What is Digg?213 Comments
- nixfu, on 11/22/2007, -9/+222For a company that says they are "developer friendly" ... Microsoft has NO CLUE what real web developers want... CSS compatibility.
- hardran3, on 11/22/2007, -19/+206I like IE. If it wasn't for IE being so *****, Firefox wouldn't be around. :)
- Tyr7BE, on 11/22/2007, -10/+125I'm going to quote a slashdot comment I saw earlier this week that had me in stitches that I find particularly pertinent:
Firefox no extentions http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195566731.jpg [forumpix.co.uk]
Firefox with extensions http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195566750.jpg [forumpix.co.uk]
Opera http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195566796.jpg [forumpix.co.uk]
IE http://www.forumpix.co.uk/uploads/1195566785.jpg [forumpix.co.uk]
Link to comment in original article for credit's sake: http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/11/20/133021 ... - Radan, on 11/22/2007, -7/+73You are clearly not a web developer. IE is the root of all evil in this world.
- symbha, on 11/22/2007, -4/+47You must not use your site to make money...
In the 'real' world, you can't afford to take a holier than thou attitude about it. You simply can't disregard the majority for lack of a legitimate business reason. Now sure, you can say supporting IE is costly, but not costlier than blocking ~75% depending on who's numbers you read.
Even in the art world, you must not think you have much to say, if you would rather fewer people hear it.
Blocking IE is sort of ridiculous... grow up and just not support it, and tell them that's why it looks crappy. Yours sounds like a typical techno-superior arrogant attitude. Why not use your power to actually support your cause (that being, conversion to other browser) instead?
For the record, I write this from Firefox. - zforrester, on 11/22/2007, -3/+34In all fairness.... I think they need a new server
- TacticalPenguin, on 11/22/2007, -3/+31They do, they're just too thick to actually do anything about it.
- soopafly, on 11/22/2007, -1/+29/sarcasm
- hackeron, on 11/22/2007, -4/+28Tried 3.0b1? -- With many tabs (20-30), eats less memory than opera for me.
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -21/+45I like Firefox. If it wasn't for Firefox for being such a memory hog, Opera wouldn't be around. :)
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -1/+24Except Opera predates Firefox. And IE, for that matter.
- jeremedia, on 11/22/2007, -5/+27Actually, its their business strategy: slow down the rise of the web. Good luck with that!
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -8/+29Imagine MS bundling Windows with some of the best software available like Apple does. Unlike apple they would get sued to hell and back.
- MacSuxWindozSux, on 11/22/2007, -2/+23Pictures definitely assembled by an Opera user.
- Arbreng, on 11/22/2007, -15/+35Visual Studio 2005. Suck a dick
- billybob476, on 11/22/2007, -11/+29Office
- canthraxp, on 11/22/2007, -5/+23Backup!
In All Fairness … Internet Explorer Still Stinks
by Kevin Yank
This is the story of how SitePoint tried to give Internet Explorer a fighting chance … and it lost anyway.
If you’ve been paying attention, you’ll have caught the subtle (and not-so-subtle) hints that SitePoint has been quietly working on a series of references, beginning with The Ultimate CSS Reference.
[an image of a CSS reference sites, showing the position tag as buggy in IE]
What hasn’t been revealed (until now) is that this reference will be released not just as a slick SitePoint book, but also as a freely-accessible Reference section right here on sitepoint.com! Our aim with this project is to produce the definitive CSS reference, both on the Web and in print.
Obviously, a big part of assembling this reference has been compiling browser compatibility information. And although our hard-working authors might disagree, one of the trickiest parts of the project has been determining how that information should be presented.
[Title]The Inherit Issue[/Title]
value, which according to the spec is supported by all CSS properties. A little over a year ago, David Hammond’s site that rates browser standards compliance generated an uproar on Chris Wilson’s blog when it counted the lack of support for inherit as a point against IE for each and every CSS property.
Our reference will similarly indicate the level of support for each property in each of the major browsers, but what level of support do we indicate for IE, which doesn’t support the inherit value? Do we count this as a failing in IE’s support for each and every property, or do we set that aside as a single unsupported feature, and rate IE’s support of properties in the absence of inherit?
On the one hand, declaring that IE fully supports a property when one of its supported values doesn’t work could be seen as misleading. On the other hand, if the best support level we can list for any property in IE is ‘partial’, then you can’t tell at a glance when IE does fully support a property (within the limitations of its CSS implementation), and our reference becomes that much less useful.
After lengthy discussion with the authors, we decided to treat inherit as a separate unsupported feature, and to list properties that would work perfectly in IE if not for inherit as fully supported. The vote was certainly not unanimous, but I felt like we were doing the right thing by IE—giving the work that Microsoft did in IE7 a chance to shine.
[Title]Except … it didn’t[/Title]
when rating property support, our intention was to enable the many newly-supported CSS features in IE7 to show up in our compatibility tables.
After all, IE7 now supports position: fixed across all elements, completing (except for inherit, of course) support for that property. And IE7 introduced plenty of other new features, such as support for the child selector (>). It would be nice for our compatibility tables to reflect this, we thought—naively, as it turns out.
Once the authors had compiled all this compatibility information, what we discovered was that arguing about the difference between ‘partial’ and ‘full’ support in IE had been an academic exercise … because the vast majority of CSS features are too buggy in IE to rate either!
The position property does support fixed in IE7, but setting this property to anything but static causes that browser to mess up the stacking of overlapping elements by incorrectly establishing a new ’stacking context’, so we are forced to rate this property as ‘buggy’. [On the right, there's an image showing that all IE versions are marked as buggy on the position tag]
And Microsoft did implement the child selector as a brand new feature in IE7, but even in this golden age of standards, this new feature came with obvious parsing bugs (e.g. A > /* comment */ B will fail to work).
After racking my brains for a CSS feature that would have newly achieved ‘full’ support in IE7 without being afflicted by bugs, I happened upon the dimension properties. width and height had serious bugs fixed in IE7, and IE7 added support for min-height, max-height, min-width, and max-width. And as of the current draft of our CSS reference, these properties are listed with ‘full’ support in IE7! Hooray!
Sadly, a little research has revealed reports of a bug in IE7 that affects all of these properties. We have yet to confirm this bug, but if it’s the kind of thing that will impact real-world use of these properties, they’ll lose their ‘full’ rating as well. [On the right, another image showing "child selector" as not present in IE5.5, 6, and buggy in 7]
[Title]Internet Explorer Still Stinks[/Title]
All this adds up to Internet Explorer making a very poor showing in our compatibility tables, despite us going out of our way to give it a fighting chance.
CSS features that we can honestly list as having ‘full’ or even ‘partial’ support in IE are few and far between (color is one, font-size is not). Most of them are ‘buggy’, even in IE7 … and we expect even more IE bugs to come out of the woodwork once we release the Web version of the reference for public comment.
Obviously, with IE7 Microsoft made great strides in correcting the most glaring and painful issues that plagued developers in IE6. But the unavoidable truth revealed by this reference is that Internet Explorer is still miles behind the competition.
Perhaps the new layout engine and other improvements coming in IE.Next will make up some of the difference … or perhaps Microsoft just isn’t interested in fixing (and in the case of IE7, avoiding) bugs that aren’t painfully obvious. - carpespasm, on 11/22/2007, -0/+16Blocking it doesn't seem like a good idea to me. Better to let IE users in and let the page do what it will, it might show them what IE does with well made standards based code. That's the problem people have with IE only sites that are only IE exclusive because of the webmaster's ill-will toward other browsers. If it doesn't break stuff on your end, toss a bar across the top of the page for IE users saying the site is better viewed with something else and let them go on about their day.
- omarciddo, on 11/22/2007, -0/+16Nope, not into beta testing, though I will give FF3 a shot when the final release comes.
- damentz, on 11/22/2007, -2/+18"You call it thick..."
Thats what she said. - ben_nushmut, on 11/22/2007, -0/+15Welcome to Digg. What did you expect to find here? Luddites??
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -4/+19They will never support or participate in improvement of any kind standard that involves others, Supporting web standards equals to suicide for them. They are too butt headed to believe in "Grow with others". They think they own the software industry. For them any potential innovation from outside means cut in their market share. Microsoft is one kind of beast, they only care about their profits. I can prove it by saying "Microsoft never imporoved their Internet Explorer after collapse of Netscape. They did zero innovation for 5 years after netscape collapse.". And when Firefox started to eat their so called fair market share they came out screaming.
Good luck Microsoft. I officially don't need you any more. There is no need for me to use your software for my personal work. I have been free from your clutches for past 3 months.
PS: Before some ass hat comes out and says "Companies are legally obligated to make profit at any cost". I would like to say I do support corporations making profit but not ripping off their customers, and I do not support monopolizing industry so that they can survive. At some day in future they will surely fell down under their own weight because of the mess they made (Vista ?). - Bamborzled, on 11/22/2007, -1/+15I like Opera. If it wasn't for Opera being around, Mozilla would've never improved their browser.
- Radan, on 11/22/2007, -0/+13Yes, I understand what he said, but that argument doesn't hold. Yes, it might be true that because IE is a complete piece of crap when it comes to following standards, some guys decided to create a browser which actually does what it is supposed to do, however this is not enough. When you create a website, you can't simply code it so that it works with Safari, Firefox e.t.c, because IE is still by far the most used browser in the world, so it doesn't matter how good the other browsers are because you still have to adjust to the weakest link. There's absolutely nothing more horrible than the feeling you get after hours of work to make your page look good in Firefox and Safari, just to have to more or less start all over because the page looks like a bloody road kill in IE.
- omarciddo, on 11/22/2007, -3/+15Why? Has your holier-than-thou attitude kept you from realizing that Firefox is *not* the epitome of all web browsers?
- RavagesOfTime, on 11/22/2007, -2/+14And?
- thewump, on 11/22/2007, -3/+14No arguments here.. I have to have VirtualBox / XP installed in my Linux setup JUST to test damn IE7.
- Speed, on 11/22/2007, -3/+14You did go out of your way for IE though, by blocking them.
- mossblaser, on 11/22/2007, -1/+11You know the internet as you know it? Well it was made by a massive crowd of coders. They care. If you think they don't matter, you really haven't got chains of supply sorted out in your mind. Example: I spent an hour working on CSS for a site I am designing, I then spent 5 hours making it work in IE while still retaining standards compliance. Less time spent IE-debugging, more time spent on features.
- Speed, on 11/22/2007, -0/+10You clearly missed what he said. He wasn't saying IE was a good browser.
- canthraxp, on 11/22/2007, -4/+13I personally recommend the ultimate IE7 killer application non-plugin with non-microsoft capabilities and open-source flavor, which comes with a Red Panda as a logo, spell check, and a ***** of plugins downloadable. AKA Firefox.
The site is lagging hard and no cache available, no one has a backup of the text? - bejayel, on 11/22/2007, -1/+10He said IE is good because its ***** lead to developers creating firefox. Had nothing to do with IE being good in the browsing sort of way.
- jeremedia, on 11/22/2007, -35/+44I block IE on my site for exactly the same reasons. I just don't have the time, or interest, to track down the IE-only css "hacks" to make my layout work. My one css file works for Safari, Firefix, and Opera with no special effort; why should I have to go out of my way for IE?
I get a few angry emails a month from strangers who must really love IE, but overall blocking IE has not been a problem, and has removed a whole set of worries from my brain. - ttamshadbolt, on 11/22/2007, -1/+9I'm going to bury you
- zwaldowski, on 11/23/2007, -0/+8Digg is *****. It has FIVE ***** JavaScript libraries. Including jQuery, Scriptaculous, AND Moo.
- EuroMarkus, on 11/22/2007, -3/+10
This isn't a perfect world -- you have to design in the parameters you're given.
An architect can't say "I will not design my building if it had to connect to old
water and sewer lines, and has to use existing access streets -- I only want to
connect to new modern ones".
No, as professionals, we have to find solutions around problems. - mahler, on 11/22/2007, -1/+8You call it thick... they call it cost / benefit.
(I'll leave it for the reader to decide what it actually is) - MattBD, on 11/22/2007, -3/+10In your position I wouldn't block IE - I'd just put a notice on it saying something like "I'm sorry if you're using Internet Explorer and the page doesn't look very good - this is because IE is a badly designed browser. I recommend trying these instead..." and add links to the homepages of other browsers. In my experience, a lot of people who use Internet Explorer aren't aware of alternatives like Firefox or Opera. And this way you don't have to be the meat in the sandwich - you've provided an easy way for them to get an alternative browser.
- mecki78, on 11/22/2007, -2/+9No, you really misunderstand something here. Nobody hates IE. Nobody wants it to go away. Nobody tells you don't use IE. All that we, the developers, the people that build the web as you are using everyday, really want, is a browser that supports HTML4, maybe XHTML1 and at least CSS 2 to a certain degree. That's all we want. We don't care how the browser is named, looks like or which company produces them, whether it's open source or free or costs money... this is all absolutely uninteresting as long as it only supports at least most of the official web standards.
And here is the problem: All browsers on the market, be it Firefox, Opera, Safari, Konqueror or whatever else exists there, they all do support HTML4 and CSS2 up to a point where it is really useful and where you can really build great looking, very usable and modern Web2.0 pages. All, except one, IE! And that is what the bashing is about. It's not about IE or Microsoft, it's about the fact that this ***** browser has now been released in it's 7th reincarnation and still fails at very simple standard demands that other browsers fulfill for years. Is it really too much to ask a huge company like Microsoft with all their money and all their developers to make a browser that can support standards as good as the other browsers on the market can, and they can do it with much less developers and a whole lot less of money. It can't be asked too much, can it? - inactive, on 11/23/2007, -0/+7If IE didn't suck, Netscape would still be around, they never would have released their code, and it would be an AOL product.
- Error601, on 11/22/2007, -2/+8Yea...I'll just stop testing with IE and screw the majority of my customers.
- EXreaction, on 11/22/2007, -0/+6And it's obvious you are not competent enough to use digg.
USE THE REPLY BUTTON! - dualscreenman, on 11/22/2007, -5/+11Enough people gave a ***** enough to get it frontpaged.If you don't give a *****, don't read the story! Everyone will have a much nicer day.
- EXreaction, on 11/22/2007, -1/+7It doesn't matter if IE8 would have full CSS support and rendered everything perfectly, 50% of web users still use IE6, so either way we are screwed.
- Tribalvirtue, on 11/22/2007, -6/+12I think we can remove words and still keep the statement true.
"Anyone using IE7 is missing out." - Rammsteined, on 11/22/2007, -1/+7Google for ies4linux. It'll make your day.
- jeremedia, on 11/22/2007, -2/+880% of my visitors do not use IE. I still see what browsers people are using; IE is under 1%.
- Fryth, on 11/23/2007, -0/+5Our IT manager doesn't think IE stinks... and to be honest, all the technical arguments don't seem to matter to him. It works with all our vendors' crap, so it's the way we go. Plus it's written by Microsoft, so he won't get fired. Sigh....
- inactive, on 11/22/2007, -0/+5Why so ?, Web is not sole property of Mozilla or Microsoft or Apple. Very less people try to use things that work for them remaining are too lazy to even explain why they can't accept changes.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 209 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 
