Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Internet Explorer The Internet

IE7 Details Emerge 946

Posted by timothy
from the finger-in-wind dept.
Varg Vikernes writes "Microsoft Watch has a story about new features we can expect in IE7 (code named 'Rincon') which they gathered through Microsoft's key partners. Apparently we can expect 32 bit PNG support, native IDN support, new functionality that will simplify printing from inside IE and, of course, tabbed browsing. The new browser also will likely include a built-in news aggregator. Apparently an important factor is security."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

IE7 Details Emerge

Comments Filter:
  • I thought... (Score:2, Informative)

    by kryogen1x (838672) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @06:46PM (#11948321)
    I think I remember someone from MS saying that their users don't want tabbed browsing, therefore IE will not get tabbed browsing.

    I guess he's wrong.

  • Re:Tabbed Browsing? (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @06:47PM (#11948337)
    It didn't even *hint* that there would be tabbed browsing.

    From the article:

    'Sources say that IE 7.0 - which is code-named "Rincon," they hear - will be a tabbed browser.'

    Does that constitute hinting?
  • Correction (Score:2, Informative)

    by springbox (853816) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @06:48PM (#11948360)
    IE6 (and 5) already support 32-bit PNGs, but they don't render them correctly. The browser draws them over the background color saved in the file instead of the page for some reason, although they got it right with the transparent color in GIFs!

    The article says PNG "transparency" but it's actually opacity or translucency. Sorry.

  • Re:security (Score:5, Informative)

    by Pandora's Vox (231969) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:01PM (#11948504) Homepage Journal
    my concern here lies with the implementation of IDN support... a solution has not been found for the browsers that already implement it (other than turning it off - not a reasonable trade-off for those who want to use IDN sites).

    the original idn exploit:

    unicode draft technical report on security and UTF8:
    http://www.unicode.org/reports/tr36/tr36-2. html

  • by marcansoft (727665) <hector@marcansoft.c3.14159om minus pi> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:06PM (#11948549) Homepage
    Actually, it does. Corner proper is "esquina", but "rincon" is the word you would use for a small place near a corner (on an interior) or so. "Turn a corner" would be "doblar una esquina" (although "doblar" is closer to "fold" than "turn", but that's just the way the phrase is). "To corner" does exist as "arrinconar" (verb form of "rincon")
  • Re:So, basically... (Score:2, Informative)

    by naylor83 (836780) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:06PM (#11948560) Homepage
    Yes, I believe NetCaptor was first with tabs.
  • not even (Score:5, Informative)

    by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:23PM (#11948715)
    Without a full commitment to CSS2, this in no way comes even _close_ to FF, even the FF from last year. Pathetic.

    And when you take into account the vast amount of tab control you have in FF when you have 'Tabbrowser Extensions' installed, no way is IE going to approach that level of functionality.

    Looks like there may still be a place for the 'real' IE7 [edwards.name] . *sigh*
  • by LichP (549726) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:23PM (#11948720) Journal

    Actually, IE6 in strict mode, although still heinous, is reasonably good in terms of CSS. The box model is largely OK, although not entirely without faults. The floats model is still a bit buggered though, with various spurious margin bugs and soforth. Overall, IE6 in strict mode is sufficiently functional that cross-browser development is for the most part fairly straightforward, unlike IE6 in quirks mode [quirksmode.org], where the broken box model makes life hideously dificult.

    If they can get strict mode cleaned up for IE7, sort out the doctype switching to allow for XML declarations, recognise the XHTML MIME type, and generally get the CSS implementation properly in line with CSS2.1, then things will be good.

    I find it a little ironic that much of the CSS work has already been done within the Microsoft camp in the form of IE5 for the Mac, which in my experience has the most CSS2 compliant rendering engine of all the major browsers (excluding Opera, which I have practically no experience with). It's certainly the case that Gecko and KHTML lean much more towards the more practical CSS2.1, and sometimes oddities in CSS2 can actually spring the odd surprise in their manifestation within IE5 Mac.

  • by rebelcool (247749) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:30PM (#11948779)
    a ski slope in canada.
  • Re:Written in C#? (Score:1, Informative)

    by ender81b (520454) <[billd] [at] [inebraska.com]> on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:31PM (#11948786) Homepage Journal
    I've heard the same thing from a buddy who works at microsoft. AFAIK *ALL* of longhorn will be written in C# (i'd guess except for some low level kernel things) thus eliminating buffer exploits. Microsoft seems understandbly willing to eat the small performance drop for this increase in security. Makes ense to me.
  • by dwoolridge (69316) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:33PM (#11948814) Journal
    In the mean time, Dean Edwards gives us the gift [edwards.name].
  • Re:CSS2 or Fight! (Score:4, Informative)

    by sootman (158191) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:45PM (#11948949) Homepage Journal
    "We have got to find a way to make MS fully support CSS2."

    Make'em support CSS 1 [meyerweb.com] first.
  • Re:security (Score:2, Informative)

    by AlphaSys (613947) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @07:55PM (#11949032)
    Pay attention. He said they *could* be innovative, not they *are* here. You're conflating the two. They have shown innovation (not all of it good, but nonetheless...).
  • Re:security (Score:2, Informative)

    by LiquidCoooled (634315) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @08:20PM (#11949204) Homepage Journal
    I agree wholeheartedly that secure sites should be secure, but I am attempting to put a voice to a simple idea.
    Making changes to firefox or the browsers will surely be easier to impliment than going to each and every website out there and telling them to change all the code they have up there at the moment to something that hasn't been confirmed as globally viable to the customers.

    Miss one site, and the spammers will hit that one.

    The address bar is the only place in your browser that IS static, that IS a flat color. I'm not talking about coloring the links as they are displayed on the page, but in the address bar at the top.

    I want to be proactive and give myself a fighting chance at not being a victim.
    I don't personally do much financial stuff online, and certainly not without checking the company out first, my idea just allows ME to instantly identify a possible problem at a glance.
  • by mbier (868046) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @08:32PM (#11949320)
    Opera. http://tinyurl.com/6x9mm
    "The browser [Netscape 7 Preview Release 1] also includes two features
    first seen in Opera: tabbed windows and a one-click search."
  • Re:Not Totally (Score:2, Informative)

    by merreborn (853723) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @08:43PM (#11949408) Journal
    I always loved how microsoft.com is inaccessible from a fresh install of windows NT4 via the bundled version of IE. If anyone was going to write their pages to support legacy versions of IE, you'd think it'd be microsoft.
  • Re:security (Score:3, Informative)

    by superyooser (100462) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @08:44PM (#11949420) Homepage Journal
    That is a not a good solution [gerv.net].
  • He means PNG (Score:5, Informative)

    by cgenman (325138) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:09PM (#11949637) Homepage
    In case you don't know, the above poster is refering to PNG [howtocreate.co.uk]. PNG was supposed to take over for GIF when it was discovered that GIFs were patent encumbered. PNG also blows GIF out of the water in that it extended this to support an alpha channel in all images, allowing you to "fade" things with the background.

    Think about it this way... You know those icons with drop shadows at the top of Slashdot? If they were PNG's, you could swap them across any background and the icon would look great, the shadow would fall correctly. You could anti-alias edges without worrying about what the background image is. You can layer multiple images on top of eachother so that the front page of websites don't have to be chopped up into millions of individual images. And it all just works.

    And Microsoft promised full PNG support [joeyday.com] in I.E. 4. Let me repeat that, I.E. 4. They bragged that they were going to be the first to implement full PNG support. They're actually the last. By about 7 frick'in years.

    As a rough guess I'd say their lack of PNG support has cost over a million hours of web designer headaches. But they couldn't afford to put one lousy intern on the task of adding alpha channel support to PNG support. Which they promised in I.E. 4. Let me repeat that, which they promised in I.E. 4.

    They even have a perfectly suitable though terribly hacky series of workaround, using javascript. If they just fed their PNG's into their own functions which you can call through javascript, you're golden. But no, they've had to have broken PNG support for the last 7 years. Since I.E. 4. Let me repeat that, frick'in I.E. 4.

    If there is any reason why webdevelopers hate Microsoft, this is it. PNG support. I would guess on a big project it would shave an hour off everybody's day, for everybody who works with images. Hell, people were shouting that they would pay Microsoft to do this. People volunteered to do this for them. But no, they "couldn't figure out how to do it," for 7 frick'in years.

    Push it out to everyone. I don't care if they're on XP, ME, or OS9, proper Alpha Channel PNG support would save a ton of time. It's about bloody time.

    Opera supports it. Mozilla supports it. Firefox, Konq, Netscape, Safari, iCab, and Omniweb support it. The Dreamcast and Web TV browsers support it. Everyone but Lynx supports it. Oh, that is everyone but Lynx and frick'in I.E.

  • Re:So, basically... (Score:2, Informative)

    by returnoftheyeti (678724) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @09:51PM (#11949979)
    I cant belive this didn't get modded down.

    How to downlad a web browser without a webbrowser.
    1) start/run/cmd
    2) ftp
    3) open ftp.mozilla.org
    4) anonymous/getaclue@slashdot.org
    5) cd pub/mozilla.org/firefox/releases/1.0.1/win32/en-US
    6) get firefoxsetup.exe

    Wow! No I just got a web browser, without using a web browser.
  • by Shippy (123643) * on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:02PM (#11950048)
    Tabbed browsing is a concept that was first put into implementation by NetCaptor [netcaptor.com]. Even Firefox copied it. *gasp!*
  • by Kaseijin (766041) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @10:28PM (#11950208)
    that's a very reasonable way of doing it, but i wonder if maybe making the location bar a different colour as FireFox does for secure sites might be a better - in the sense of more obvious - solution.
    Some people think it's important that Yandex [yandex.ru] be able to register xn--ndex-k8d without being spoofed at xn--ndx-sdd1k (with Cyrillic Ye in place of the Latin E).
    it's kind of funny, though, how it is essentially our (as in the mostly-north-american-and-western-european readership of slashdot)'s lack of familiarity with the writing systems of the rest of the world that are getting us into this particular pickle.
    One need not know hanzi from Hebrew to identify both as Not Latin, but even a native Greek can't be sure whether a given circle is Greek Omicron, Latin O, Cyrillic O, or something else entirely.
  • by Absolut187 (816431) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @11:06PM (#11950408) Homepage
    I find the security is great, although it is annoying to keep safe. What i do is set my general internet zone levels to disallow absolutely everything. This way, when I am surfing sites I don't trust (porn) I don't get any trojans. Then, when i go to a site I trust, I add it to my trusted sites list. I just wish this process were easier. Maybe a button for "add current website to trusted sites list." Also it might be nice to have an intermediate level zone, where I could put sites that seem a little sketchy.
  • by WebHostingGuy (825421) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @11:08PM (#11950422) Homepage Journal
    Updating to include all this new stuff (new to Microsoft, not everyone else) is nothing but a vanity move. Why should Microsoft care if Firefox takes 100% of the market. It's not like they are making money on IE. Who cares if their market share is 2%? Microsoft really should let Firefox take the market and then concentrate on what brings in $$$ and let someone else do the work for them by maintaining the browser.
  • by Absentminded-Artist (560582) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @11:23PM (#11950485) Homepage
    As far as I understood it, Apple isn't suing the sites for what they printed. Apple is suing those three sites for access to the names/emails of the people who broke their NDAs because those sites refused to turn over the names on their own volition. The issue is centered around trade secrets and Apple's right to keep them secret in order to stay competitive vs. the rumor sites right to free speech.
  • by geo_2677 (593590) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @11:33PM (#11950537)
    the market. Strange indeed. A far cry from what used to happen earlier.
    The competition from better alternatives like Firefox and Opera is showing its effect.
    First they ignore you.
    Then they ridicule you
    Then they laugh at you
    Then they copy you
    Maybe now Mozilla guys can move on to adding more new features to the browser now that tabbed browsing is going to be the norm. Heck, how else can I say to the guy sitting next to me whats cool abt mozilla ;)
  • by MarkRose (820682) on Tuesday March 15, 2005 @11:52PM (#11950637) Homepage
    Well no Frenchman will have to worry about that, as ä isn't in the French alphabet. *shhh*

    But you have a valid point.
  • That's spin, too. (Score:4, Informative)

    by rjh (40933) <rjh@sixdemonbag.org> on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @12:42AM (#11950877)
    All the spin in the world won't erase the fact that they broke the law and were convicted.
    Fact: Microsoft was never convicted of anything.

    Fact: Microsoft could never be convicted of anything. No criminal charges were filed, after all.

    Microsoft has been found by a court of law to be an abusive monopolist, that's true. They are not convicted monopolists.

    Using the word "convicted" is, itself, a kind of spin. It makes Microsoft out to sound even more slimy and unpleasant than they are. If you want to be spin-free, then avoid using the word "convicted" in connection with the Microsoft antitrust lawsuit.
  • Re:security (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 16, 2005 @10:53AM (#11953576)
    The solution - is to color RANGES the same. Your standard latin characterset stays the same, because that's your baseline these days already. Then, each new range of character sets gets a new color. What's the result? Any legitimate websites name will be a single color, any illegitimate websites name will be a rainbow mishmash (or, at least, notably strange).

    That does not work.

    For example, Japanese as commonly written can, perfectly legitimately, contain characters drawn from half a dozen distinct Unicode ranges. But within each of those ranges, only SOME of those characters are valid in Japanese! For example, the "CJK Unified Ideographs" range contains many characters that are only used in Japanese, and many more that are only used in Chinese, all jumbled together.

    And, of course, there is still the problem of similar-looking characters within a range. For example, U+3070, U+3071, U+307C, and U+307D (hiragana "ba", "pa", "bo", and "po") all look extremely similar at typical address-bar font sizes; in some fonts, "ba" and "pa" are completely indistinguishable. But they're right next to each other in Unicode!

    Also, your proposition would cause "paypaI" and "paypa1" and "paypal" all to be displayed in a single colour - i.e. there are still a huge number of false negatives where fradulent domain names would be misidentified as "legitimate". This is not typically considered a desirable aspect of any proposed "solution".

"In matters of principle, stand like a rock; in matters of taste, swim with the current." -- Thomas Jefferson