IE 9 Beta (OT)

[Neredbojias]

I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good! The redesigned top
is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I prefer.
(I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a pixel or two,
though.) And hallelujah! - it does opacity! They've opted for the
"disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on but don't count
as a negative.

There are a few issues. The positioning is fouled up, -notably
elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
do in other browsers. Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
think they fixed it.) Also, there seems to be an odd delay _on the
start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which should by
then be cached) after the first one. The video loads fine (fast) once
it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for some reason.
Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet and except for
the probs I like it better than ie 8.

 

[rf]

I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!

Go over to CLJ to see how it breaks all the "major" javascript "libraries"

 

[cwdjrxyz]

I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!  The redesigned top
is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I prefer.
(I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a pixel or two,
though.)  And hallelujah! - it does opacity!  They've opted for the
"disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on but don't count
as a negative.

There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
think they fixed it.)  Also, there seems to be an odd delay _on the
start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which should by
then be cached) after the first one.  The video loads fine (fast) once
it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for some reason.
Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet and except for
the probs I like it better than ie 8.

According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
see it.

If you would kindly view my page http://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines xhtml
is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the server as
html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self closing br, img,
etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in xhtml 1.1 and works,
we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is capable of displaying an
xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.

 

[Neredbojias]

Go over to CLJ to see how it breaks all the "major" javascript
"libraries"

Yep, I've noticed some irregularities pertaining to the j/s. But it's
a beta, don't forget, and much will be fixed before the final release.
(-Just how much is the question.) Funny thing is I tried it on a
rather extensive j/s image-styling loop that made ie8 (-but no other
browser) hiccup and it handled that okay. We'll see.

 

[Neredbojias]

According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
see it.

If you would kindly view my page http://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines
xhtml is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the
server as html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self
closing br, img, etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in
xhtml 1.1 and works, we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is
capable of displaying an xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.

Here's from view source "original":

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

<head>

<title>Fatty</title>

<style type="text/css">
body {background-color: #000044;color: #eeeeee}
a:active {color: #eeee00; background-color: #000043}
a:visited {color: #00ee00;background-color: #000043}
a:link {color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043}
p {font-size:125%;color:#eeeeee;font-weight:bold;background-color:
#000043} p.two {text-align:center;font-size:100%;color:
#ff0000;background-color: #000043} h3{text-align:center;font-size:
100%;color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043} </style>

</head>


Here's from view source DOM (page):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML Strict//EN">
<html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<head>

<title>FattyFatty</title>

<style type="text/css">
 body {
  color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 68);
 }
 a:active {
  color: rgb(238, 238, 0);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 a:visited {
  color: rgb(0, 238, 0);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 a:link {
  color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 p {
  color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
  font-size: 125%;
  font-weight: bold;
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 p.two {
  text-align: center;
  color: rgb(255, 0, 0);
  font-size: 100%;
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 h3 {
  text-align: center;
  color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
  font-size: 100%;
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
</style>


</head>


I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

Here's from view source "original":

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

<head>

<title>Fatty</title>

<style type="text/css">
body {background-color: #000044;color: #eeeeee}
a:active {color: #eeee00; background-color: #000043}
a:visited {color: #00ee00;background-color: #000043}
a:link {color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043}
p {font-size:125%;color:#eeeeee;font-weight:bold;background-color:
#000043} p.two {text-align:center;font-size:100%;color:
#ff0000;background-color: #000043} h3{text-align:center;font-size:
100%;color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043} </style>

</head>

Here's from view source DOM (page):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML Strict//EN">
<html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<head>

<title>FattyFatty</title>

<style type="text/css">
 body {
  color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 68);
 }
 a:active {
  color: rgb(238, 238, 0);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 a:visited {
  color: rgb(0, 238, 0);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 a:link {
  color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 p {
  color: rgb(238, 238, 238);
  font-size: 125%;
  font-weight: bold;
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 p.two {
  text-align: center;
  color: rgb(255, 0, 0);
  font-size: 100%;
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
 h3 {
  text-align: center;
  color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
  font-size: 100%;
  background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
 }
</style>

</head>

I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.

Thanks very much for viewing my page on IE9 and your report concerning
the code. I have made an exception to my rule of not downloading beta
browsers, and installed IE9 so I can test it in detail. I usually use
Firefox online, and I have an old XP with IE7 installed which I could
upgrade to IE8 if the need arises. Although many hate and a few may
love IE, you nearly have to have it to check your web pages. I will
post again if I find anything new that is interesting.

 

[Neredbojias]

Thanks very much for viewing my page on IE9 and your report
concerning the code. I have made an exception to my rule of not
downloading beta browsers, and installed IE9 so I can test it in
detail. I usually use Firefox online, and I have an old XP with IE7
installed which I could upgrade to IE8 if the need arises. Although
many hate and a few may love IE, you nearly have to have it to check
your web pages. I will post again if I find anything new that is
interesting.

I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so... I
miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
frequently. Will probably go back in a week or so.

 

[cwdjrxyz]

I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so...  I
miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
frequently.  Will probably go back in a week or so.

Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food . Of course this
is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.

 

[idle]

Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food . Of course this
is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.

IE9 uses Direct2D to hardware-accelerate HTML5-based scrolling and 3D graphics, handing such processing to the machine's GPU.
Direct2D was introduced with Windows 7, and it was later rolled into Windows Vista SP2 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

For Windows XP, the writing has long been on the wall. Microsoft said back in November, at its PDC conference in Los Angeles,
that IE9 would make use of Direct2D.

 

[GTalbot]

There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
think they fixed it.)

Neredbojias,

"
(...) * The static position for 'left' is the distance from the left
edge of the containing block to the left margin edge of a hypothetical
box that would have been the first box of the element if its
'position' property had been 'static' and 'float' had been 'none'.
(...)
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.3.7 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width

"
(...) the term "static position" (of an element) refers, roughly, to
the position an element would have had in the normal flow. More
precisely, the static position for 'top' is the distance from the top
edge of the containing block to the top margin edge of a hypothetical
box that would have been the first box of the element if its specified
'position' value had been 'static' and its specified 'float' had been
'none' and 'clear' had been 'none'.
(...)
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height

regards, Gérard

 

[Neredbojias]

Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food . Of course this
is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.

Yeah, I also read it wouldn't work in XP, and I don't think the final
version will, either. So get rid of the parrot and keep up with the
Gates's. Some parrots, btw, go for $1000 or more...

 

[Neredbojias]

Neredbojias,

"
(...) * The static position for 'left' is the distance from the left
edge of the containing block to the left margin edge of a
hypothetical box that would have been the first box of the element if
its 'position' property had been 'static' and 'float' had been
'none'. (...)
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.3.7 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-width

"
(...) the term "static position" (of an element) refers, roughly, to
the position an element would have had in the normal flow. More
precisely, the static position for 'top' is the distance from the top
edge of the containing block to the top margin edge of a hypothetical
box that would have been the first box of the element if its
specified 'position' value had been 'static' and its specified
'float' had been 'none' and 'clear' had been 'none'.
(...)
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height

I wonder what idiot put that clause in? Anyway, they guessed wrong,
and if they don't guess right by the time it's officially released, my
status quo regarding usage of Internet Explorer will not change in the
least.

 

[Neredbojias]

There are a few issues.  The positioning is fouled up, -notably
elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
they do in other browsers.  Opera had a similar problem awhile
back but I think they fixed it.) [...]
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced
elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.html#abs-non-replaced-height

I wonder what idiot put that clause in? Anyway, they guessed wrong,
and if they don't guess right by the time it's officially released,
my status quo regarding usage of Internet Explorer will not change
in the least.

The clause about making a guess is not idiotic, but what was
ill-advised was all that stuff about a hypothetical box-- the
position should have just defaulted to 0,0 if not set.

If I have this:

The rain in Spain <span>gives Jane a pain.</span>

and the span is position:absolute without any left or height etc.
positioners, the "gives Jane a pain" part should absolutely,
definitely, and unequivocally go where it would go if it were static.
Why? Because anything else if non-utilitarian, i.e.: useless. There
_is_ a use for absolutely-positioned "followers" and how else would you
do that? And what good is a 0,0 default? If you want 0.0, set it with
the parameters.

It has turned out to be more important to most people that browsers
do the same thing than that they all do different possibly more
useful things. So although 0,0 is less useful than a guess, it is
easier to specify.

I agree that consistency is vital and I could probably live with most
w3c crap if it worked the same in all browsers even if it were less
than brilliant. But it doesn't. And what's their attitude? "Take a
guess..."

The W3C state somewhere that the idea is something like that life
should be easiest for users, then authors, then implementors. Fine in
principle but if you make it too hard for the implementors, you get
inconsistent results across browsers, which hurts authors, and
ultimately users.

Telling them it's OK they can just guess at the really difficult
stuff doesn't really help the problem!

No, of course not. But they are good at one thing. Platitudes.