Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Mozilla The Internet Bug Internet Explorer

A Mozilla Plugin to Help Overcome IE Rendering Flaw 270

Posted by timothy
from the like-a-screaming-monkey dept.
least_weasel writes "An article on Ars Technica reveals Mozilla's intention to create and release a plugin for Internet Explorer that would allow the often-criticized IE to utilize some of the cooler rendering code developed for Firefox. The current WIP focuses on rendering using HTML5 standards, but the plans seem to be more ambitious than just fixing this one small piece of IE. The article covers some of the plans, hurdles, and potential benefits. It also spills the beans on the code name for the project: Screaming Monkey."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

A Mozilla Plugin to Help Overcome IE Rendering Flaw

Comments Filter:
  • Er... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by XanC (644172) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:15PM (#24681445)

    What's the advantage over just installing Firefox? Do people who don't have permission to install software have permission to install plugins like this?

    • Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by larry bagina (561269) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:18PM (#24681511) Journal
      it makes MS and closed source look bad if Mozilla/open source fix their deficiencies.
      • Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by the kostya (1277822) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:30PM (#24681743) Homepage
        People who would care about these things already use Firefox/Opera/whatever. Everyone else does not care. It is like mocking the jocks because while all they do is run around and bang chicks, you gain valuable programming experience working on code no one will give a rats ass about.
        • Designers... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hummassa (157160)

          can design on a sane model with sane tools, deploy the plugin when the users are IE.

        • by davidkv (302725)

          How sure are you? On a scale from one to ten.

        • Re:Er... (Score:5, Funny)

          by bane2571 (1024309) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:28PM (#24682483)
          Not sure how it works on IE but you can install firefox plugins on the fly. If that is true on IE, imagine sites that rather than saying "runs best on IE7" instead say "This is gonna look crap if you don't click here [slashdot.org]
        • Re:Er... (Score:5, Funny)

          by PitaBred (632671) <slashdot.pitabred@dyndns@org> on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:35PM (#24682585) Homepage

          And then that jock gets a job in the city rec department, and his bangin' cheerleader girlfriend is a professional beautician, between them making as much as you do by yourself with your programming experience.

          Stupid, non-applicable analogy aside, nobody else cares about whether they use IE or Firefox, but they sure as hell notice when things don't work right. This plugin will let people develop sites to standards that still work with IE, so companies should be ok with allowing their webdevs to work forward properly, and it'll have the side effect of proper sites making people sit up and take notice of their broken browser.

          • Re:Er... (Score:5, Interesting)

            by carlzum (832868) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @10:13PM (#24684583)

            And then that jock gets a job in the city rec department, and his bangin' cheerleader girlfriend is a professional beautician, between them making as much as you do by yourself with your programming experience.

            Sigh, if life were fair this would be true. The jocks become corporate sales guys and upper management types. While I honed my programming skills they developed "leadership" skills on a football scholarship at State U. Now they drive nice cars, play golf on office time, and their cheerleader girlfriends have become hot moms.

            I think I'm going to put Revenge of the Nerds on to feel better.

            • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

              by ksd1337 (1029386)
              Ha. But while the jocks drive their nice cars and play gold on office time, the nerd builds his huge operating system-funded empire, and most likely, the jock will be using that operating system.
        • This short-circuits the "But it only works with fringe browsers" bullshit. If it works with all standards-compliant browsers and there are plugins to make poor broken MSIE comply, what other excuse is there?
      • Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by E IS mC(Square) (721736) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:06PM (#24682235) Journal
        I would definitely like to think that way too, but I guess Mozilla/Firefox deserves a bit more credit here. I sincerely believe that they are doing this for two things primarily:

        1) To improve user's experience - even if they are using IE
        2) More importantly, to do their part in better standardization.

        From TFA:"The Canvas element allows web developers to programmatically render interactive bitmap images in HTML content. It was invented by Apple to bring richer graphical capabilities to the company's WebKit renderer. The Canvas functionality eventually became part of the HTML5 standard and has been implemented in both Gecko and Presto. Canvas is used extensively in several popular web applications, including Google Maps, but it hasn't gained widespread acceptance because it isn't available in Internet Explorer. "
        • Re:Er... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by neokushan (932374) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @07:36PM (#24683203)

          I'd also like to believe Microsoft will get a bit arsey about it and be all "wut, we don't need ur bloody plugins, we'll make these features available ourselves!" and thus push them towards implementing more standards rather than just fixing the broken ones they have now.

          Note: Not trying to troll on Microsoft here, just trying to point out that it would be helpful to everyone if IE supported more features that other browsers have.

      • Re:Er... (Score:5, Funny)

        by Tumbleweed (3706) * on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:07PM (#24682245)

        it makes MS and closed source look bad if Mozilla/open source fix their deficiencies.

        Duuuude, that's the beauty of MS and closed source - they don't *need* Mozilla/open source to make them look bad!

      • In addition, it caters to the IE diehards, or those who simply are familiar with the way IE does things, who would benefit from such a plugin and still feel comfortable using "IE" not caring what is really running under the covers to do the rendering/layout.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by hr.wien (986516)

      It allows web developers to take advantage of this feature, but still have their sites be accessible by people using IE (out of ignorance or otherwise). Right now no web-developer can really target features not available on IE unless they want to alienate a large percentage of their user base.

      • Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jsebrech (525647) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:39PM (#24681867)

        It allows web developers to take advantage of this feature

        Canvas is a strange pick though for something to extend IE with. There's excanvas, which does a reasonable job of emulating canvas on IE using VML. It's not a perfect emulation, ofcourse, but in my experience it's good enough once you learn its limitations. For stuff like dynamic charting canvas is the right choice even today.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by hr.wien (986516)

          My guess is it's simply because canvas is a reasonably standalone feature to separate out of Gecko. Maybe they simply want to give it a go to see if it's feasible to do the same thing to other features later.

        • by Nimey (114278)

          Can you do excanvas on other browsers, though, or is it Yet Another IE-Specific Hack?

        • Re:Er... (Score:4, Informative)

          by colfer (619105) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:38PM (#24682611)

          From TFA: "Unfortunately, scripted manipulation of VML [with exCanvas] is too slow to be used for highly interactive web applications."

          Still it does seem crazy to expect enough people to install the plugin to make it universal enough for developers, as Flash is now.

          Then the rest of the article is about Adobe. "This is purely speculation, but If Adobe decided to ship [the new Moz plugin] as part of the next major iteration of the Flash plugin, it would rapidly accelerate adoption and get it onto lots of computers."

        • I read ArsTechnica's article about the Canvas-for-MSIE plugin and they mentioned the problems Google Maps faces with this; Basically excanvas mostly-works but it's too slow for non-slideshow interactivity.
      • Re:Er... (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Ash Vince (602485) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @07:02PM (#24682901) Journal

        It allows web developers to take advantage of this feature, but still have their sites be accessible by people using IE (out of ignorance or otherwise). Right now no web-developer can really target features not available on IE unless they want to alienate a large percentage of their user base.

        As a professional web developer I can say that is complete rubbish. We can not rely on most IE users to have this plugin so we can not take advantage of any new features. The fact is that while IE is as prevalent as it currently still is we have to develop primarily for that platform. In the corporate world a great many people still use IE6 so we have to test under that very thoroughly too.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by SpaceLifeForm (228190)
          As a professional web developer you should be developing to standards.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by cromar (1103585)
            The key rule of any profession is to make things a lot of people can use. Even outside making money. Corollary: Code for you audience.
          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Lehk228 (705449)
            I am going to take a wild guess that you do not earn money from anything you do with a computer.
            • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

              I can't speak for him, but I do, and I'll endorse that statement.

              Develop to standards first. Target Firefox first, Safari second, then worry about IE. Put IE-specific hacks in separate stylesheets, and don't even let non-IE browsers see them.

              And throw "GetFirefox" links around where you're allowed to.

          • Idealistic (Score:3, Informative)

            by dreamchaser (49529)

            You missed the key word there...professional. It means one who makes money from their profession. Developing to standards is great but it doesn't necessarily put food on the table. Idealism is nice, but it can cause one to starve. My guess is you are still in school and haven't had to pay any bills?

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by TLLOTS (827806)

              I don't know about the parent, but I do work professionally as a web developer and code to standards. It doesn't hurt me at all, in fact I've had clients come to me specifically because of the high quality of standards based work that I churn out.

              Granted, not all clients are going to be aware of standards and their affect on accessibility and search engine optimization, but it doesn't make standards based web development the veritable money-pit that some make it out to be.

        • by hr.wien (986516)

          Rubbish? If this plug-in is as easy to install as Flash is today ("You seem to be missing a required plugin, install it?"), I would have no problems taking advantage of it. (Yes, I'm a web-developer as well.) Not everyone has to cater for the corporate dinosaurs with every project they do.

          Just because you may not be able to use it, doesn't mean no one can.

        • by srleffler (721400)
          As with sites that use Flash, your site can detect whether the IE user has the plugin and the browser can prompt the user to install it if it is not present. You can't prod users to change browsers, but experience has shown that users can be prodded into installing a plugin if it is required to use a site.
        • You DO know you can push out ActiveX plugins to IE users when they visit your site, right? It would be a one click install dealie in this case. It's like saying you can't rely on users to have Flash installed... for IE once you navigate to a page with Flash the plugin installs itself.
    • Re:Er... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by MrMunkey (1039894) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:34PM (#24681801) Homepage
      The fact still remains that people use IE, because that's "the Internet" on their computer. It's been suggested that Adobe might include these plugins (there's also one in the works for the canvas element) with their Flash installer. That would greatly increase the number of people with IE that would support some of the features that are already available in FF/Opera/Safari.

      I think that people who don't have permission to install the plugins just won't be able to do so, but they wouldn't be able to install FF anyway.
    • Re:Er... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by anaesthetica (596507) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:43PM (#24681927) Homepage Journal
      I think the idea might be to get a first mover advantage on IE. If the IE installed base gets this plugin and gets used to the behavior, Microsoft will find it harder to do their usual trick of implementation-but-not-quite. People who have this plugin will be upset if Microsoft releases a new version of IE that breaks the Canvas behavior that they've become used to. A wide deployment of the plugin (perhaps through Adobe as the article speculates) might create just enough perceived path-dependence that Microsoft won't go out of its way to break the Canvas standard with a proprietary implementation.
    • by UltraAyla (828879)
      Take my parents for example. They like the experience of IE. They are not, however, opposed to standards - they just don't care enough to leave behind one piece of software for another because they never notice any problems (probably because we are all so busy fixing IE bugs). I know a number of people like this - they are comfortable.
    • I asked myself the same question, and then speculated that a lot of companies would rather support one browser with an addon than two separate browsers on every desktop.
    • In addition to what others have said about the plug-in's mere existance highlighting the problems with IE (which has long been a form of cheap publicity for Firefox), it increases the number of browsers that render HTML/CSS in a compliant manner, assuming any IE users actually utilize the plugin. Believe it or not, however, there are people who actually try both and choose IE anyways for various reasons, suggesting they're not above downloading extras to improve the user experience.

      This means developers
    • by Sleepy (4551)

      IE can be configured to allow plugin installs by the current user, but if you meant on a totally locked down PC, then no.

      I see this being useful -- plenty of companies or websites block FireFox. Banks are especially notorious about pushing IE -- they'll tell you to upgrade FireFox to Netscape 4.74.

      It was only THIS MONTH that Bank of America began claiming FireFox Support. There are still sections of their website that block you if you use FireFox on Linux.

      (Everything works, mind you... you just have to futz

    • Because people simply won't do it.

      For example I sell web based school software. Recently I set a new school up with this software. The IT director assured me that they were running IE7 which we support as well as Firefox.

      When I arrived on campus however, all of the computers had IE6. I explained that many features were disabled in IE6 and they just need to update. They didn't want to do it because they were worried about security.

      So I suggested Firefox. This person had never heard of it and was worried that

  • by superyanthrax (835242) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:16PM (#24681451)
    Great idea... but if someone would have the wits and knowledge to look for this plugin, wouldn't they be using FF already? If websites prevented stuff from working without this plugin, wouldn't that just turn off viewers? Not sure how this is going to help, people have been harping at Microsoft about standards for years and all they've done is move towards them at the pace of a snail.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by hr.wien (986516)

      I assume you can have the browser display a "download plugin" button for those people, just like it does it you're missing flash or shockwave.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Possibly the best way to handle this is use one of IE's many security holes to patch the bug: create a website that checks to see if you're using IE. If you are, and you don't already have this plugin, use ActiveX to install it. After all, we all know that a large percentage of the people who use IE will always click OK when asked if they want their browser to install something; that's how a lot of malware gets installed.
  • by conner_bw (120497) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:16PM (#24681465) Homepage Journal

    Well i'll be darned, I guess someone should call the XHTML2 camp and tell them they lost the war!

    • by secPM_MS (1081961) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:23PM (#24681625)
      I would be rather cautious about simply trying to implement and support HTML5, which is no standardized yet. I attended BlackHat ~ 2 weeks ago and Stamos's talk "Living in the RIA World" had some interesting things to say about HTML5 in its current state. If you wait ~ 6 months, BlackHat will allow viewing. My notes concerning HTML 5 follow.

      HTML 5: have DOM storage (session and local) and database storage. These should all be SameOrigin. Meant to block userâ(TM)s deleting of tracking cookies. Use of database storage, there can be SQL injection against the local database. Some browsers support GlobalStorage that donâ(TM)t have SameOrigin control. Lots of new attack surface in FF3. Websites can be protocol handlers (support spyware!!). Installation of protocol handler is one click. WebKit is a big supporter of HTML5 and supports these issues.

      HTML5 has limited storage (~ 15 Mbytes total) allowing easy exhaustion attacks and there is no UI to manage this. DOS is easy. Can easily plant arbitrary evidence on a system. HTML 5: Security âoeneed to write this sectionâ.

      We now have web developers making desktop apps without any security or privacy expertise. The Web is becoming more heterogeneous and far far more dangerous.

      • by jsebrech (525647) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:55PM (#24682109)

        We now have web developers making desktop apps without any security or privacy expertise. The Web is becoming more heterogeneous and far far more dangerous.

        What bothers me is how security is somehow pushed to the forefront as the most important issue, even more important than functionality.

        The most secure system is one that is turned off. This new stuff they're adding increases the attack surface, sure, but it's also necessary to build stuff that actually works (like a web app that doesn't die when your wifi does).

        But even aside from the issue of functionality vs. security, there's the issue of security somehow being way more important in the browser, which I think is nonsense. Client-server apps have always had lousy security, and were easily hijacked. Just because they now run in a browser, the threat level hasn't changed. A hacker that is determined can break in sure, but they've always been able to break in. Nothing has truly changed, except for the perception of the threat level.

        All in all I think the web stack is pretty secure by default, when comparing it to the alternatives.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by raddan (519638)

          All in all I think the web stack is pretty secure by default, when comparing it to the alternatives.

          Really? My opinion is that the "web stack" (not sure which stack you mean here; MSIE-Windows, FF-Windows, Safari-MacOSX, Konq-Linux, etc) has by far the worst record so far. MSIE-Windows has to be the #1 vector for infection now, and has been for at least the last 6-7 years. Which alternative are you thinking of? Because the "web stack" is, in my opinion, the premier virus runtime environment.

          My opinion is that web designers made a HUGE mistake in not treating network input cautiously. The emphasis

        • What bothers me is how security is somehow pushed to the forefront as the most important issue

          That's the attitude that made IE what it is today.

        • by mxs (42717)

          What bothers me is how security is somehow pushed to the forefront as the most important issue, even more important than functionality.

          You shouldn't be bothered, since it isn't. Which is a problem.

          The most secure system is one that is turned off. This new stuff they're adding increases the attack surface, sure, but it's also necessary to build stuff that actually works (like a web app that doesn't die when your wifi does).

          That's not the issue, at all. This new stuff could be excellent, yes. But if it is developed without keeping security in mind, it is worthless -- worse than worthless, it is harmful -- in the context of the web. If you don't tackle these (some rather obvious, some somewhat tricky) problems now, rest assured, attackers will tackle them. Successfully.

          But even aside from the issue of functionality vs. security, there's the issue of security somehow being way more important in the browser, which I think is nonsense. Client-server apps have always had lousy security, and were easily hijacked. Just because they now run in a browser, the threat level hasn't changed. A hacker that is determined can break in sure, but they've always been able to break in. Nothing has truly changed, except for the perception of the threat level.
          All in all I think the web stack is pretty secure by default, when comparing it to the alternatives.

          Interesting analysis. I don't agree with it. Security being important in the browser does not stem

        • by mdfst13 (664665)

          But even aside from the issue of functionality vs. security, there's the issue of security somehow being way more important in the browser, which I think is nonsense. Client-server apps have always had lousy security, and were easily hijacked. Just because they now run in a browser, the threat level hasn't changed. A hacker that is determined can break in sure, but they've always been able to break in. Nothing has truly changed, except for the perception of the threat level.

          There are reasons why browsers are different from other client/server applications:

          1. Browsers are a generic application platform that can be used to run other applications.
          2. Browsers often run all current applications in the same sandbox. This allows an insecure news reader (not so important in itself) to lead to compromise of your banking connection.
          3. Browsers are being used to run desktop applications (think Google Docs).

          Part of the point of HTML5 is to make it easier to do things like implement a desktop

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        What's the difference between web developers and regular developers? Take a look at any desktop applications and tell me that they're programming with better security practices than web developers. Windows, apache, IIS, OSX, and many more programs include critical security holes that can be exploited externally; how is a buffer overflow any better or worse than improperly escaped SQL?

        Developers as a whole have been programming without security and privacy expertise, web developers just happen to have a p
    • by oahazmatt (868057) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:25PM (#24681673) Journal

      Well i'll be darned, I guess someone should call the XHTML2 camp and tell them they lost the war!

      Nah, don't bother them. They're busy working on the HD-DVD website.

  • by ozamosi (615254) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:17PM (#24681499) Homepage

    Is it a sad or happy day for Microsoft, when their competitors get bored with beating them, and instead try to improve the Microsoft products to make them competitive - for free?

    • by snl2587 (1177409) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:21PM (#24681563)

      The new plan for Mozilla:

      • Embrace I.E.
      • Extend I.E. with this plugin
      • Extinguish I.E. with a "Get Firefox" button on every page.

      What could possibly go wrong?

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by EdIII (1114411) *

        The part I don't understand is why you would go with IE in the first place. If you have problems with IE, or need rendering support that Firefox has, why not just download the whole Firefox in the first place?

      • by ignavus (213578)

        • Embrace I.E.

        What could possibly go wrong?

        Syphilis? Gonorrhea? Herpes?

  • FireFox (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Ethanol-fueled (1125189) * on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:18PM (#24681521) Homepage Journal
    I run Firefox for NoScript and AdBlock...I could care less about rendering a page .002 picoseconds faster.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:19PM (#24681523)
    So I take it Balmer is involved in some way?
  • Spill the beans? (Score:5, Informative)

    by EvilRyry (1025309) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:20PM (#24681539) Journal

    I've been reading about this for months. Its not exactly top secret.

    https://wiki.mozilla.org/Tamarin:ScreamingMonkey [mozilla.org]

  • by AKAImBatman (238306) * <akaimbatman @ g m a i l . c om> on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:20PM (#24681543) Homepage Journal

    FYI, Screaming Monkey was already discussed in an earlier story [slashdot.org].

    Unfortunately, scripted manipulation of VML is too slow to be used for highly interactive web applications. Mozilla's solution is to bake its own native Canvas implementation into an ActiveX plugin that can be integrated directly into Internet Explorer.

    The only problem is getting people to install the plugin. My own solution was to use the market penetration of Java Applets to develop a shunt [dnsalias.com] that would render Canvas using Java APIs. (Note that the events system has not been completed in that demo. Make sure you click outside the block falling area so that the browser receives the keyboard commands.)

    The same sort of shunt could be done with Flash 9 or Silverlight. Which would do a nice end-run around the problem of getting plugins installed.

  • by th3rtythr33 (1191409) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:21PM (#24681569)
    Now with all of the features of Firefox, without the bother of all the security.
  • by szquirrel (140575) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @05:23PM (#24681629) Homepage

    Hey, that's great. Do they also have plans to fix the flaws in Firefox?

    Off the top of my head, could we finally have support for SVG as a native image format? Or even just SVG rendering that isn't slower than a stone cow?

    Don't want to sound like the grumpy old man, I just want most of my web shit to work in *one* browser before I worry about how it works in every browser.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by maxume (22995)

      What is not native about the SVG handling in recent versions of Firefox?

    • by Firehed (942385)

      I just want most of my web shit to work in *one* browser before I worry about how it works in every browser.

      If it doesn't work the same in every browser, nobody's going to implement it. For the most part, the days of making new IE-only sites are gone; any web developer worth his (or her?) salt will not be tying things down to a specific rendering environment. Which means that, with SVG per your example, people aren't going to use it until it works well in all reasonably-current browsers, or until it can

      • by markdavis (642305)

        If it doesn't work the same in every browser, nobody's going to implement it. For the most part, the days of making new IE-only sites are gone; any web developer worth his (or her?) salt will not be tying things down to a specific rendering environment.

        If only your statement were relevant. Yes, most GOOD sites are cross-browser and cross-platform. But there are TONS of sites that are IE only and/or MS-Windows only. It is killing us all the time trying to be a Linux-only environment. It is not so much b

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Tweenk (1274968)

        you can't even center a div consistently across IE (#yourdivsparent{text-align:center;}#yourdiv{text-align:left;}) and non-IE (#yourdiv{margin:0 auto;}).

        CSS centering (margin: auto) works properly even in IE 6.0 but only if you use a Strict doctype. This is particularly annoying on auction sites where you can type your own HTML but are usually forced to use the Transitional doctype of the site.

    • by Ant P. (974313) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:50PM (#24682755) Homepage

      You want SVG as background-image? Here you go [mozillazine.org]. Fast enough to do this [mozillazine.org] in realtime? I honestly couldn't say, I'm more excited that their CSS3 support is finally catching up to Konqueror 3.5.

  • "A Mozilla Plugin to Help Overcome IE Rendering Flaw"

    Should it not read: A Mozilla Plugin to add Enhanced IE Rendering?

    Come on. This old fight between browsers is becoming stale. IE included many things now in the HTML specs that were not available in any other browser, such as CSS Style for shadow effects, etc. Why is it that when something new comes out for IE that it is automatically described as a "bug" fix or a workaround to a "flaw"?

    Please people, I like FF and IE for different reasons. A
  • Exactly backwards (Score:5, Interesting)

    by markdavis (642305) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:22PM (#24682409)
    This is exactly backwards to what most of us need. We need a [multiplatform] plugin for Firefox that will allow broken IE-only sites to work under Firefox so we can continue to use the browser of our choice. Not that I want to promote the use of IE-only coding, but the reality is that if the site doesn't work, the average users always blame Firefox, not the site designer.
    • ...when I need them. You hit the nail on the head, pal.

      Good thing I scrolled to the bottom of the page before I posted and avoided the dreaded "Redundant".

  • by nawcom (941663) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @06:34PM (#24682575) Homepage

    Have Mozilla send come checks to all major software companies (Adobe wink wink) - perhaps Google can through in a few $100 million in the pot too to distribute. Goal: install Firefox (if not installed yet) and make Firefox the default browser. A little taste of Microsoft's own medicine.

    *nawcom sips from his glass of kool-aid*

  • From reading the article, it's not clear to me exactly what this will do, aside from make some HTML5 elements available. Will this fix IE's numerous CSS flaws? To me, that is *vastly* more important than adding HTML5 stuff.

  • Did anyone think about pages that detect user agent strings? A lot of devs use the UA string to "fix" these rendering problems on a per browser basis. This plugin would "break" the pages that have already been "fixed" causing quite a headache to the devs who would never know that their page does not work correctly in this version of IEx because it has a nifty plugin to fix things. Sound like dev's will have yet another variable to watch out for.

    And for thoes who say this plugin is somehow for devs: an
  • One - The project should not be called Screaming Monkey. It should be called Airborne Chair.

    Two - This seems like a complete waste of the Mozilla team's time, in my opinion. I don't want to diss their hard work, but Firefox is an exceptional piece of software, so it would make more sense to concentrate on making it even better/faster/smaller, rather than waste the time fixing monkey code (or rather making an add-on that fixes functionality in monkey code).

    Three - In addition to concentrating the technical a

  • It also spills the beans on the code name for the project: Screaming Monkey.

    Ha. Ha ha. Ha ha ha.
  • by sukotto (122876) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @10:08PM (#24684537)

    There had better be an easy way for web designers to tell if IE has that plugin installed or I'm going to be really pissed.

    It's hard enough dealing with IE's crappy rendering... it will be so much more painful if the rendering engine in IE isn't *consistently* broken and we have no way to tell the difference in our code.

  • NOT Screaming Monkey (Score:3, Informative)

    by metalpet (557056) on Wednesday August 20, 2008 @10:44PM (#24684853) Journal

    ScreamingMonkey is a project that aimed at providing IE with a JS runtime able to run EcmaScript 4 programs.

    Since ES4 is apparently dead, I'm not sure where that leaves ScreamingMonkey.

    The canvas stuff is a different project that follows the same general approach, but on a different browser component.

The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth. -- Niels Bohr

Working...