Update on Standards and CSS in IE7

brajesh writes "Chris Wilson has posted on IEBlog about the Standards and CSS in IE7. According to the post, "In IE7, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that web developers hit as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the standards as well. Though you won't see (most of) these until Beta 2". Further,"we will not pass this (Acid2 browse) test when IE7 ships.""

Fix css bugs

[jurt1235 (834677)]

I thought they had to start with a new code base since the IE6 base had reached its end of fixabilities (like add an extra fix, and something else breaks again, and so on and on and on).
Apparently they went on on the IE6 base anyway???? Well, good luck with Vista, and your updated IE6 browser. I am off to buy a spyware firm & an anti spyware firm and get filthy rich from Vista.

The Claria deal died two weeks back

[westlake (615356)]

Bill's already done that

Microsoft/Claria Deal Dead [clickz.com] (July 12)

This is good for all the browsers

[edyu (259748)]

Although there will be Microsoft bashing in this thread, I believe this is good for all browsers because almost all the other browsers are standards compliant. Therefore, as IE becomes more standard compliant, the common denominator between the browsers will be bigger thus more web pages will be displayed correctly in all the other browers. I appauld Microsoft for this effort although it might be a result of necessity rather than goodwill. ;)

Re:This is good for all the browsers

[StrawberryFrog (67065)]

Except of course that "almost all the other browsers" aren't standards compliant, either.

But at least the other browser vendors chase standards more consistently than IE does. You don't need to genius or to achieve perfection immediately in order to get there, you just good test cases and continual bug fixing.

After years of inactivity, it looks as if IE is about to put on one heck of spurt though. Reading the article, they are talking about "ramping up" the team, and are well aware that they will not catch

Re:This is good for all the browsers

[Nasarius (593729)]

I have a nasty suspicion that after IE 7.0, they won't stop or slow down, but will speed up. It's what MS does: crush the opponent.

I don't know. I'm truly surprised at how little has been done with Longhorn/Vista. There's a shiny new interface, a slightly improved version of IE, and some neat developer technologies. Oh, and desktop search. This has taken them 4-5 years? If they plan to crush the competition, they're going to have to pick up the pace quite a bit.

Re:This is good for all the browsers

[RzUpAnmsCwrds (262647)]

Brings resolution-independence to the GUI with vector-based controls and icons, plus resampling for legacy applications.

Brings 3D acceleration into the GUI, making it easy to use 3D in desktop applications without having to use OpenGL or Direct3D.

Updated kernel, memory manager, etc.

Reduced user permissions (ala Mac OS X or Linux) to increase security.

New network stack.

New printing system with commom document format.

New power management features.

Desktop search.

Vritual folders (e.g. "Music" can organize all music on your computer by artist).

New shell UI (Explorer).

New command shell (MSH).

Completely new install system.

Faster bootup, shutdown, standby, and resume.

Support for external LCD displays on notebooks.

New features for eHome (Media Center) and Tablet PC.

New networking paridigm ("Castle") replaces the outdated "Workgroup" (WINS).

New graphics driver model (LDM) that will serve as the basis for the desktop and the next version of DirectX.

New DRM technologies (ugh) - 'secure' graphics path and 'secure' audio path.

Parental controls for DVDs, games, and potentially TV (eHome) built-in.

Antispyware built-in.

New update mechanism that allows in-memory patching of libraries without requiring a reload or restart.

New Windows Update and automatic update mechanism.

New protection against security exploits through extensive security audits and code-quality tests.

Fewer bugs and crashes through increased regression testing, improved error reporting, and tighter code requirements.

No, Vista isn't going to be Mac OS X. Too many people expect Microsoft to go and duplicate everything that Apple has done. They expect Vista to be the "non-Windows Windows".

That's not going to happen. Vista is still very much the Windows you know. But it is the most significant change since Windows 2000. It will be better in ways that aren't apparent by looking at screenshots - a better network stack, easier patching, and improved security aren't necessarily the kinds of things that are apparent from the UI. But they matter to the user. And they matter to Microsoft.

Expect Vista to deliver in a big way. Not through "150 new features" like every release of Mac OS X, but through a general improvement in security, stability, and performance. And, of course, a much improved platform for developers.

Microsoft doesn't care about standards

[chia_monkey (593501)]

Why? Because they ARE the standard and they know it. In a perfect world, they would conform to the standards that everyone else is striving to hit. But MS knows they own the market. They know that there are a bazillion web pages written specifically for IE. They know there are lazy coders out there that don't bother checking for web standard conformity and only care that their pages work on IE. So why should they rethink their IE development? It's much easier this way (for them). It's a shame, and maybe some day it'll kick 'em in the ass, but for now, they know they're in the driver's seat.

If the fix their bugs they'll break web sites

[LemonFire (514342)]

If the fix their CSS bugs they'll break web sites that is heavilly dependant on IE CSS.
Too many developers have gotten dependant of the IE CSS quirks already.

A really sad situation, however it's the right thing to do though.

-- This SIG was created without the help of CSS

Re:If the fix their bugs they'll break web sites

[cnettel (836611)]

Hopefully, most of those are using IE quirks mode, as they shouldn't know about DOCTYPE. Just a slight hope.

Painful bugs

[MirrororriM (801308)]

I think we will make a lot of progress against that in IE7 through our goal of removing the worst painful bugs that make our platform difficult to use for web developers.

However, all of the other painful bugs for everyone else will remain in place.

A Feature Request

[fm6 (162816)]

"... we will add the critical most-requested features from the standards as well."

Dude, the "feature" most developers are requesting is standards compliance!

Re:A Feature Request

[Shalda (560388)]

Hello, and welcome to reality. IE is the standard. Any alternate browser that doesn't render a page exactly the same as IE is not standards compliant. I don't code to W3C standards, I code to IE, because that's what's on the desktops of my users.

Re:A Feature Request

[GlassHeart (579618)]

I don't code to W3C standards, I code to IE

May I suggest a slight modification to your statement? How about "I code to W3C standards, except where what I need to accomplish can't be done within W3C, or the standard solution won't work in IE, in which case I code to IE and document the deviation"? IE is the poster boy of non-compliance, but IE6 with the proper DOCTYPE is usable, so the far more interesting question is why you might disagree with my version.

Also, which IE? I have written pages that work

Re:A Feature Request

[TravisWatkins (746905)]

From the look of it you don't code at all.

<meta name="GENERATOR" content="Microsoft FrontPage 4.0">

Acid2 Mirror

[courtarro (786894)]

Since the Webstandards site has been /.ed, here's a mirror of the Acid2 test:

http://whereswalden.com/files/webdev/acid2/test.ht ml [whereswalden.com]

give web developers a break

[LodCrappo (705968)]

As a part time hobbyist web developer, I have to applaud any move by any browser towards correctly implementing standards. Sure yeah it's Microsoft and I think I share a pretty negative view of alot of things they do with many of you. BUT... have you ever tried to create a page that uses even moderately complex CSS and have it look the same in IE and Firefox? It's practically impossible. I usually find it easier to just serve up different pages based on the user agent.. that sucks! So any move regardless of motivation that makes it possible to create a single version of a page and have it look normal is a good move in my book. For once, and just this once, good job MS.

Thank You Firefox!

[blueZhift (652272)]

Thank you Firefox! Without competitive pressure from Firefox, I doubt that we would be seeing such effort to fix longstanding issues with Internet Explorer. IE 7 won't be perfect, but it will likely be a lot better than it would have been if the Mozilla project and Firefox had never existed. I suppose in some small way this is a bit of revenge from the grave for Netscape.

You are correct, Sir!

[sheldon (2322)]

Definately. If not for the existence of IE we'd still be stuck with Netscape 4.x which believe it or not was even worse in regards to Standards.

Competition is good.

That is, as long as it's actually from creative people introducing exciting new products. When you try to instill competition by kneecapping the dominant player back down to the lowest common denominator... you really aren't going to see much improve.

A question of labor?

[Bronz (429622)]

What does it say when google and yahoo are creating brain drain [businessweek.com] hiring good developers that push the limits of standard-incompetent browsers, while Microsoft does not seem to be able to get qualified people to just make the thing work right in the first place? I know there are some brainy people in the ranks of Microsoft. At this point can ultimately determine it isn't a question of "can't fix" but "won't fix" ... or "afraid to fix" ? It's been hypothesized that Microsoft is afraid to fix IE for fear of losing their application monopoly to web applications.

Moaning about IE's standards compliance

[93 Escort Wagon (326346)]

IE's hit-or-miss CSS/DOM support drives me nuts, since it tends to add a significant amount of work to almost every project for me. But until Firefox ships a browser that passes Acid2, it seems rather silly to complain about IE's problems with the test.

Big 3

[faust2097 (137829)]

Honestly there's a few fixes thay could make that would solve a whole lot of stuff fairly quickly:

- Fix the box model

- Fix inheritance issues

- Implement :hover: correctly

Hell, even if they just fixed the box model that would solve the bulk of the problems that people are having now. I'm still curious why they botheres with this "beta" except to show off their awesome new UI that breaks all known UI design conventions for no compelling reason.

Re:Big 3

[delus10n0 (524126)]

I'm guessing you didn't actually read the article/blog post? They _did_ fix those, for beta 2 (not yet released.)

I love Slashdot-- Microsoft is actually trying to be fully CSS 2.0/2.1 compliant, and you guys nitpick, or whine that it won't pass ACID.

List of bugs to be fixed in IE7 (beta2)

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

from TFA:

Though you won't see (most of) these until Beta 2, we have already fixed the following bugs from PositionIsEverything and Quirksmode:

        * Peekaboo bug
        * Guillotine bug
        * Duplicate Character bug
        * Border Chaos
        * No Scroll bug
        * 3 Pixel Text Jog
        * Magic Creeping Text bug
        * Bottom Margin bug on Hover
        * Losing the ability to highlight text under the top border
        * IE/Win Line-height bug
        * Double Float Margin Bug
        * Quirky Percentages in IE
        * Duplicate indent
        * Moving viewport scrollbar outside HTML borders
        * 1 px border style
        * Disappearing List-background
        * Fix width:auto

In addition we've added support for the following

        * HTML 4.01 ABBR tag
        * Improved (though not yet perfect) fallback
        * CSS 2.1 Selector support (child, adjacent, attribute, first-child etc.)
        * CSS 2.1 Fixed positioning
        * Alpha channel in PNG images
        * Fix :hover on all elements
        * Background-attachment: fixed on all elements not just body

(/snip)

So I think that sums most of 'em.

And look, if IE6 fails miserably the ACID2 test, i'm really hoping we'll see a yellow blurb at least in IE7 (right now it's like a red wall with some pieces of slaughtered yellow-face in there).

In firefox we don't see the face, but at least we can see a nice yellow thing with wierd not-intended-to-be sunglasses on... kinda.

So I'm quite curious how the ACID2 will render in IE7...

This is why I don't use box model "hacks"...

[venomkid (624425)]

This is why I never used things like the box model "hack" or any other browser bug-dependent CSS for cross browser compatibility. It's begging to have the site start blowing up in users' faces as soon as a new browser is released.

Even the terrible implementation of CSS in IE6 is usable enough to make sites to standard. Sure it requires a bit of cheesiness, but I'd rather do that than *depend* on their browser continuing to not only have bugs, but to react to those bugs the same in every new release.

There is a middle "standard".

I think it does pass:

[Nytewynd (829901)]

IE7 passes the Acid test, as in you need to be on LSD to use it.

freedom to innovate

[pjrc (134994)]

Ok, they're making progress. But did anyone notice what's "innovative"?

but innovative stuff like the anti-phishing work and low-rights IE.

Using any other browser would be running all that browser code without admin privs. Yeah, they're making a "broker" that handles all the system interface. Pretty much the architecture most unix-based server programs have been using for years. Except at the client/browser level it's unnecessary... unless you're building on previous poor design decisions.

The anti-phishing... yet another thing others have already been doing quite well [netcraft.com] for quite a while.

It's plainly obvious they're playing catch-up on many fronts. That alone isn't a reason to bash them, as least as far as I'm concerned. But calling "innovative" the features that have been implemented for over a year or more in other browsers or as third party add-ons is pretty cheap.

Or did I miss some new features, anything really, that's truely innovative in IE7, rather than just implementing features already available from competitors and third parties?

Re:just give up

[jav1231 (539129)]

Simple. M$ isn't going to concede that they can't keep up; not even to technologies they don't even have yet. They will buy technology, mimick it, or simply continue to bastardize. The thought, "You know, this software from Acme is filling the niche well. There's no reason for us to go into that segment" never occurs to them. Let alone, "You know, we've wrestled with standards and security and perhaps we should exit the browser market given the great alternatives out there." They want it all and they want it now.

Re:just give up

[Saeed al-Sahaf (665390)]

...if you can't maintain and be compliant with the standards, then why even try?

They are trying to be standards compliant? Anyway, also keep in mind the rumors that even FF was not acid compliant out of the door...

On a different note, I agree with you, IE ought to toss in the towel on the W3C complience thing, they need to bite the bullet and just admit they plan to march to their own drummer.

Re:just give up

[anotherone (132088)]

Firefox still doesn't pass that test...

Re:just give up

[baadger (764884)]

Not trying to be an Opera zealot but I think those interested should take a quick peak at how Opera is fairing behind the scenes.

Opera Acid2 as of today [nyud.net] and the forum post accompanying the attachment:

"Opera's developers have been working hard on getting the Acid2 test right. Most of the work is being done on a new branch of the core Opera code. This code branch is not ready for public consumption yet. So rejoice to see the progress, but don't expect to see this coming to a computer near you in the near future.

I will explain some of the fixes done so far over the next couple of weeks. Note that regression testing is still being done, and some fixes might have to be reverted if it turns out important sites rely on the old behavior."

Good news for Opera users.

Re:just give up

[diamondsw (685967)]

What, people already forgot the fracas [slashdot.org] set off when Dave Hyatt landed complete Acid2 rendering in the WebCore CVS (which you CAN download [opendarwin.org] and use - quite easily I might add)?

Re:just give up

[Bander (2001)]

I've decided to stop giving a crap if my pages don't look right in IE. Okay, I might spend 15 minutes to work around a problem, but other than my resume, my pages are things I build for fun.

Figuring out why IE doesn't work with a page that looks good in every other browser is just not my idea of fun. It's not even an interesting challenge, since the solutions are never elegant or satisfying.

And this is not a matter of spite, or retaliation, it's just a simple matter of spending my time on things I find en

Re:just give up

[WebHostingGuy (825421)]

I mean, if you can't maintain and be compliant with the standards, then why even try

The reason is simple. With 90%+ market share in the browser world Microsoft just figures whatever they do *is* the standard. I don't agree with this but I can understand their thought process. If almost everyone is using my software product then what do I really care what the small other percentage is doing?

Re:fix schmix

[taskforce (866056)]

This was with reference to CSS standards and web development, not exploitable vulnerabilities in the browser's security.

Grand Moff Ballmer

[Tackhead (54550)]

> However fast we fix old holes, there will be people to exploit new holes...

Ballmer: Before your execution, you will join me at a ceremony that will make this code base operational. No web developer will dare oppose the Emperor now.

Linus: The more you tighten your integration with the operating system, Ballmer, the more exploits will slip through your firewall.

Re:Face it.

[someonewhois (808065)]

Well, there's a typical anti-Microsoft remark. The only thing it's missing is the dollar sign on the S.

Let's go over a few logical fundamentals:

• Firefox doesn't pass the Acid2 test either. Neither does Opera. That's virtually an irrelevant point at the curernt time.
• Bill Gates isn't the one coding the browser.
• The browser wars were like the cold war. It kept both sides trying to get the upper edge on each other in any possible way. As a result, you get garbage output.
• Microsoft is clearly saying they're working on standards, and they ARE.
• At the time that the codebase of IE was starting, the w3 standards weren't as hyped as they were today. As a result, it's no surprise that Microsoft didn't listen to them.
• Name one piece of software that doesn't crash. I know I've had all sorts of non-Microsoft software crash.

Your post should be marked as a troll. You haven't got a clue what you're talking about.

Mod parent up.

[merreborn (853723)]

... I was waiting for someone to point out the fact that no real browsers pass acid2. And lord knows firefox not only crashes on me once every week or two, and chews up ungodly ammounts of ram, and doesn't garbage collect in a timely manner.

Re:Mod parent up.

[Tim C (15259)]

Firefox garbage collects? I can't say that I've ever seen it release ram once it's been allocated it, even after closing tabs.

Re:Mod parent up.

[diamondsw (685967)]

Ahem. [opendarwin.org] Shipping? No. Download it and use it right now? Yes.

Re:Firefox is compliant?

[TheRaven64 (641858)]

Konqueror, I believe, passes ACID2. Safari does in CVS, but the release version doesn't. Not sure about Opera.

To be honest, ACID2 isn't that important - it tests some extreme corner cases in CSS usage. If you are 100% CSS compliant then it should work, but if you are 80% compliant then there are more important things to implement than passing ACID2.

Re:Bash

[alvinrod (889928)]

First, look at the Acid2 test as rendered by Firefox. It's got a few problems, but if you compare it to the prerendered picture for comparison you can see a few similarities. At least the overall shape is generally correct.

Now, open IE up and look at the Acid2 test. IE completely fucks it up beyond recognition. I could render the picture better by shitting out paint.

I'm curious to know how other browsers like Opera and Safari handle the Acid2 test. Are there technically any browsers out there that can pass it?

Re:Bash

[davez0r (717539)]

safari and konqueror pass, but opera and ff do not.

at least not according to slashdot: http://slashdot.org/search.pl?tid=&query=acid2&aut hor=&sort=1&op=stories [slashdot.org]

Re:Bash

[phoenix.bam! (642635)]

For the ten millionth time. There is bogus CSS because the acid2 also tests the case of fallback on invalid css! There is a very good reason the bad code is there! To make sure browsers can handle it!

Re:Bash

[roca (43122)]

iCab passes because they use Webcore from Safari as their rendering engine.

Re:Bash

[BackInIraq (862952)]

Funny how quickly the MS bashing begins, yet when I just tried the Acid2 test with Firefox (my browser of choice btw), the results were far from impressive. And correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I know Acid2 isn't an officially accepted standard, it's a *proposed* standard.

Acid2 is a test of the CSS standard, not the standard itself. And no, Firefox doesn't pass. But the Firefox team has made it a goal TO pass, unlike the IE team which has apparently said, "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that." IE is shooting for "good enough."

Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?

Re:Bash

[cnettel (836611)]

Acid2 is a test of the CSS standard, not the standard itself. And no, Firefox doesn't pass. But the Firefox team has made it a goal TO pass, unlike the IE team which has apparently said, "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that." IE is shooting for "good enough."

From TFB (the fucking blog):
As a wish list, it is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE7.

We fully recognize that IE is behind the game today in CSS support. We've dug through the Acid 2 Test and analyzed IE's problems with the test in some great detail, and we've made sure the bugs and features are on our list - however, there are some fairly large and difficult features to implement, and they will not all sort to the top of the stack in IE7. I believe we are doing a much better service to web developers out there in IE7 by fixing our known bang-your-head-on-the-desk bugs and usability problems first, and prioritizing the most commonly-requested features based on all the feedback we've had.

So, they view it as a useful wishlist, they are implementing lots of stuff from it, but they don't expect full compliance for the scheduled release (which is scheduled to be long before the Vista release, possibly this year). From my perspective, this is quite a bit from "screw it, we're not going to waste our time just to pass that."

Re:Bash

[diamondsw (685967)]

Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?

Ah, so you believe then that the more programmers on a project, the faster and better it gets done [wikipedia.org]?

Not on that budget!

[Grendel Drago (41496)]

Considering the amount of money Microsoft could theoretically pump into development on the next version of IE, wouldn't it make more sense for them to be the first to pass the test (and by doing so provide implied compliance with the standard)?

Microsoft won't be the first to pass Acid2, not unless all that money's going to buy A MAGICAL TIME MACHINE [mozillazine.org]...

--grendel drago

Re:Someone Please Explain This

[keot (667523)]

From the about page [webstandards.org] of the Acid2 browser test site:-
Note: some 827 people (rough estimate, contents may have settled during shipping) have written to point out that the CSS used in the test is invalid. This is deliberate, as a means of exposing the ability of user agents to handle invalid CSS properly.

Invalid CSS in ACID2

[Spy der Mann (805235)]

Yes, it DOES contain invalid code. CSS standards not only say what valid code is, but how browsers should fallback when they encounter INVALID code.

Actually, they mention this in the FAQ too.