to implement them without an okay from their patents lawyers. With IE8 this far in development, I do not expect they will be able to crank out an implementation before releasing it even if they got an okay from their lawyers right now.
Again, this is not a definitive statement. I've only done minimal testing with Internet Explorer 8.0 Beta 1 so far, but I believe I read that it has some preliminary/partial support for HTML5.Yes, Microsoft surprised everyone by doing that. Especially since they haven't submitted any feedback or comments on most of the things they implemented, and have a broken implementation of at least one of the technologies.
I would guess that you're right about SVG and <canvas> (Microsoft is pushing Silverlight, and <canvas> isn't a formal standard yet).Canvas is the most solid addition to HTML in the entire HTML5 spec yet though. It has three very good native implementations and several hacky ones for ie. It also has four years of implementor experience behind it.

SVG, Microsoft has to my knowledge not made any statements regarding whether they intent to support it or not. They have said they will not support XHTML until they can do it right from the start however, and that sounds discouraging for them adding SVG in IE8 to me.
EMCAScript 4 (colloquially JavaScript 2.0) is also unlikely because Microsoft has a "don't break the web" stance (you need to be involved in these discussions to understand the statement... and it makes sense from a usability perspective, although not if you view the statement from a CSS point of view) and ES4 has some substantial changes in it from their existing support for JavaScript/JScript 1.3.Well, I've been involved in and following the discussions, see my Linkdump on ECMAScript 3/4 (http://web-graphics.com/2007/11/01/linkdump-on-ecmascript-34/) and Further links on ECMAScript 4 (http://web-graphics.com/2007/11/30/further-links-on-ecmascript-4/) blog entries. I still feel that Microsoft has absolutely zero valid arguments for their position. They have not been able to conjur up any examples of where an ES4 implementation in ES3 mode would break the web where an ES3 implementation would not.
Unless they integrate Spidermonkey with ES4 support (HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!... whew... *wipes eyes*).ScreamingMonkey (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Tamarin:ScreamingMonkey)! Installation vector: Adobe Flash Player. Brendan has said they will table the project if Microsoft decides to start implementing ES4 before ScreamingMonkey has begun being distributed in order to prevent interoperability problems coming from having two alternative scripting engines for the same language in the same browser.
This stance was changed based on web developer feedback. Enterprise customers will be pissed off because this will absolutely affect them negatively, but it will be fantastic for the rest of us building for the web who are educated about standards and layered semantic markup.Good for the future web, bad for the current web, not a problem for enterprise as Microsoft has provided them with the tools to use IE8 in IE7 mode on intranets. I really think that in the discussions about this, the Intranet side of has been overblown. It WILL have real bad consequences on many sites on the internet, and Microsoft will be the ones who get the blame from the users when IE8 breaks sites that worked perfectly in IE7, sadly, not the web developers.

Skyzyx
03-13-2008, 06:59 PM
Yes we do. Microsoft has made a few statements that make it clear they're not going to do a few things. They are not finished with patent analysis for the new media elements or canvas for instance, and they are not going to implement them without an okay from their patents lawyers. With IE8 this far in development, I do not expect they will be able to crank out an implementation before releasing it even if they got an okay from their lawyers right now.

Aren't they all doing patent checking stuff though? I remember a really, really long thread on public-html about it, and whether Ogg was the right format to support. Either way, I believe this is different from "it'll still not have caught up with op/wk/moz" to which I merely point out that they reversed their position on standards mode by default. By "we don't know that yet", I meant it in a Terminator-like "the future isn't set" point of view.

And as far as those statements from Microsoft, do you have a link?


Canvas is the most solid addition to HTML in the entire HTML5 spec yet though. It has three very good native implementations and several hacky ones for ie. It also has four years of implementor experience behind it.

I completely agree. Canvas is pretty awesome, and it's a shame that IE will likely not have support for it until at least IE9.


SVG, Microsoft has to my knowledge not made any statements regarding whether they intent to support it or not. They have said they will not support XHTML until they can do it right from the start however, and that sounds discouraging for them adding SVG in IE8 to me.

Which explains why application/xml+xhtml isn't supported yet. *sigh*


Well, I've been involved in and following the discussions, see my Linkdump on ECMAScript 3/4 (http://web-graphics.com/2007/11/01/linkdump-on-ecmascript-34/) and Further links on ECMAScript 4 (http://web-graphics.com/2007/11/30/further-links-on-ecmascript-4/) blog entries. I still feel that Microsoft has absolutely zero valid arguments for their position. They have not been able to conjur up any examples of where an ES4 implementation in ES3 mode would break the web where an ES3 implementation would not.

(I hadn't meant that YOU needed to be involved in the spec discussions... I know YOU are. That statement was mostly for OTHERS who were following this thread.)

I've not been part of these discussions... I've only heard second hand. Namely with Brendan Eich and Chris Wilson screaming at each other through their respective blogs. I do know that Doug Crockford has sided with Microsoft on the issue, but there are a lot of people backing Eich's position as well.

Does ES4 have a mailing list that I can get involved with? I'd like to become more educated about this, even if it's only by lurk-style osmosis. :)


ScreamingMonkey (http://wiki.mozilla.org/Tamarin:ScreamingMonkey)!

That's what I meant. Thank you.


Installation vector: Adobe Flash Player. Brendan has said they will table the project if Microsoft decides to start implementing ES4 before ScreamingMonkey has begun being distributed in order to prevent interoperability problems coming from having two alternative scripting engines for the same language in the same browser.

Does that mean that everyone will use Microsoft's ES4 implementation? That doesn't sound right. Or, did you mean that ScreamingMonkey would simply not be developed for IE and/or Windows?


Good for the future web, bad for the current web, not a problem for enterprise as Microsoft has provided them with the tools to use IE8 in IE7 mode on intranets. I really think that in the discussions about this, the Intranet side of has been overblown. It WILL have real bad consequences on many sites on the internet, and Microsoft will be the ones who get the blame from the users when IE8 breaks sites that worked perfectly in IE7, sadly, not the web developers.

Ergh. Poor current web. Or, more specifically, poor USERS of the current web. I had thought that the standards mode opt-in in IE8 would be a good way for existing web developers (excluding the more educated standards-oriented crowd) to transition from the age of IE 6/7 to the age of a more compliant IE8 in a way that's more "transitionary" for them and a miniscule amount of effort from us (setting an HTTP header is a piece of cake). Zeldman agreed with me, as well as a few others, but the overwhelming majority didn't respond that way and I think that was a mistake. The *usability* of the web, although not exclusive of web standards, should be a higher priority than standards themselves.

On the other hand, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, and this is exactly what will happen. CF is going to be flooded with IE8 issues. ;)

liorean
03-13-2008, 10:06 PM
Aren't they all doing patent checking stuff though?They're doing patent stuff - not to see whether they can do it or not, but to see if they have patents that they do not want to concede. (W3C require all members of the WG to concede all patents they have that cover the technologies under RF licence. So something of the kind anaway. I wasn't really paying full attention to that part since I have no patents and do not work for any WG member.)
I remember a really, really long thread on public-html about it, and whether Ogg was the right format to support.Yes, but I'm not talking about the codec parts, I'm talking about the interfaces and elements. Microsoft got their Eolas scare, so they're tiptoeing around media issues if they can.
Either way, I believe this is different from "it'll still not have caught up with op/wk/moz" to which I merely point out that they reversed their position on standards mode by default. By "we don't know that yet", I meant it in a Terminator-like "the future isn't set" point of view.That turnabout really told us three things:
- The IE team considered the default-to-ie7-mode solution a bad design, it was controlled by principles from above.
- Microsoft changed their interoperability principles (in order to prevent the EU fining them massive amounts of cash per day).
- If the IE team really considered compatibility over standards support, they would have managed to stay their course.

The IE team had an easy time convincing the people above to change the decision accordingly once the interoperability principles were changed. They also had a very convincing argument: They had lost two cases in the EU, and Opera had filed another one, about this specific issue. If they complied, the Opera complaint would be much less of a threat.
And as far as those statements from Microsoft, do you have a link?Hmm. I'm not sure, but I think it was Chris Wilson, probably on the public-html mailing list. There's been several comments to the point in various places.
I've not been part of these discussions... I've only heard second hand. Namely with Brendan Eich and Chris Wilson screaming at each other through their respective blogs. I do know that Doug Crockford has sided with Microsoft on the issue, but there are a lot of people backing Eich's position as well.

Does ES4 have a mailing list that I can get involved with? I'd like to become more educated about this, even if it's only by lurk-style osmosis. :)Read the links I posted, and you'll find the answers.

Does that mean that everyone will use Microsoft's ES4 implementation? That doesn't sound right. Or, did you mean that ScreamingMonkey would simply not be developed for IE and/or Windows?Of course not. That would be silly. Why would Opera, Adobe, Google, MBedThis, Mozilla and Apple be implementing it if they would just change to the Microsoft implementation? ScreamingMonkey is a project specifically to get ActionMonkey (SpiderMonkey parser+Tamarin VM) running in IE using the same Active Scripting interfaces that VBScript and JScript uses.
Ergh. Poor current web. Or, more specifically, poor USERS of the current web. I had thought that the standards mode opt-in in IE8 would be a good way for existing web developers (excluding the more educated standards-oriented crowd) to transition from the age of IE 6/7 to the age of a more compliant IE8 in a way that's more "transitionary" for them and a miniscule amount of effort from us (setting an HTTP header is a piece of cake). Zeldman agreed with me, as well as a few others, but the overwhelming majority didn't respond that way and I think that was a mistake. The *usability* of the web, although not exclusive of web standards, should be a higher priority than standards themselves.That's about the same argumentation as I've been using, yes.
On the other hand, you can't make an omelet without breaking some eggs, and this is exactly what will happen. CF is going to be flooded with IE8 issues. ;)Every web dev forum and mailing list will be. The css-discuss mailing list already has several ie8 threads running :)

NancyJ
03-14-2008, 11:10 AM
Improved namespace support

Internet Explorer 8 simplifies the use of standards-compliant XML-based webpages that support namespace features like scalable vector graphics, XML user interface language, mathematical markup language, and others.

So its not like they're not saying anything about svg support.

liorean
03-14-2008, 11:26 AM
So its not like they're not saying anything about svg support.And if you have read the whitepapers you know that what Microsoft really have done is make XML namespaces kinda-work in HTML (and presumably they've fixed the issues of their XML namespaces implementation as well), so that others can develop add-ons that add support for custom XML namespaced content in HTML. Microsoft themselves haven't done anything towards supporting SVG, MathML or any other additional vocabulary.

IE8b1 doesn't even support VML!

liorean
03-17-2008, 09:35 PM
As for the decision to launch in IE8 standards mode instead of IE7 Standards mode by default, to explain that as an issue of choosing interoperability (IE8 Standards) or compatibility (IE7 Standards). Joel Spolsky has a nice writeup on this topic at Joel on Software: Martian Headsets (http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html), choosing the wording idealist for the interoperability side, pragmatist for the compatibility side. It's really about choosing which side to play nice with: the other clients (competitor browsers), or the content servers. And neither "both" nor "in between" is a realistic possibility.

p4plus2
03-18-2008, 12:31 AM
That will be the day..Microsoft doing something right?!?! what a joke!



EZ Archive Ads Plugin for vBulletin Copyright 2006 Computer Help Forum