[News] Internet Explorer 7 Still Against Web Standards

  • Thread starter Roy Schestowitz
  • Start date
D

dfloss

Roy said:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1824250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Give me a break. It's pretty darn good; you are splitting hairs.
 
J

Jonathan N. Little

dfloss said:
Roy said:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1824250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Give me a break. It's pretty darn good; you are splitting hairs.

54% Woot-woot! That's better than half!

Obviously you haven't been frustrated making a modern website that
doesn't break IE....
 
E

Erik Funkenbusch

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1824250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Dude, that's over a year old.

What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
creating valid XHTML and CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.newscloud.com

Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
bothered to conform to standards.
 
P

Paul Watt

Roy Schestowitz said:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1824250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Does make you think about the support CSS3 is going to have when it rears
its head. Border-radius anyone?

--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info
 
E

Erik Funkenbusch

http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1824250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Dude, that's over a year old.

What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
creating valid XHTML and CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.newscloud.com

Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
bothered to conform to standards.

By the way, see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager
of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx
 
H

Hadron Quark

Erik Funkenbusch said:
http://developers.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/07/1824250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Dude, that's over a year old.

What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
creating valid XHTML and CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://www.newscloud.com

Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
bothered to conform to standards.

By the way, see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager
of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx

Always nice when you see a reasoned contribution from someone actually
involved in a products development.

--
 
A

Andy Dingley

Andy said:
Failed validation, 67 errors

You've never worked with a big corporate, have you? And M$oft is one
of the absolute worst for "What's wrong with US corporate culture and
its stuck in the '60s mentality"

Whoever provides content to those blogs is _very_ far from who
specifies or implements the blogs. This is sad, but it's certainly not
the blog author's fault. Flagging this Pavlovian little link to the
validator makes you look like the sort of sad little teenager who
_only_ knows how to do that.
 
E

Erik Funkenbusch

Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't handle
XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus errors.
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't handle
XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus errors.

Bogus? No, HTML and XHTML are not the same. If you are writing with an
HTML doctype, use HTML syntax; if a XHTML doctype, use XHTML syntax.
They are not the same, therefore these are not bogus errors.
 
D

dorayme

"Andy Dingley said:
Flagging this Pavlovian little link to the
validator makes you look like the sort of sad little teenager who
_only_ knows how to do that.

....amazing what the typing hands can produce...
 
T

The Ghost In The Machine

In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Beauregard T. Shagnasty
<[email protected]>
wrote
Bogus? No, HTML and XHTML are not the same. If you are writing with an
HTML doctype, use HTML syntax; if a XHTML doctype, use XHTML syntax.
They are not the same, therefore these are not bogus errors.

All right, dumb question...why is XHTML even an issue here? The
given link is HTML 4.0 Transitional. Unless the author is
actually referring to one of the test pages implied in

http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_summary.php

which has some very strange numbers...how do they determine
that IE6 is 80% compliant with HTML4.01? Ditto for

http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support.php

which among other things says that IE6 is 75% compliant with the A tag.

http://www.webdevout.net/browser_support_html.php

still has this problem, even at this level of detail --
how is IE6 75% compliant with A's core attributes?

I don't want to say it's a bad effort, really -- it gives some good
info as to the pitfalls in HTML/XHTML development. But I can't say
it makes a lot of sense in spots. Still, there might be some
limitations that preclude actual hard numbers.

The flyovers are a nice touch. :) Links back to the
specification look like they might be useful in case of
disputes; however, the entire webpage decided to do

a { text-decoration: none; }
a:hover { text-decoration: underline; }

or its equivalent for some reason, making the links hard
to spot without playing "flyover".
 
G

GreyCloud

Erik said:
As I responded in a different thread, this is because of a flaw in the
W3C's parser that cannot handle XHTML style tags in an HTML 4 document
(which is legal).

Aren't HTML and XHTML different?
 
B

Beauregard T. Shagnasty

In said:
In comp.os.linux.advocacy, Beauregard T. Shagnasty


All right, dumb question...why is XHTML even an issue here? The
given link is HTML 4.0 Transitional.

The given link (the blog link above) is HTML 4.0 Traditional, but
written with XHTML syntax. <shrug>

<meta name="GENERATOR"
content="CommunityServer 2.0 (Build: 60209.2598)" />

Maybe we need to blame this Generator? The above link now has 105
errors:
Unless the author is actually
referring to one of the test pages implied in

Can't say. Most of the thread is not in alt.html.
 
N

Nikita the Spider

Erik Funkenbusch said:
As I responded in a different thread, this is because of a flaw in the
W3C's parser that cannot handle XHTML style tags in an HTML 4 document
(which is legal).

Erik, what are "XHTML-style" tags? Do you mean something like this? with

<foo />

The W3C's validator is not in error (it almost never is); those tags are
not legal in HTML. Jukka has the scoop:
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/html/empty.html#why
 
A

Andy Dingley

Erik said:
Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't handle
XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus errors.

Why is that a bug? That page's code is crap. Empty elements (meta &
link) are closed XML-style, which is just plain wrong in a HTML 4.0
document. The ID values are also XML-style (begin with "_") which is
invalid HTML.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
473,744
Messages
2,569,484
Members
44,903
Latest member
orderPeak8CBDGummies

Latest Threads

Top