digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Microsoft Accepts it Ignored the Web Standards

zdnetasia.com — Microsoft has learned some very serious lessons when it comes to complying with Web standards after taking heavy criticism from the industry and, more importantly, a beating in the browser market share. Microsoft group manager of technical community, Frank Arrigo, explained how important it is for the Redmond giant to follow Web standards.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Waterrat, on 10/11/2007, -8/+106 And it took them how long to finally figure this out?
    • ganjadude4391, on 10/11/2007, -3/+23when they realized IE optimized != standard anymore
    • Sirocco, on 10/11/2007, -1/+35They "figured it out" a long time ago. It wasn't in their best interest to create a browser that worked with accepted standards. Now that Firefox is presenting a real threat to their browser monopoly they are starting to take action. There's no longer an excuse to develop exclusively for IE.
      • Tippis, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5Remember folks -- at one point in time, IE was the absolute cream of the crop in terms of web browsing. Why? Because MS had to fight to stay on top. Once that fight was over (and they'd won), they stopped caring and went on with more interesting/lucrative things.

        Now, IE is starting to come under attack in a way that MS actually feels, and just like before, this could very well mean that they start applying some of their top talent and resources to the problem. If they are really committed, they could quite easily start produce *the best* browser again -- they just need to be pushed hard enough by the competitors.
    • dsn0wman, on 10/11/2007, -4/+28Who said they have figured anything out? Last time I checked MS was more into creating their own standards rather than complying with existing standards. OOXML anyone?
      • latova, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11They only comply with existing standards when it benefits them.
        • Zachariah, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1How long? Not yet. IE7 still doesn't comply with the HTML standard. They've even left out an entire element (the Q element for inline quotiations)!
    • andregriffin, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Here's to a compliant, worry-free, IE8.
    • Robotsu, on 10/11/2007, -2/+7Here here. But in the same vein, I would really like to see them support standards in HTML email. Many people probably are not aware of this, but Outlook 2007, in the past few months, degraded the quality of CSS support in such an outlandish and unthinkable way. A list of some of the HTML and CSS no longer supported is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_rendering. Campaign Monitor has an excellent article entitled "Microsoft Takes email back 5 years." And I kid you not: this is no hyperbole or hysterical anti-microsoft bashing (http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/archives/2007/01/microsoft_takes_email_design_b.html). We're talking nested tables here if you want a message to render across the major email clients. My fellow web developers would be absolutely shocked and appalled at the sorts of rendering tricks you need to use to have your pages degrade to support 07.

      And the worst part of it all? Besides Eudora and Lotus Notes (which I disregard because of low user base, incidentally, Eudora supports exactly 0% CSS), Gmail is actually one of the worst offenders when it comes to lack of CSS support. And most of the items are completely trivial and non-disruptive to the native interface.

      I'll admit it, I was never too amazingly concerned about email CSS support in my younger days, but now that I am actually developing for multiple email clients and having to translate designs more or less on a 1:1 ration... I've never been more pissed off at a lack of standards.

      It's like the mid-90's with browser wars, only there are about 6 extra clients. *shudders*
      • shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6Save yourself the trouble. For junk mail, we'd all rather just get text anyway.
      • beepsy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4I'm going to have to agree with shmatt as well, I've never cared for html in my emails and when given the option I always request a plain text version of email.
        • Robotsu, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I send a mutli-part email of HTML and text-based. But the truth is, almost all corporate campaign's require more complex designs that straight text can offer, and thusly table-based layouts in the current ecosystem.
    • Robotsu, on 10/11/2007, -5/+3Here here. But in the same vein, I would really like to see them support standards in HTML email. Many people probably are not aware of this, but Outlook 2007, in the past few months, degraded the quality of CSS support in such an outlandish and unthinkable way. A list of some of the HTML and CSS no longer supported is here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Outlook#HTML_rendering. Campaign Monitor has an excellent article entitled "Microsoft Takes email back 5 years." And I kid you not: this is no hyperbole or hysterical anti-microsoft bashing (http://www.campaignmonitor.com/blog/archives/2007/01/microsoft_takes_email_design_b.html). We're talking nested tables here if you want a message to render across the major email clients. My fellow web developers would be absolutely shocked and appalled at the sorts of rendering tricks you need to use to have your pages degrade to support 07.

      And the worst part of it all? Besides Eudora and Lotus Notes (which I disregard because of low user base, incidentally, Eudora supports exactly 0% CSS), Gmail is actually one of the worst offenders when it comes to lack of CSS support. And most of the items are completely trivial and non-disruptive to the native interface.

      I'll admit it, I was never too amazingly concerned about email CSS support in my younger days, but now that I am actually developing for multiple email clients and having to translate designs more or less on a 1:1 ration... I've never been more pissed off at a lack of standards.

      It's like the mid-90's with browser wars, only there are about 6 extra clients. *shudders*
      • somerandomnerd, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3First, we need a standard for HTML in email. Then we can worry about who is and isn't following them.

        Until then, just don't touch HTML email with a bargepole. (From someone who learnt how to build web pages in a post-CSS world, then had to go back and learn how to do table based design for a poxy email campaign.)
    • kiddcode, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Interesting article. I've noticed some quirks with outlook '07, but it's only in creating HTML mail and not actually viewing it. Are you sure that HTML mail is being rendered with the Word 07 component? I doubt it. I haven't seen any HTML mail appear in my mailbox that looks abnormal.
  • shiftt, on 10/11/2007, -15/+300On behalf of web developers everywhere: ***** You Microsoft.
    • Barman, on 10/11/2007, -6/+27It took long enough, but web devs everywhere can finally breath a sigh of relief. But yeah, F You Microsoft. It's about goddamn time.
    • spazzcat, on 10/11/2007, -7/+21+1
    • sammykeyes, on 10/11/2007, -21/+3Well at least they're now trying. Better late than nothing. So let's just say it, without being so negative.
    • MajorD, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7Damn you Shiftt, I came here to say the same thing. Well played.
    • Cloudo, on 10/11/2007, -10/+0I love windows but I hate Internet explorer like hell
    • JasonPrini, on 10/11/2007, -4/+1Here here. But don't forget how many billable hours we've all invoiced "fixing it in IE".

      IE is bittersweet.
  • Zer0Fade, on 10/11/2007, -3/+54In other news, hell freezes over.
  • r2pro, on 10/11/2007, -7/+91It will be a cold day in hell before I write any type of web app using Silverlight.
    • zenlunatic, on 10/11/2007, -13/+5Why?
      • kris33, on 10/11/2007, -0/+17Because it is a closed platform with development tools for Windows only. There is also no Linux version.
        • sammykeyes, on 10/11/2007, -8/+1Well there is an OS X version. Obviously it's not for Windows only.
        • dude187, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10Yeah, so they can call it "cross platform" without actually making it cross platform.
      • angusm, on 10/11/2007, -5/+8Not true. The people from the Mono project implemented something they call Moonlight, which is Silverlight for Linux, in just 21 days of furious hacking. Read: http://tirania.org/blog/archive/2007/Jun-21.html.

        I don't know if it's yet in a usable state, but they seem pretty determined to bring Silverlight to Linux.
        • Markie1006, on 10/11/2007, -1/+11And they will always be playing catchup, at the whim of Microsoft.

          Anyone see anything wrong with this picture?
      • r2pro, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Could it be as simple as the old cliche: Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.
        • potp, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6ol me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again.
        • alamandrax, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1r2pro loses at digg. buried for inaccurate saw.

          potp got it right. you win this round.
        • Myonosken, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Alamandrax did you really just say that?
    • Urusai, on 10/11/2007, -1/+25Flash isn't exactly morally superior. I wouldn't recommend writing Flash apps either, though.
      • Niten, on 10/11/2007, -0/+10You're right, of course, but at least Flash doesn't contribute to Microsoft's monopoly over the desktop PC operating system and application market.

        The more players there are in this industry, the better for all of us.
      • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Somehow Adobe manages to remain a monopoly while being relatively harmless.

        I agree that Adobe's standards aren't necessarily the best, and the bloat on their apps is out of control, but something like Flash became popular because developers made it popular, not because it was shoved down their throats.
    • CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -3/+31Not pimping apple, but check out their new site. The level of animation and interactivity is very cool - no Flash or plugins. Just JavaScript... I try to avoid Flash whenever possible...
      • NetiNeti, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Flash apps in Firefix always send my CPU to 99% and my fan into overdrive. WTF.
    • crispee, on 10/11/2007, -3/+10Silverlight at the core of it is basically XUL -- the interface language that Mozilla/Firefox/Thunderbird/etc are built on. XUL is very cool in theory, but having developed an application for it, I must say it's pretty immature as a technology for general purpose applications. While I believe that Microsoft is the devil, I think we can all agree that although HTML is flexible enough to build applications on, all the defaults are just WRONG if you're trying to achieve rich-client application-like behavior. Having an XML-based layout language for rendering an APPLICATION instead of a DOCUMENT is something that the web desperately needs and I welcome the competition and look forward to the day when there's not really any difference between deploying a website and an application.
      • didroe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4It' using Microsoft's XAML *cough* standard *cough* NOT Mozilla's XUL.
        • crispee, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know. that's why I said "basically XUL" instead of "XUL". Gecko is very flexible and can be made to render any number of xml namespaces. I don't imagine it'd be a monumental effort for them to support XAML.
      • Elrod, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2There is no Dana - there is only XUL.
    • fuzzyelbow, on 10/11/2007, -6/+4Actually Silverlight is standards compliant. It is cross platform compatible and if there is not already a Linux/BSD plugin for I imagine that it will come fairly soon.
      • Spr0k3t, on 10/11/2007, -3/+6The silverlight plugin was already developed within one week after the release. Still, I refuse to develop for, support, or use. Microsoft and standards compliant do not go together. Since Silverlight is a brainfart of Microsoft they are transposable. As an example, have a look at the OOXML whitesheets.
        • Saiing, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3If you want to be a ***** moron and put your petty personal issues ahead of professional judgement, you just go ahead. The rest of us will develop with whatever technologies are good for the job, unencumbered by childish *****.
  • HippyInASuit, on 10/11/2007, -12/+2Deet de deee!
  • Error601, on 10/11/2007, -14/+4They just figured they made the standards and for the most part they have. The gains of Firefox is what's made them think twice about that, but I'm not holding my breath.
  • profOblivion, on 10/11/2007, -6/+18I just realized that I must be completely ignorant here... I understand that obviously the world's leading browser should follow standards, but I have a different question (just popped into my head) I'd like to pose to the community: Since browsers are generally a free download, what do the different companies offering browsers have to gain or lose? What *exactly* are they fighting for here? Honest question I just wanted to put out there.
    • leahzero, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6- IC
      - Renown and its assorted benefits
      - Market share and its future potentiality
      - Liberation from proprietary code/standards (i.e. growth potential for their/affiliates' other web-based applications)
      - Did I mention IC?

      I dunno...what did MS have to gain by getting Windows onto as many PCs as they could, including freebies/cheapies to educational institutions and taking a casual attitude towards mass piracy? Same principle, (hopefully) less nefarious outcome here.
    • jejones, on 10/11/2007, -1/+10MS was initially fending off Netscape, which threatened to become an application platform that would destroy the "applications barrier to entry" that helps preserve MS's monopoly. It is to MS's advantage to NOT conform to web standards, because given the near impossibility of buying a computer without Windows and IE preloaded, and the average person's inertia when it comes to downloading and installing another web browser, IE's non-conformance makes it easy for web developers to create web sites that break on competing browsers, which the average person will mistakenly blame on the standard-conforming browser rather than the POS that is IE.
    • Barman, on 10/11/2007, -2/+11I think the biggest value in market share is Search. For instance, Google probably pays firefox a decent $1 or so a download. IE defaults with MSN search, so thats where they are making their money.
    • johnpaul191, on 10/11/2007, -2/+4once upon a time it seemed like they could sell web browsers, or sell ads in the browser window somehow. fortunately that's dead.

      well MS wants you to use IE because they have control over how it looks and acts. it's pre-installed on all MS Windows machines, so they control what websites, and search engines are in there by default. that's surprisingly effective at getting traffic to your sites.

      Apple made Safari because IE for the Mac sucked. It did not render like IE in MS Windows either, so it was not 100% valid for testing anyway. Macs needed a great web browser because people spend a major part of their computer time browsing the web. it became very important that Apple's browser worked with Apple's products (Apple.com, mac.com, quicktime stuff etc). some of that Safari technology is supposedly worked into iTunes, and that's how you browse the store, or movie trailers. Apple could not control the direction of Firefox, or whatever, so to make sure the browser met their needs, they had to build their own. Apple likes being secretive, so they probably need a product roadmap they can control and adjust, and something opensource is a little too risky for that. now it's also the browser for the iPhone, so they had to be able to develop that in secret..

      Mozilla/Firefox/Camino/etc is the collective open source browser that puts standards first. arguably the best product out there is not made by a bizillion dollar corporation, but by a bunch of volunteers. descended from Mosaic and then Netscape..... they started this thing.
      • shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2Good answer, but Safari is based on open source and they've made some pretty decent contributions back too, so to compare it to IE is not that accurate. Entirely different philosophies.
    • profOblivion, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4I think I +/- get it now. I just didn't understand/envision what (indirect) profit there was to be made. Thanks! (This is why I'm not taking biz/marketing, lol)
      • stalefries, on 10/11/2007, -1/+5This is why you _should_ take business/marketing classes.
    • danlovejoy, on 10/11/2007, -1/+12Look everyone: A thread where a well intentioned person asks a reasonable, if simple question, and not a single Comic Book Guy berates him for being the dumbest * n00b * ever. Guess there's a first time for everything.
      • screasey, on 10/11/2007, -2/+3Thank god he didn't ask on Slashdot
      • fquednau, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3It has been a most pleasant read. I wish, all comments would be along those lines. However, people say I'm naive and believe too much in mankind's inherent goodness.
    • MajorD, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2User satisfaction. Each website I design has 2 interfaces... 1 for Microsoft, and 1 for every other browser. Most web developers don't make 2 interfaces, or at least don't realize some of their features may show up differently to users. If a user is then dissatisfied with the browser because it doesn't show their favorite web page correctly, the browser developer loses any strength they might have (see the well-stated replies above for more info on what the browser developers lose).
    • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2The honest truth is that the compatibility issues are mostly in regards to the usage of CSS. As CSS has become the newer standard for laying out a site versus tables, you'll find as a developer that IE can just make you cringe. It seems at times, MS underestimated the growth and usage of CSS, divs etc. Most every other browser is working to support the same standard for how CSS works within the browser. MS has not kept up.
  • generalloy, on 10/11/2007, -5/+56Typical MSFT:
    Step 1: When entering a market, use open standards, since that's the only way to get any marketshare.
    Step 2: When the market is captured, embrace, extend and extinguish.
    This is also echoed in their conduct with Samba. They shared specifications with Samba up until 1998...and suddenly refused to work with them after they started gaining workgroup server marketshare and Samba/GNU/Linux posed a threat to them.

    I highly doubt this as well:"It seems that Microsoft has learned a very big lesson and this time, it will be the quality of the software rather than an attempted abuse of market power that will decide the winner."
    I thought Microsoft said that IE7 would be puppies and rainbows as well. Didn't turn out that way.
    • Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1>I thought Microsoft said that IE7 would be puppies and rainbows as well. Didn't turn out that way.
      They said pretty early that they cannot make IE7 fully standards-compliant.
      I'm more concerned with Firefox being non standards-compliant. It's one thing to use hacks to fix IE rendering. But when you have to use 2 sets of hacks... Also unlike HTML where you can fix most of the bug with hacks, there's no way to fix Mozilla's 6-yesars-old-broken XSL processing. I think that the spread of Firefox is the main threat of the future data-driven Web.
      • kroenecker, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2BS. IE handles basic rendering poorly. Stating that Firefox doesn't support xsl is irrelevant.
  • jeffgtr, on 10/11/2007, -4/+98Microsoft has cost everyone countless wasted hours duct taping solutions to make sites render correctly in IE. Like we should give them a pat on the back for finally doing what they should have been doing all along?
    • AgentConundrum, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4There's a Chris Rock joke in there somewhere.
    • Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2And what about time wasted trying to fix Mozilla anti-standard bugs?
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1[quote]Microsoft has cost everyone countless wasted hours[/quote]

      'nuff said.
  • undetected, on 10/11/2007, -3/+8Finally, though for us developing for today, it's going to take years before we get some relief. IE6 is still very dominant, and we still have to adjust for it. At least they've accepted that they need to comply with standards now, and took some early steps with IE7. Here's hoping the next release will continue with that effort and that people who don't use alternative browsers upgrade real fast.
    • guyinthechair, on 10/11/2007, -3/+2No it isn't. Anyone still using IE has automatic updates turned on. IE7 was a critical update. The next one will likely be too.
      • schoate09, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Check the market share reports, most people ignore that critical update, as it has to go through an installer with validation. You phail.
    • undetected, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3In my environment, the official word is still "Don't upgrade your browsers!" They still want to test ALL the internal apps for IE7 compatibility before they allow people to upgrade. In the meantime, all apps being developed are to be developed for IE6. So while we wait for IE7 tests to conclude, new apps are coming out that will then have to be retested.
  • ruddy, on 10/11/2007, -8/+6 what beating in the market share?
  • datek2517, on 10/11/2007, -3/+41IE 7, though light years ahead of its horrendous predecessor, still has pathetic CSS support when compared to Opera, Firefox 2, and Safari. I'll believe Microsoft's "new approach" when I see it--in other words, I'll believe them when they actually release a browser with good support of common web standards.
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -3/+5IE7 is a failure of a product honestly.
      From a user stand point, its a bunch of ugly hacks, from a developer standpoint its minor improvements.

      Why the hell couldnt they have just supported the standards full, then added their own *****. an actual embrace and extend. Make people want to develop for their product, not hacking to make it work.
      • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A rather big part of IE7 was security. I think actually making it not a horrendous pile of exploits was their first priority, above standards compliance (Which honestly, makes sense.)

        Microsoft had pretty much abandoned IE after they'd hit a comfortable "all" of the browser market. After their share started to drop, they started to patch it up, and IE7 is what they came up with. It's light years ahead of 6, especially on Vista, where it implements a rather clever sandbox using Vista's new process security model that I'm hoping other browsers will implement as well in the near future.
    • bkemper, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2I wonder why they even bother. They should just chuck IE code into the rubbish bin and include some Moz, KHTML, or Opera rendering engine based browser as the Windows default. They could keep their old libraries around for backward compatibility with existing enterprise apps, but developers would no longer need to write to IE's half-ass or missing standards support.,
  • zonk3r, on 10/11/2007, -0/+23Okay...

    So now they've realized there is a problem now what?

    Are they going to start following standards or just keep admitting to problems? And when? I mean, it's nice that they acknowledge the issue but lip service doesn't accomplish anything.
    • leahzero, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5Exactly. The web is far past the point of caring about empty apologies. Web apps and services have moved on despite IE's noncompliance.

      What MS should be doing (and I'm grateful that they're apparently too stupid to) is shoehorning IE into burgeoning, user-demanded web technologies - not constantly trying to be the innovator and failing. Open standards won. IE lost its bid for innovation long ago. The smarter move for MS would be to copy everything that Firefox, Opera, Safari et al do, polish it up, and package it into as painless, SECURE, and "value-added"-rife an experience as they can deliver via Vista.

      On the other hand, considering the farce that Vista and its deployment continue to be, I'm not really surprised that IE is finally dying and MS is still bumbling around as if it owns the place, like a drunk about to be bounced out of a bar.

      IE is going out with a whimper, not a bang.
    • clyde2801, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1There's a difference between admitting you've got a drinking problem, and say, actually going to an AA meeting..
  • pixelbender, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4THey can recognize their mistakes all they want, but time has shown (you know, kinda how all their currently repeating many mistakes are plastered all over the place) they ain't gonna learn from'em.
    • Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Yeah. Even firefox didn't learn Microsoft's lesson. Why are they still releasing non standards-compliant web browser?
  • f0dder, on 10/11/2007, -6/+7A beating in the browser market?? Name some commercial website that reject IE?
  • 7of7, on 10/11/2007, -20/+4Actually to be more accurate Microsoft had 95% of browser market share so they figured, rightly, that they were to ones who could set the standards. Then a bunch of random people decided they were going to set the standards so the "standards" became a bunch of things that were completely unsupported by all but a few tiny browsers with 3% market share. The purveyors of those browsers then spread FUD about IE to the extent that people started adopting their crap.
    • spazzcat, on 10/11/2007, -2/+14Clearly you have never tried create a web site using css. It is nightmare getting it to work in IE and works it just fine in Firefox and Safari without any hacks.
    • MioTheGreat, on 10/11/2007, -12/+27of7 has a point. Microsoft did have 95% of the market. They WERE the standard. Hell, they still are. They control nearly 85% of the world's browser share.

      Doesn't that make whatever IE follows the "standard"?
      • angusm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+7Nope. Web standards existed, worked out through a consensus process to which anyone could contribute. The standards for, say, HTML 4.0 or CSS 1 and CSS 2 were well-defined before Microsoft started implementing them in their browser. The whole point of the standards process was to say "OK, here's how it will work, if we all agree to follow this, then everyone will be able to view any website, no matter what browser they use."

        Microsoft didn't object to the proposed standards. They didn't propose a competing standard. They just took the standard and implemented it partially, or brokenly. With the standard in front of them, they sat down and completely screwed up the box model, something that lies at the heart of CSS, thus guaranteeing that websites which rendered correctly on Explorer wouldn't render properly on standards-compliant browsers, and vice-versa.

        Incompetence, or deliberate sabotage? The choice is yours.
    • leahzero, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Yeah, damn those random people who were tired of inconsistent implementation (if any) of the code that ran their critical e-commerce, banking, billing, government, educational, support etc. web sites.

      Stability, flexibility, portability, accessibility...what a pile of crap!

      Now if Mozilla was the one with the globally ubiquitous OS under its belt during the historic rise to prevalence of the personal computer, with an integrated web browser built in, maybe we'd be having a different conversation, amirite?
    • lostsinner, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3A standard is a thing that is used as a measure, norm, or model across some set of discrete entities. In the case of the web, this means that a standard is a model across a set of both discrete companies and individuals. If a single company creates a piece of technology, such as ActiveX, that is not open and accessible to all discrete peer entities, then it is not a standard. It may be a standard within the entity, as in the case of products created by Microsoft supporting ActiveX, but outside of that entity, it is not a standard - it's not accessible to peer products for support. When we talk about standard industry practices or codified guidelines, we talk about something that all peers within that industry can freely implement. A standard, as such, may have nothing to do with its overall popularity; VRML is a standard, yet it's not popular. Conversely, a company creating a proprietary file format that only its products can support, no matter how popular, does not qualify as a standard.
    • tshrub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4Pull head out of ass buddy.. the HTML and various WWW standards were nailed out before MS decided to get on the Internet bandwagon. MS decided it was going to try to "control" and "dominate" the Internet, cause most people like yourself are clear clueless to any real knowledge or background when it comes to the history of the Internet.
    • danlovejoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3I think you're seriously misrepresenting how standards were and are set. A single vendor can't set the standard by saying, "Whatever crazy **** my browser does is the standard," though MS tried mightily.
  • bonzooznob, on 10/11/2007, -3/+57Serious developers have moved on to Firefox, Safari, Opera, and Konqie.. only doing last minute checks for IE hacks to fix issues with IE's lack of standards support.

    If I ever had to develop directly in IE, I would quit developing, its not worth all the pain and frustration!
    • CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5I 2nd that. As a developer I hate having to create a different style sheet, etc to support IE, especially IE6. IE 6 started shipping when? 2004? In 3+ years of development they produce IE7? WTF is up with that? 3 years and they can't even get the new browser to support the standards properly? MS needs to pull their arrogant heads out of their asses or they will just continue to lose market share. As the tech guy in my family, no one runs IE if they want help with their system, and being a bunch of computer illiterates running Windows, they ALWAYS need help...
  • christian689, on 10/11/2007, -4/+14i like microsoft but iv gotta say ie7 is a piece of junk i recently had to use it at my new job for a while as i couldnt install firefox and its so buggy i cant believe its the browser used by most people, there was so many times when it just locked up and had to be refreshed or closed and opened again it made me so grateful for firefox seriously it needs to be pre installed on every new machine.
    • zenlunatic, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4That is the best run-on sentence I've seen in a while.
      • crispee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6nah, he used one comma which allowed me to take a breath while reading it.
    • CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4Sorry, I have to agree with christian on this. On Vista I have problems with IE 7 just as much as I did with IE 6 on XP, plus Microsoft screwed up the interface. I use Firefox almost exclusively.
    • Spr0k3t, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1I would settle for having no browser installed by default... take the OS out of IE as a start.
    • danlovejoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1No thanks. I have no desire to talk my mom through command line anonymous FTP download. Gotta start with SOME browser.
  • iamnot, on 10/11/2007, -6/+3Honestly, we know what we did was the wrong thing to do. And we're going to do the right th,,, WOLF!!! Wolf! Wolf wolf wolf! There's a wolf!
  • pplude92, on 10/11/2007, -2/+6No the internet is evolving, and Microsoft wants to stay in place. I agree with the article, and it is about time they acknowledged that fact. Unfortunately, they probably won't do anything about it.
  • toxicityj, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24but its so fun spending that extra hour making your design work in IE6.
  • dropd2na, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20thank you microsoft for putting that in writing...now do something about it
    • donkeySays, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2I like your optimism but you will be disappointed.
  • TheRealToma, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.microsoft.com%2Fen%2Fus%2Fdefault.aspx&charset=%28detect+automatically%29&doctype=Inline

    Well? Cmon! get crackin you lazy chumps.

    PS. I filed a bug against ubuntu.com about the w3c validation test...
  • HonoredMule, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6The author needs to tune up his ***** sniffer. Microsoft is doing what they always do. Release new technology with the widest possible adoption through open SPECIFICATIONS (not standards) then commandeering the market for their own products by evolving the technology but keeping the updated specs to themselves.

    If they were caring about following standards and securing a fair slice of the market, they'd have them, instead of Silverlight.
  • restlessdesign, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That's not the best part. Now if you use the right combination of fonts and transparency in Flash, IE on Vista renders it as pink! Score!
  • chadadams, on 10/11/2007, -4/+2The day will come where Microsoft will be a reputable company, the times they are changing over at BigBlue no2. Honestly, it will happen when Balmer leaves, and Ray Ozzy is in charge. Ozzy knows that he will have to play nice in the open standards world to come. Plus the future of Microsoft looks great, (check the Xbox 360 team, for what to expect).

    Words of caution to Microsoft's "current" staff... "IE 8 better be standards compliant or we as web developers will (lock out) IE users because of security and stability issues, and force them to go else ware. (ie. Firefox, Opera, Safari ). Fair warning".
  • jejones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+8They can accept it all they want; let's see them actually DO something about it, i.e. produce a browser that actually conforms to web standards. They won't, because with their monopoly, it's to their advantage to continue to violate those standards.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Yes. They might have accepted it, but then they turn around and come out with something like Silverlight.

      MS continues to make knockoffs of others' successes and force this upon unwilling consumers and developers. MS is a giant bully.
  • HonoredMule, on 10/11/2007, -2/+8How quickly we forget about ActiveX (remember the days when using any non-IE browser meant half the world's websites were unusable?)

    They WILL follow open standards now, because that's what gets used now, and they have to conform or become irrelevant. But browsing will revert to the "good old days" if Silverlight is allowed to pull a Microsoft like ActiveX did. Hopefully, developers will be less likely to fall for the trap this time around. Unfortunately, I suspect any optimism with this regard would be misplaced, especially due to third parties now rushing to emulate this pseudo-open platform.

    At any rate, any current or soon to come standards compliance is just a result of Microsoft having to play nice and fair until they restore their browser/platform monopoly to bullying strength.
    • CraigJ, on 10/11/2007, -1/+4But of course MS will create plug-ins for Firefox and Safari for Silverlight that work just as good ad IE... /sarcasm
      • Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2What do you mean "will"?
        They've already created it and it works well.
    • shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1"the days when using any non-IE browser meant half the world's websites were unusable?"

      there was never such a time, just a period when really bad developers/fanboys were way too common.
    • jinushaun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It's really similar to the reason Flash video has become the de-facto standard on the web for video. MS's proprietary embedded-WMP was horrible in IE and even worse in FF and the Mac. Flash, for the most part, is the same in all browsers and all platforms.

      Silverlight will succeed if it works in FF/Safari/Opera and the Mac/Linux. When I say work, I don't mean a ***** outdated port that's always seems to be a generation behind the Win+IE plugin.
  • jsusanka, on 10/11/2007, -1/+6I call BS - they probably are doing this so they get their little proprietary XML document format passed off as a standard.

    I second the motion of shiftt above

    you deliberately had this dream of you being the only browser on the internet and now you want to get something passed off as a standard you are all sorry and apologetic.

    here's to hoping your proprietary XML document standard finds the restrooms of the ISO so it can be properly used.
    • Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1>here's to hoping your proprietary XML document standard finds the restrooms of the ISO so it can be properly used.
      I just hope Mozilla's broken proprietary XML implementation goes to hell with it's *****-creator.
  • angusm, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22There's a simple rule of thumb you can apply when planning a web project: you spend the first 50% of the time making your site work in standards-compliant browsers, and the next 150% of the time making it work in Explorer. Because, as web professionals know, "It's always Explorer." It's always Explorer that breaks your layouts, it's always Explorer that won't run your code, it's always Explorer that has to be that little bit different or that little bit broken.

    As someone who's wasted countless hours working round Microsoft's sloppy implementation and bizarre browser bugs, I'd have hoped for a little more out of Redmond than just "Ooops. Our bad."
    • Fduch, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1For me it's always FF that breaks my standards-compliant sites.
      • kroenecker, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Well perhaps we should start a tally? For me its ALWAYS IE.
  • sammykeyes, on 10/11/2007, -7/+1Why is everyone being so negative? Let's just celebrate, instead of tossing out the garbage from the past. Yeah, it took them long enough, but must we still be that negative?
    • chriskeyes, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2You're right, but what took Microsoft so damn long to realize this? Maybe because they like pushing their own standards? Microsoft makes some great stuff, but it's always hindered when they force people to stick to 'their' standards. It's finally time they realize the Internet is evolving, and now they'll do something.

      Hopefully IE8 will actually be something good, or IE is going to become another Netscape.
  • fjodor, on 10/11/2007, -4/+3i totally dislike IE6 (not to mention previous versions).... but let's be honest - the box model that MS uses (width=border+padding+content) is far more logical then the 'true' box model. Even great names of webdevelopment agreed on that one. Everything else is a bugger in IE6...
    • nlogax, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3That would be the one from IE5, right? And IE6 if you trigger quirks mode (and no one wants to do that).
      In CSS3 you can use box-sizing: border-box; IIRC, it works in FF (possible with the -moz- prefix), Safari and Opera, at least.
      Maybe in 10 years it will work in IE too. Until then, i feel no shame in using CPU gobbling MS proprietary expression statements in my IE CSS, to make up for their incompetence.
      • fjodor, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1right, I agree 120%.

        em... ugh... now I feel bad. I did not stress enough - I digged second comment on this site ;)
    • danlovejoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3True, but it doesn't matter if it's "more logical." It's not the standard.

      I don't go around my office changing everyone's keyboard to the Dvorak layout becuase it's a more logical layout.
      • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -2/+2Although I support web standards like everyone else, I have to agree with fjodor. I sometimes think even if MS has good ideas everyone will just do the opposite. Lets not forget about MS giving us Iframes and even ajax with remote scripting.
        • shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1If they had such a good idea, then they should have PROPOSED A CHANGE TO THE STANDARD and hoped for its implementation, not DO THE OPPOSITE and say it's compliant
  • xike, on 10/11/2007, -1/+15FTA: "If you look at IE6, we didn't quite follow all the standards"

    Wow, I'd love to see their definition of "totally ignored the standards". That would be amazing.
  • pixelguru, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20Just for one day, I'd like to see every webmaster turn off all their IE CSS hacks. Let IE users see what a piece of crap their browser really is. I keep all my IE hacks in a separate file for just that occasion.
    • Spr0k3t, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Fortunately, I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency.
  • stelt, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6based on the fact that ODF is based a lot on webstandards and OOXML is practically based on M$-only, i wouldn't believe to much of it. It's Microsoft after all ...
    • DonPMitchell, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1ODF is based on concepts borrowed from MS Office formats. Do you think they invented a whole set of applications and formats without ever looking at what MS Office did? Gee,what a coincidence then that OO typsets exactly the same way as Word. The open office software and formats is benefiting from years of R&D done by Microsoft. Microsoft has a perfect right to publish its own open format, as if anyone doesn't know how to read and write .doc, which hundreds of third party applications do all the time.
  • ptFoe, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6Please Microsoft same old ***** whenever they are trying to capture or new market (or recapture it) they always talk about standards. Once they have taken over the start introducing non-standard patented formats to kill of any competition.
  • GreedKills, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6They only care about standards when it concerns money, since IE is losing share, it means M$N is losing some profit since its the default homepage for most non-technical internet users, thats all they give a damn about folks
    • OBKenobi, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Simply because people have finally realized this, Microsoft's tyranny is coming to an end.
  • cowardlybunny, on 10/11/2007, -7/+2based on comments here:
    digg = anti M$ everything ?
    • tshrub, on 10/11/2007, -1/+3Digg has a large anti-M$ population, along with a large anti-"anything" population.. Learn to accept it as is or go elsewhere.
      • cowardlybunny, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0agreed. on here it seems: it is easier to be anti-anything than pro somethinig. :)
        FTR - i think it is good MS has agreed it needs to become more standards aware.. :)
    • howea, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1It may be true, but it's likely because Digg is over represented by geeks and tecchies who have more an opinion.

      I work with a lot of different open system platforms and I have to spend more time working with/creating workarounds with Microsoft platforms than all the other platforms combined.

      In this case, I don't know any conscious web designer who hasn't lost countless hours cross checking code for IE compatibility.
      I used to get bad feedback over browsers displaying bad rendering when I ran webservers and have to feed it to the designer.
  • SoZo, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Purchase Opera and make that the new "very web standards compliant" IE8. It's just so simple MS.
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1They honestly should, scrap that crap they call IE. its junk, plain and simple.
    • jinushaun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why they didn't just buy their way in is beyond me. If IE 7 was the complete overhaul that they make it out to be, they should've just bought up Opera. They can always add proprietary MS crap later.
  • danlovejoy, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4As a full-time web guy, it seems to me that MS has spent the last oh, 10 years or so saying, "Now, what could we do that would be the browser equivalent of driving a hot stick into webdevs' eyes?" I find myself saying, "Why do they hate us so very, very much? Seriously, what have we ever done to them to deserve this?" I swear, it seems like nearly ever decision was meant to enrage us.

    While IE7 is a VAST improvement, and conditional comments saved my life, Microsoft is still a villain in this respect. Until they release a browser that WORKS and is adopted widely, they're still a villain in my eyes. (A web standards villain, but a villain nevertheless)
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Sad that IE7 is seen as a vast improvement though, at the end of the day it is still crap compared to all of the hype surrounding it.

      I loved your synopsis of MS and standards, it is dead on accurate.
    • jinushaun, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1Why? Simple. By NOT conforming to standards, they made sure sites broke in Netscape and that IE had all the fancy (non-standard) new eye candy features. And because IE comes pre-installed in all Windows PCs, most sites will be developed for IE and consumers will just assume a site looks like crap in Netscape because Netscape sucks.
  • McoreD, on 10/11/2007, -2/+1Now only if finally Microsoft accepts what KiB, MiB and GiB means...
  • rrife, on 10/11/2007, -3/+1I actually agree with not accepting standards in their web browser....yes you should try to build your site and products to be as compatible as possible but that's the web developers' and users' problem...not Microsoft's. If you look at the speed at which the W3C has been developing/approving standards, would you rather wait years for the browser companies to develop a product that conforms to the W3C standards, with years between releases or would rather use a product from a company that is at least trying to innovate and come up with new ideas vs using the same old stuff that some committee as determined, for whatever reason, to be the "standard". Just think where we'd be if companies like Netscape and Microsoft didn't add cool new functionality like Javascript, background music and embbeded objects and only stuck to using "standards".

    A lot of people complain because their site looks like crap when viewed on Firefox vs IE (or vice versa) and they always blame the browser and how it doesn't meet standards or whatever, when really it looks like crap because the author is clueless and doesn't know what they're doing (or doesn't care about the people that use the other browser).
    • Tweekster, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I think the standards should work, then if need be develop for extensions of that.

      However, you should not intentionally pervert the standards so you screw over others.

      Standards should be followed, that is absolute, develop above and beyond that to force the w3c to work faster
  • stockjones, on 10/11/2007, -0/+3Im no typical I hate MS because they are evil blah blah individual. Thats just stupid. But it would behoove MS to adopt web standards that every other browser supports. Their tendency to always try and differentiate their products for business advantages is worthless in regards to web standards. In fact, if they keep on this path, they may actually lose more of the browser market share. I liked IE6 for its speed, I like IE7 because it has better standards support, but they have definitely fallen behind in the browser arena and I for one am finding myself touting Firefox or other alternative browsers to customers.
  • DonCarcharo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+4CSS certainly had a lot to do with the decline of IE in my eyes. As a web designer who uses a full CSS workflow I focus on building standards compliant sites first and foremost. Once that much is done I patch for IE7 and then *really* patch for IE6. Mindful of this, IE has become a major thorn in the side of web designers. It actually forces us to do our work twice.

    I suppose the only irony here is that by extending the web in their own proprietary way, Microsoft managed to extinguish their dominance.
  • UnConeD, on 10/11/2007, -0/+5From Wikipedia:
    [Internet Explorer] Version 6 was released on August 27, 2001.
    The final public version [of Internet Explorer 7] was released on October 18, 2006.

    Internet Explorer 7 still does not have full CSS2 support. When did CSS2 first become a W3C recommendation? That's right, in *1998*!
    http://www.w3.org/TR/1998/REC-CSS2-19980512/

    Microsoft's been ignoring web standards? No, really?
    • nephilimx, on 10/11/2007, -1/+0Firefox didnt support CSS2 propery til 1.5 (2005), I dont see your point
      Mozilla has been around also before 1998
      It wasnt a important feature clearly, so why moan?
  • DonPMitchell, on 10/11/2007, -3/+3What's wrong with Microsoft inventing Silverlight? You claim they never invent anything, and then when something new comes out you want to limit us to what the W3C committee publishes? Where would Flash and for that matter javascript (which was Netscape technology) be if we waited for bureaucrats to invent new technology.
    • donkeySays, on 10/11/2007, -0/+1I invented Silverlight, but Microsoft stole it from me.

      Deryck Whibley,
      Sum *41
    • shmatt, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Because we already have Flash, which is the same thing, and is ubiquitous. Silverlight is nothing new, just another proprietary platform from ms. They want us developers to adopt an entirely new platform for web apps that offers nothing new and reaches fewer people. thanks but no thanks, that's why I'm learning javascript right now.
  • donkeySays, on 10/11/2007, -1/+2Crocodile tears, anyone? Don't believe this *****.
  • ctomer, on 10/11/2007, -0/+6I'll believe it when I see it. Their intentions mean nothing to me. They've neglected web standards for so many years and they continue to do so! I have yet to see well written HTML from Microsoft. Go validate: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/winfamily/ie/default.mspx

    They've even invented their own elements! and

    Go write valid HTML, go make a decent brower, then comeback and tell me that you are going to support web standards.
  • locodude, on 10/11/2007, -0/+2So now they're claiming that they "care about web standards"? I'll believe it when I see it.
    And, oh yeah, ***** you Microsoft. Give me back all the countless hours I've spent debugging standards compliant code and performing ugly hacks just to make it work in your piece-of-***** browser.
  • Dogtown7, on 10/11/2007, -1/+1Ok Mob, at least Microsoft is admitting their mistakes, and they are paying their price - losing market share. I talked to an MS evangelist in 2004, and he basically said then that the browser was going to die for web apps, and the new future was MS Smart Clients - I looked at him crazy. Obviously, this was a horrific mistake on MS's part. However, they are righting the ship... and hopefully they will provide competition to prevent another monopoly from emerging. Adobe's $700 picture editor anyone? Silverlight's plugin renders any plain text, not a propieraty binary format like Adobe's... so be careful what you wish for.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.