IE8 Feature requests | The Coffeehouse

jamie

The Thread Formerly Known as : "MS dogfooding ie8 alpha?"

Maryjo: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=196

"(Supposedly, there's already an alpha build of IE 8 circulating inside Redmond's hallowed halls, as well. Anyone out there seen it?)"

Ive read elsewhere they are focusing on security & privacy for 8.

Im personally hoping they work on customization...

bruce?

edit... if memory serves - back in the net boom IE 2,3,4 days - alphas were released by ieteam..

Jason Cox
Longtime C9 Lurker

It'd make sense that there's a build circulating internally already, now all we have to do is get Rory to walk over there with a camera and presto!

Jackco

Since Firefox was ganing more users, Microsoft sure put their foots down and came back with IE7 which ain't actually a bad browser compared IE6 which was cluttered. Wink

Firefox is still my favourite browser because I work in a Windows and Linux enviorment. Smiley

I would like to see what IE8 has in offer.

BruceMorgan

jamie wrote:

Maryjo: http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=196

"(Supposedly, there's already an alpha build of IE 8 circulating inside Redmond's hallowed halls, as well. Anyone out there seen it?)"

Ive read elsewhere they are focusing on security & privacy for 8.

Im personally hoping they work on customization...

bruce?

edit... if memory serves - back in the net boom IE 2,3,4 days - alphas were released by ieteam..

I read the ZDNet article and the ActiveWin post, and other speculation as well. While they're not flat out wrong, they're not right, either. That's because they don't really say anything at all. Some of these writers should run for public office - they know how to go on and on without actually saying a word, but leaving you thinking they did. I had a manager like that once, but I digress..

We have post-IE7 daily builds running, of course, because that's part of our engineering processes. We're working on improving those processes as well as doing planning for the next version. So sure, people have builds. That's no big thing - certainly nothing anyone would label "an alpha".

Jamie, my goal is to make you (and the users you represent) happier. There were things we did in IE7 that made you unhappy. Time to give us a second chance.

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

Wasn't their some kind of early feedback IE8 limited beta opportunity advertised on the Vista beta newsgroups shortly before the end of the Vista beta? I remember reading the announcement but I missed the actual invite so I'm sorry to say I'm not in it.

My wishes for IE8 are simple though: give me proper application/xhtml+xml support (strict XML parser and everything), display:table-*, and CSS generated content, and I'll be a happy web-dev. Smiley

Jason Cox
Longtime C9 Lurker

Sven Groot wrote:
Wasn't their some kind of early feedback IE8 limited beta opportunity advertised on the Vista beta newsgroups shortly before the end of the Vista beta? I remember reading the announcement but I missed the actual invite so I'm sorry to say I'm not in it.

I only saw the Windows Early Feedback oppurtunity, I dont recall an IE8 one.

jamie

BruceMorgan wrote:

Jamie, my goal is to make you (and the users you represent) happier. There were things we did in IE7 that made you unhappy. Time to give us a second chance.

Well - you got one from me. A toast to ie8 - what it can be, its team, and the people here on c9 who contribute ideas to it
Smiley

edit - ..so cmon..post an alpha.. why not? then we could all help like firefox gets contributor help Smiley

jamie

* bruce.. youve been "maryjo'd"

http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=198

Jack Cade

BruceMorgan wrote:
There were things we did in IE7 that made you unhappy. Time to give us a second chance.

How many second chances will you be requiring, I don't think there is a lot of confidence that IE8 will fix what is wrong.

littleguru
<3 Seattle

BruceMorgan wrote:
Jamie, my goal is to make you (and the users you represent) happier. There were things we did in IE7 that made you unhappy. Time to give us a second chance.

If Microsoft is going to release new versions more often, the faults of a certain version get forget asap Smiley

Tom Servo
W-hat?

XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

I don't think XHTML2 would be wise to implement before it becomes a Recommendation.

DMassy
Driving!

Tom Servo wrote:
XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K, XHTML2, JPEG2K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Why?
XHTML2 is not supported by any browser and other browsers do not appear to have any immediate plans to support it as it is not compatible with XHTML1.1.
JPEG2K has licensing issues and is not supported by any browser so the benefits of supporting it vs cost are very unclear.

Input on what you would like to see is great but we need supporting scenarios to justify investing in any particular area of functionality. Please supply a scenario of how implementing something will help web developers in creating powerful solutions when making requests for functionality. There are lots of things we wish to do in future versions of IE that have much clearer benefits than either XHTML2 or JPEG2K support. As our plans come together and become solid we'll start to talk about them but at the moment it is still too early. In the meantime please keep the feedback coming along with those supporting scenarios Smiley

Thanks
-Dave

Boomport
SG1: Deep Space Radar Telemetry is the job to have.

Just let me move the supid buttons around on the top bar! Arrrgh!!! If anyone knows how let me know!! Really annoying!

Sven Groot
My name has 9 letters. Coincidence? I think not...

Boomport wrote:
Just let me move the supid buttons around on the top bar! Arrrgh!!! If anyone knows how let me know!! Really annoying!

Do you mean the command bar or the back/forward/refresh/stop buttons? If the former it's already possible.

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

DMassy wrote:
Input on what you would like to see is great but we need supporting scenarios to justify investing in any particular area of functionality. Please supply a scenario of how implementing something will help web developers in creating powerful solutions when making requests for functionality. There are lots of things we wish to do in future versions of IE that have much clearer benefits than either XHTML2 or JPEG2K support. As our plans come together and become solid we'll start to talk about them but at the moment it is still too early. In the meantime please keep the feedback coming along with those supporting scenarios

Okay then, there's the usual assortment: CSS2.1, "Native" XHTML support, etc....

As for stuff that appeals to me more:

Regex-based HTTP Request blocker, call it what you want, but I don't like messing with my HOSTS file to block adverts in IE when Firefox and Opera have it
Integrated spell-checker
XP-like icons on Windows XP, not Vista stuff
Better handling of embedded objects

Please get that patent with Eolas sorted out, it's just plain silly
Better standards compliance please

Oh, and tell everyone in the other departments:

Netscape doesn't exist anymore! So please stop listing "Netscape 3" as a HTML-export option in your programs!

littleguru
<3 Seattle

Dang, how much would I like to see an easier (perhaps .NET usable) API to create plugins... That would be the best thing ever. And it's vital for IE. Firefox gets more and more plugins and we get little. Make it easier guys. The old API is just pain.

Boomport
SG1: Deep Space Radar Telemetry is the job to have.

Sven Groot wrote:

Boomport wrote: Just let me move the supid buttons around on the top bar! Arrrgh!!! If anyone knows how let me know!! Really annoying!

Do you mean the command bar or the back/forward/refresh/stop buttons? If the former it's already possible.

Alas its the 2nd option.

I also totally agree with little guru. Lets see a .net plug in model!

Tom Servo
W-hat?

DMassy wrote:

Why?
XHTML2 is not supported by any browser and other browsers do not appear to have any immediate plans to support it as it is not compatible with XHTML1.1.

IE has the highest marketshare. Are we going to fall back into lazy mode again? Do we need to have another browser support it first, so that Microsoft can play catch up in an attempt to stomp the competition back into ground?

And unless I'm mistaken (I probably am in this case), to have something at W3C turn into a recommendation, one of their standards needs to have two implementations. And it'd be nice if at least SOMEONE starts the homework early, so we don't end up in 2057 until it's supported (see XHTML in IE).

DMassy wrote:
JPEG2K has licensing issues and is not supported by any browser so the benefits of supporting it vs cost are very unclear.

JPEG and GIF have/had licensing issues aswell. For that matter, Microsoft acquired that seamless zoom thingymajic application, I forgot its name, in which it should also have had acquired a JPEG2K license.

DMassy wrote:
Input on what you would like to see is great but we need supporting scenarios to justify investing in any particular area of functionality.

The JPEG2K one is easy. Increasing picture quality and/or decreasing filesizes. Picture quality is an obvious one, the partial decoding for dynamic thumbnailing from the original file is a pretty useful feature. And in regards of filesizes, don't even think of pulling the bandwidth excuse. I don't care how fast my line is or how much transfer volume I have per month, things need to be as compact as possible.

As for XHTML2, everyone is singing the semantic web/document tune, yet no one will work towards that, unless it implies proprietary XML schemas. I don't want to sprinkle HTML with commented RDF sections. Same goes for seperating structure from design.

DMassy wrote:
There are lots of things we wish to do in future versions of IE that have much clearer benefits than either XHTML2 or JPEG2K support. As our plans come together and become solid we'll start to talk about them but at the moment it is still too early. In the meantime please keep the feedback coming along with those supporting scenarios

You can do only so much on the frontend. Actually, this exact quoted paragraph pretty much suggests to me that there's an entire UI team at work trying to pretty up things, so that people won't notice that this lone coder in the garden shed behind Bill Gates' office building isn't able to keep up with fixing goddamn Trident.

Excuse my tone, but this "Others didn't, we won't either" attitude is annoying me. It's what made IE stagnate to beginwith.

</rabble>

Tom Servo
W-hat?

W3bbo wrote:

Okay then, there's the usual assortment: CSS2.1, "Native" XHTML support, etc....

If we're at it, how about bringing in a scripting environment, a la Firefox Extensions? And that without bringing the "Use ActiveX" line for a change? And if not a scripting environment, then at least integrate the CLR and offer clean APIs, including some for easy DOM manipulation. DotNET is like a hundred times less convoluted than this ActiveX quackery.

jsampsonPC
SampsonBlog.com SampsonVideos.com

littleguru wrote:
Dang, how much would I like to see an easier (perhaps .NET usable) API to create plugins... That would be the best thing ever. And it's vital for IE. Firefox gets more and more plugins and we get little. Make it easier guys. The old API is just pain.

Boomport wrote:
I also totally agree with little guru. Lets see a .net plug in model!

I too agree with Guru on this. A .NET option for creating Plugins would be superb! Just think of the community that would develop if .NET were used to write plugins for IE8+

PaoloM
Hypermediocrity

Tom Servo wrote:

And unless I'm mistaken (I probably am in this case), to have something at W3C turn into a recommendation, one of their standards needs to have two implementations. And it'd be nice if at least SOMEONE starts the homework early, so we don't end up in 2057 until it's supported (see XHTML in IE).

No. No. No. No.

I will personally fight this in any meeting I'd be called in.

Have you forgot the flack that Microsoft received when it implemented a "non finalized" version of the DOM and XSL (because the standards were not there yet)? Do you realize how much work is to support pages and apps that were built during that period so they don't break on newer browsers?

No, unless the standard is baked in, finalized, calcified, we shouldn't touch it.

Note: I have exactly zero input on what goes or not in IE, but this stands for every aspect of the company.

PetKnep
IE7 RTM'd yay!

jsampsonPC wrote:

littleguru wrote: Dang, how much would I like to see an easier (perhaps .NET usable) API to create plugins... That would be the best thing ever. And it's vital for IE. Firefox gets more and more plugins and we get little. Make it easier guys. The old API is just pain.

Boomport wrote: I also totally agree with little guru. Lets see a .net plug in model!

I too agree with Guru on this. A .NET option for creating Plugins would be superb! Just think of the community that would develop if .NET were used to write plugins for IE8+

User-agent: Mary-Jo
Disallow: /

Cool

You already can use .NET to simplify the current COM extension model. The problem is that you run in proc with IE. And one of the limitations of the CLR is that you can only have one per process, so you can't have two plugins that use different CLR versions. Not horrible if you want to do a rapid prototype, but not really viable for production.

So if that hasn't scared you off already, this is an example BHO
http://www.codeproject.com/cs/samples/autosig.asp

/COM interop in C# isn't my favorite chore...

W3bbo
The Master of Baiters

PaoloM wrote:

Tom Servo wrote:
And unless I'm mistaken (I probably am in this case), to have something at W3C turn into a recommendation, one of their standards needs to have two implementations. And it'd be nice if at least SOMEONE starts the homework early, so we don't end up in 2057 until it's supported (see XHTML in IE).

No. No. No. No.

I will personally fight this in any meeting I'd be called in.

Have you forgot the flack that Microsoft received when it implemented a "non finalized" version of the DOM and XSL (because the standards were not there yet)? Do you realize how much work is to support pages and apps that were built during that period so they don't break on newer browsers?

No, unless the standard is baked in, finalized, calcified, we shouldn't touch it.

Note: I have exactly zero input on what goes or not in IE, but this stands for every aspect of the company.

That's two implementations when the specification reaches the "just before Recommendation" stage, XHTML2 isn't even close to that yet. They're still squabbling over the global src="" attribute.

And it's impractical for Microsoft to implement it anyway, there are other companies more suited to the task, however it's a shame that "experimental" UAs don't count. I want to see that reversed.

brian.shapiro
things go on as always

i wish there were such a thing as a standards-agnostic browser, that read a tag somewhere on the page which said which standards it uses and if that spec is not on your computer already it tries to download it, and use that spec as a template