[News] Internet Explorer 7 Still Against Web Standards

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]

With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Roy Schestowitz wrote:

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Give me a break. It's pretty darn good; you are splitting hairs.

dfloss wrote:

Roy Schestowitz wrote:
http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Give me a break. It's pretty darn good; you are splitting hairs.

54% Woot-woot! That's better than half!

Obviously you haven't been frustrated making a modern website that
doesn't break IE....

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:26:22 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Dude, that's over a year old.

What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
creating valid XHTML and CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht....newscloud.com

Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
bothered to conform to standards.

"Roy Schestowitz" <newsgroups (AT) schestowitz (DOT) com> wrote

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Does make you think about the support CSS3 is going to have when it rears
its head. Border-radius anyone?

--
Cheers

Paul
le singe est dans l'arbre
http://www.paulwatt.info

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:14:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:26:22 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Dude, that's over a year old.

What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
creating valid XHTML and CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht....newscloud.com

Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
bothered to conform to standards.

By the way, see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager
of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive...10/694584.aspx

Erik Funkenbusch <erik (AT) despam-funkenbusch (DOT) com> writes:

On Mon, 7 Aug 2006 20:14:12 -0500, Erik Funkenbusch wrote:

On Tue, 08 Aug 2006 00:26:22 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:

http://developers.slashdot.org/artic...24250&from=rss

,----[ Quote ]
| With the redesign of my own site last month, I discovered just
| how non-compliant IE is with basic CSS: IE 52% vs. Firefox 93%. Is
| Microsoft purely incompetent and tone-deaf to customers -- or simply
| counting on IE's non-compliance remaining a de-facto standard?"
`----

Points to: http://www.idealog.us/2006/08/microsoft_drops.html

Dude, that's over a year old.

What's more. Why doesn't his site look ok in IE? Maybe he should consider
creating valid XHTML and CSS.

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=ht....newscloud.com

Ironic that a guy that bitches aobut standards conformance can't be
bothered to conform to standards.

By the way, see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager
of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive...10/694584.aspx

Always nice when you see a reasoned contribution from someone actually
involved in a products development.

--

Andy Mabbett wrote:

see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive...10/694584.aspx

Failed validation, 67 errors

You've never worked with a big corporate, have you? And Microsoftoft is one
of the absolute worst for "What's wrong with US corporate culture and
its stuck in the '60s mentality"

Whoever provides content to those blogs is _very_ far from who
specifies or implements the blogs. This is sad, but it's certainly not
the blog author's fault. Flagging this Pavlovian little link to the
validator makes you look like the sort of sad little teenager who
_only_ knows how to do that.

On 11 Aug 2006 02:45:53 -0700, Andy Dingley wrote:

Andy Mabbett wrote:

see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive...10/694584.aspx

Failed validation, 67 errors

Actually, this is a bug in the W3C's validator. It's parser can't handle
XHTML style syntax in HTML 4 documents and throws bogus errors.

On Fri, 11 Aug 2006 08:06:01 +0100, Andy Mabbett wrote:

In message <1olrpj6dtxkrv.dlg (AT) funkenbusch (DOT) com>, Erik Funkenbusch
erik (AT) despam-funkenbusch (DOT) com> writes

see Chris Wilson's response (Chris is the lead program manager of IE)

http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive...10/694584.aspx


Failed validation, 67 errors

http://validator.w3.org/check?verbos...%2F694584.aspx

(aka http://tinyurl.com/odw6o )

As I responded in a different thread, this is because of a flaw in the
W3C's parser that cannot handle XHTML style tags in an HTML 4 document
(which is legal).