Coffeehouse Thread

74 posts

Forum Read Only

This forum has been made read only by the site admins. No new threads or comments can be added.

Chat with the IE team TOMORROW (Thursday 8th)

Back to Forum: Coffeehouse
  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Jaz wrote:
    can't you just make everyone happy and release IE Beta where it's seperated from IE, isn't really 100% supported but is worked upon as a future version where that yes maybe it breaks 90% of sites but it contains all these features alot of people are crying out for?  surely it wouldn't be that much of a deal to do.



    Hi Jaz,

    The audience that is campaigning so passionately for improved standards compliance is the web development community. For them they need their audience "the general public" to have a browser capabile of rendering the content.
    The users will not update to a browser that is unsupported and does not work with all existing content on the web.

    This is not an easy issue with an easy instant solution, but it is something we take very seriously.

    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    DMassy wrote:
    Thanks Shining.

    "Full standards support" is an interesting term and one that we hear a lot. It is difficult for anyone to disgree with it as it sounds like you might be disagreeing with the idea of world peace.
    It implies support for every recommendation published by the W3C, ECMA and any other standards body. However I should point out that no browser does this, no browser I know of claims to do this and no browser I know of claims this as a goal as there are many standards for different applications and some that are in conflict.
    In your case you have defined a set of specific things you mean by "Full Standards Support". This is very useful feedback because it is specific. However the term "Full Standards Support" is a confusing one to use for the subset of functionality you would specifically like to see supported. 

    We certainly understand the need for us to address issues in this area. I cannot tell you when or how that will happen at this time but I can assure you we have heard the feedback and are taking it seriously.

    When we released Internet Explorer 6 in 2001 it passed the W3C tests for CSS1 compliance. Since that time other browsers have made significant progress in this area and as a result issues have come to light in our implementation. We do understand the need to address these issues. I'm sure you understand that at this stage of our planning I will not be drawn into making a commitment on features and schedule until I am very confident we can keep it.

    Thanks
    -Dave


    Since specific instances are very useful why not create a public xhtml/css bug tracker so people can submit specific instances in which IE fails to render things correctly.

    Also, I recall a member of the IE Team stating in the live chat that Service Packs are their current way of updating IE, so I would like to propose another idea. Hopefully it will make things easier on both web devs and the IE team. Modularize IE so that it's parsers can be updated seperately from the main browser like its XML parser and update them via Windows Update as recommended updates.

    DMassy wrote:
    Hi Jaz,

    The audience that is campaigning so passionately for improved standards compliance is the web development community. For them they need their audience "the general public" to have a browser capabile of rendering the content.
    The users will not update to a browser that is unsupported and does not work with all existing content on the web.

    This is not an easy issue with an easy instant solution, but it is something we take very seriously.

    Thanks
    -Dave


    Do doctypes not take care of this? I was under the impression that this issue is why the W3C (which Microsoft is a member of) created them.

    Edit: Here are a few more issues in IE:
    • This header: "Content-Type: application/xhtml+xml" causes IE to download the page
    • Favicon support is broken

  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Hi shining,
    Thanks for all the feedback. There's actually no need to repeat feedback and specifics that are already in the Wiki here on channel 9 which is where we are collecting individual specific issues.

    "Modularize IE so that it's parsers can be updated seperately from the main browser like its XML parser and update them via Windows Update as recommended updates"
    This idea of modularising the parser is something we have explored in the past and I'd expect us to look at again. However such modularisation has a direct and noticeable affect on performance and so while it may be possible is not necessarily practical.

    "Do doctypes not take care of this? I was under the impression that this issue is why the W3C (which Microsoft is a member of) created them."
    Yes that is correct and as I said before we have used this approach in Internet Explorer 6 and I'd expect to use that same approach again. In that particular post I was pointing out that distributing a new compliant build just to developers would not solve the fundamental issues facing web developers today.

    All this feedback is great but I'm sure you'll understand if you don't see reponses to every issue especially if they have been addressed previously.

    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    ThomasAesir

    Hi DMassy,

    At the moment Web developers are forced to create hacks in order to accommodate  multiple Web browsers.  Writing hacks takes time and time costs money. That's why Web developers advocate standards so vigorously. Not because we're ideological  but simply because it's so inefficient to have to code for multiple browsers.

    You say that Microsoft has been criticized, in the past, for breaking backwards compatibility but do you really think that Microsoft would be criticized trying to adopt the W3C standards?

    Thomas

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Let me give you my own interesting experience related with this issue. I had implemented a complex web app that looks exactly the same on both mozilla and IE. Everything was fine, but then mozilla updated its browser. They fixed a bug that made my whole app not function anymore. I was this close to drop support for mozilla, because I had no clue where the problem is, it was a very weird problem. Nevertheless, because I use Linux I spent some few days and fixed the bug playing with css etc... I was really very close to dropping support for Mozilla, because later on I changed my computer and the new computer was running Windows XP. I talked to mozilla developers in irc, but they really dont seem to care about these type of problems. They simply want to improve their browser and don't care about these problems much. Previously their small install base helped them a lot to make their browser better and better, but at the same time so many bashers on the web bashed Microsoft for not making its browser any better. By the way, the bug that is being fixed was a very simple thing, but clearly it costed me days to fix.

    Once I had this experience, I can't bet my company on mozilla. Because mozilla developers do not care about backward compatability. There are so many other problems with the mozilla project, but they just don't have the same respect to customers Microsoft has. I use Firefox, I develop my apps for both mozilla and IE, but I dont trust Mozilla at all. The only reason I have supported it because it is the only decent browser available for Linux. Mozilla developers seem to enjoy the attention they are getting on the web and media, and they seem to be focused more on bashing Microsoft. Sooner or later they will realize that people just don't like this crap, business is business. Once I design a web app, I expect it to work for years, W3C or any other reason means nothing to me. Mozilla shouldn't be working for W3C, it should be working for us, users, designers. Clearly the web doesn't respresent the real world.

    Another experience I had was, my web app didn't work properly on Windows ME with IE 6. Supposedely my web app should work on IE 6, because it does work on IE 6 on Windows XP. So this is frustrating. Clearly something is wrong with upgrading to IE 6 on Windows ME. So these issues are extremely important, I can't buy bunch of equipment, install bunch of Oses to each of them with different configurations, different versions and try my web app to each of them. As soon as, Microsoft listents to critics who pressure them to make IE incompatible Microsoft will definitely lose customers.

  • User profile image
    sbc

    I don't see how implementing some useful CSS properties will break any sites, as you can't use them in IE anyway.
    e.g.

    • min-width
    • min-height
    • max-width
    • max-height
    • :hover on elements other than <a>
    • alpha png support
    Just implementing these could improve sites a lot. min/max-width/height would allow sites to have truely flowing layouts (as the designer could make sure a design does not get too small/big). :hover on any element would allow a lot more creativity and it would negate the need to use javascript in many circumstances. CSS driven menus would be possible without resorting to hacks.

    Of course hacks would still be needed but if IE is delayed so much it will fall further and further behind and useful CSS will only work with other browsers. The sooner IE gets updated the better.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Even though I hate my web apps to break and completely understand this concern, I agree with sbc that some features can be added without affecting any web app. You guys know it better than us of course, but you can already do min-width etc... with current IE, it is simply about implementing these properly. I wish I join you and fix those problems myself.

  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Hi SBC,

    I don't think we have ever said we couldn't or wouldn't implement these features because of compatibility concerns. Indeed I have repaetedly pointed to the use of DOCTYPE as the solution we used in IE6 and are likely to use again.
    It has been proposed in this forum and elsewhere that compatibility is something we should not be concerned about and websites should change to be standards compliant. I was pointing out that compatibility will always be a very high priority for us and for very good reason.

    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Keskos wrote:
    Let me give you my own interesting experience related with this issue. I had implemented a complex web app that looks exactly the same on both mozilla and IE. Everything was fine, but then mozilla updated its browser. They fixed a bug that made my whole app not function anymore. I was this close to drop support for mozilla, because I had no clue where the problem is, it was a very weird problem. Nevertheless, because I use Linux I spent some few days and fixed the bug playing with css etc... I was really very close to dropping support for Mozilla, because later on I changed my computer and the new computer was running Windows XP. I talked to mozilla developers in irc, but they really dont seem to care about these type of problems. They simply want to improve their browser and don't care about these problems much. Previously their small install base helped them a lot to make their browser better and better, but at the same time so many bashers on the web bashed Microsoft for not making its browser any better. By the way, the bug that is being fixed was a very simple thing, but clearly it costed me days to fix.

    Once I had this experience, I can't bet my company on mozilla. Because mozilla developers do not care about backward compatability. There are so many other problems with the mozilla project, but they just don't have the same respect to customers Microsoft has. I use Firefox, I develop my apps for both mozilla and IE, but I dont trust Mozilla at all. The only reason I have supported it because it is the only decent browser available for Linux. Mozilla developers seem to enjoy the attention they are getting on the web and media, and they seem to be focused more on bashing Microsoft. Sooner or later they will realize that people just don't like this crap, business is business. Once I design a web app, I expect it to work for years, W3C or any other reason means nothing to me. Mozilla shouldn't be working for W3C, it should be working for us, users, designers. Clearly the web doesn't respresent the real world.

    Another experience I had was, my web app didn't work properly on Windows ME with IE 6. Supposedely my web app should work on IE 6, because it does work on IE 6 on Windows XP. So this is frustrating. Clearly something is wrong with upgrading to IE 6 on Windows ME. So these issues are extremely important, I can't buy bunch of equipment, install bunch of Oses to each of them with different configurations, different versions and try my web app to each of them. As soon as, Microsoft listents to critics who pressure them to make IE incompatible Microsoft will definitely lose customers.


    The entire idea of standards is so that applications last for years and are easy to maintain and update. If you can't code according to them, you can't depend on your application working for years. There are some articles on this that I can link you to:

    http://www.alistapart.com/articles/journey/
    http://www.alistapart.com/articles/tohell/

    By the way, you shot yourself in the foot. You can't expect the web to be at a standstill for years and even then, after those years are finished, what about the people that just coded with the coding practices a browser from the previous decade created by ruining the spec? Wait, a few more years keeping the web at a standstill? At that rate, the web would be the same way it is today a century from now. Old things are sacraficed for new and better things, much like High Definition TV and Standard Definition TV. Forward compatibility on the web is very important as things can move forward, with your site still displaying properly. This is why we have standards and doctypes. While an old standard can still be parsed properly (due to the doctype), new ones (which are superior) can also be parsed due to its doctype.

    I did say that standards made things (such as completely overhauling your site's presentation) easy so I will link you to an example of how easy it can be:

    http://www.csszengarden.com/

    sbc wrote:
    I don't see how implementing some useful CSS properties will break any sites, as you can't use them in IE anyway.
    e.g.
    • min-width
    • min-height
    • max-width
    • max-height
    • :hover on elements other than <a>
    • alpha png support
    Just implementing these could improve sites a lot. min/max-width/height would allow sites to have truely flowing layouts (as the designer could make sure a design does not get too small/big). :hover on any element would allow a lot more creativity and it would negate the need to use javascript in many circumstances. CSS driven menus would be possible without resorting to hacks.

    Of course hacks would still be needed but if IE is delayed so much it will fall further and further behind and useful CSS will only work with other browsers. The sooner IE gets updated the better.


    I agree.

    Keskos wrote:
    Even though I hate my web apps to break and completely understand this concern, I agree with sbc that some features can be added without affecting any web app. You guys know it better than us of course, but you can already do min-width etc... with current IE, it is simply about implementing these properly. I wish I join you and fix those problems myself.


    If they're not implemented properly, we'll have even more problems later.

    DMassy wrote:
    Hi SBC,

    I don't think we have ever said we couldn't or wouldn't implement these features because of compatibility concerns. Indeed I have repaetedly pointed to the use of DOCTYPE as the solution we used in IE6 and are likely to use again.


    I don't think that any web developers that honestly care about standards said that you should make the quirks mode standards compliant. Web developers have repeatly pointed out that the standards mode must be standards compliant and couldn't care less about quirks mode.

    DMassy wrote:
    It has been proposed in this forum and elsewhere that compatibility is something we should not be concerned about and websites should change to be standards compliant. I was pointing out that compatibility will always be a very high priority for us and for very good reason.

    Thanks
    -Dave


    I'd suggest having a public beta so web developers can check to see if IE is properly rendering the CSS attributes that you add. That would ensure that you will not have to worry about correcting your implementation of these attributes in standards mode. This might be easier on everyone if you modularized the CSS parser (easier for you to update it and easier for people to revert back to the production one).

  • User profile image
    jonathanh

    The chat made eWeek and Microsoft Watch: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1621558,00.asp

    (Although I don't remember seeing Mary Jo Foley in the audience Smiley)

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    jonathanh wrote:

    The chat made eWeek and Microsoft Watch: http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1621558,00.asp

    (Although I don't remember seeing Mary Jo Foley in the audience Smiley)



    Not Microsoft Watch. -_-

  • User profile image
    DMassy

    Shining Arcanine wrote:

    I'd suggest having a public beta so web developers can check to see if IE is properly rendering the CSS attributes that you add. That would ensure that you will not have to worry about correcting your implementation of these attributes in standards mode. This might be easier on everyone if you modularized the CSS parser (easier for you to update it and easier for people to revert back to the production one).



    We've certainly had public betas in the past. Feedback during the beta period of a product is very much appreciated, especially early in the beta cycle as it gives us time to respond.

    Thanks
    -Dave

  • User profile image
    Larry​Osterman

    Manip wrote:
    But FireFox fixes most of these issues and that doesn't break sites. I mean of course some don't work and others look slightly odd but 90% work perfectly.


    Manip, did you forget the <dripping with irony> tags in your post?

    If Microsoft made that change, then 10% of the web sites would stop working.

    And people would SCREAM!

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Keskos wrote:
    "The entire idea of standards is so that applications last for years and are easy to maintain and update."

    Shinin, I very much understand your effort to promote something, but you are dismissing our concerns and you almost want us to worship W3C. If you care to listen to my concerns and stop worshipping W3C, then we can all mutually move forward and make progress.


    If there is no standard way of doing things, there will be no way to address your concerns while ensuring a bright future. And I do not want anyone to worship the W3C but there must be something that creates a standard way of doing things since if there isn't, nothing would ever get done. I know that people don't always like how things must be done but if they were done 10 years ago, you wouldn't be complaining about backwards compatibility now and the web would be less of a mess. If something is done now, 10 years from now, the web will be less of a mess and backwards compatibility wouldn't be an issue. If nothing is done now, the web will exponentially get worse and backwards compatibility will continue to be an issue.

    Your site is one of the sites that use quirks mode, am I correct? Well if that is so, you have no guarentee whether or not your site will work well in tomorrow's browser (as there is no spec to code according to) although I'm sure every effort will be made to ensure that quirks mode stays the same.

    Keskos wrote:
    First of all, "the entire idea of standards is so that applications last for years" is not meaningful. When someone publishes a specification, all it means is that programmers will try their best to implement it as correctly as possible. As you know, IE was the first browser that implemented the W3C's specifications. All other browsers played a catch up with IE, only very recently Mozilla fully caught up with IE, from almost every angle. So what happened is that, some people still didn't even migrate to IE 6 where developers can use better standard complaince techniques, yet people still bash Microsoft for IE 5.5. You can write pretty much complaint pages with IE 6, sure there are bugs but it is stupid to bash Microsoft for those bugs. Mozilla supposedely tried to implement specification as best as it can, but whenever it fixes its own bugs, it breaks apps. So there is no such thing as , if you try to implement standards fully, you will be automatically immune to these problems. I think what you are talking about is probably, if you write to the specification, because people stick to the specifications, you will not have a problem, but what you miss is that browsers are not pefect, they have bugs. When you design something, you try to make it work. I have enough experience to know many mozilla bugs, and what I do is work around them. If Mozilla fixes those bugs in the future, I dont want my app to stop working. So they have to be careful whenever they fix bugs. I can't go to the source code every time I mozilla release a new browser. In some cases, the code is spit out by bunch of classes, I don't even remember which class spits out which code. There are so many number of solutions like that which are complex.


    I don't see how coding your site according to a specification will cause it to become broken when x browser's developers fix a flaw it their browser's support of that specification.

    Keskos wrote:
    But, if you attack Microsoft on the point that they didn't update their browser to fix some of these problems, I am with you. I think the defense that IE is tied to Windows thus they can't update is totally BS. I don't buy it. I don't think Microsoft listens to customers here. I think Microsoft probably doesn't update IE because of different priority issues. Because now they are going to support XAML in the future version of IE, they probably don't want to divide developers' effort there. I definitely want to write web apps that are easier to design, maintain etc.. I think if Microsoft makes a little effort, not much, they can create an IE which will make it much easier for us to worry about differences between browsers and much easier to design. I like IE a lot, it is a fantastic browser, but I think there are some untouched issues that I believe IE team can easily implement. If we stick to the real issues, which I believe you do in most of the cases, except this near-worship love to W3C, we can achieve better results.


    If Microsoft did update their browser, right now I wouldn't be in this thread regarding its standards support. Infact, the reason why I'm not talking about Windows XP's security is because they are doing something.

    I agree with you regarding everything in that paragraph except for the last sentence because the W3C is supposed to resolve these issues.

    Keskos wrote:
    Remember that, many people bash Microsoft anyway, and frankly I can easily say that 99 out of 100 Microsoft bashings are plain stupid. I don't think you are a Microsoft basher, it seems to me you are very much sincere in your effort, and good for you, because I also want many of the features you want. But I disagree with you on the point that I should be following W3C all the time even though they screw things up and never ever criticize them because they are immune to that.


    You're right, many of the people that attack Microsoft make groundless claims.

    Also, I never said that you should follow them all the time and never criticize them. Personally, I really dislike CSS 2.1 and think that it should have never been made. It lowers the amount of tools that developers will have in the future. I also partially blame Microsoft (but not as much as I blame the W3C) for CSS 2.1 as it was made because certain browsers did not support CSS2. I find breaking backwards compatibility in a specification that was supposed to always be backwards compatible unacceptable.

    Keskos wrote:
    " By the way, you shot yourself in the foot. You can't expect the web to be at a standstill for years and even then, after those years are finished, what about the people that just coded with the coding practices a browser from the previous decade created by ruining the spec? "

    I think you are missing the issues here. First of all, we are pretty much still now. Most of the sites still use HTML 4 and higher. Even browser makers didn't upgrade to XHTML fully. Check out what David Hyatt says on extending HTML  http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/hyatt/archives/2004_07.html#005928 . He essentially says that, XHTML support is still not there. He mentions real world standards and calls people who don't want such standards to be supported in Safari as people that are out of touch with reality. He extended HTML for their proprietary  Dashboard application and submitted the changes to WHAT-WG. He says that, he can't implement SVG quickly, but that they need 2 years to properly implement Dashboard support with XHTML and SVG. This is the guy who is working for another browser. He clearly says that backward compatibility is more important than forward compatibility. You don't sacrifice old things for the new things. Ok, because I assume you don't like Microsoft example, check out what Apple has done when it moved forward with MacOS X. They introduced a nesty layer for MacOS 9 apps. If they said what you are telling us, customers would show Apple their middle fingers. This is how life works. I think you have never implemented a software product and supported it successfully in your life. People don't want to listen to your ideals, they don't care, I don't care. It has to work. We don't have time to fix our code everytime you think we should move forward and as I mentioned you can't write a browser that gets everything right the first time you implement it. You are going to make bugs the first time you release it and you have to think about those bugs for your second release. When Microsoft released IE first, they specifically duplicated the bugs in Netscape. Think about that. This is what software engineering is about.


    I didn't say that you should sacrafice old things for new things when you can have both but I also didn't say that new things should be sacraficed for old things when you can't have both.

    I know that XHTML support isn't there. That is why I'm restricting myself to what is in both XHTML 1.1 and HTML 4.01 when I code my site.

    I know that you don't have time to fix your code everytime someone thinks you should move forward. That is why you must fix your code because if you do, you will be able to continue to code according to the specifications that you chose to code according to for a very long time (as long as both browsers exist and browser makers keep support for those specifications). If you don't code according to a specification like much of the web does, every time a browser update comes out with changes to the parser, chances are that it will break something as there is no feasible way to ensure that everything will be rendered the same without some specification that both parties could ensure compliance with.

    I know that Microsoft will make every effort to keep the quirks mode the same and I appaud them for that effort but it is not wise to rely on the fact that they are trying to keep a specificationless way of coding alive. This is why I tell them that they must fix standards mode even if sites that rely on an incompliance with x specification will be broken by fixing standards mode.

    Keskos wrote:
    Alistapart and csszengarden are cool and helpful sites, but these people are only one of the hundrends of HTML, XHTML, CSS sites on the net. They made a name for themselves by virtually doing nothing much but saying the obvious thing. They say they are doing something, but so far I haven't seen any specific action taken because of these guys. Furthermore, they are completely out of touch with reality. Initially Zeldman started that site, he is an intelligent guy, and at the time it was about moving away from Netscape 4. Later on so many Microsoft bashers joined that, it virtually lost its core message. It become an attraction for Microsoft bashers. Zeldman also stopped participating in Alistapart later. They don't do anything in particular, lots of them are promoting themselves, Zeldman published a book using the word "standard" in the title of the book. That's really lame, because almost all HTML, XHTML books are about standards. There is no separate thing as standard. Even though technically the book doesn't offer much, people intentionally praise the book because they think it is like a religion, something you have to approve by heart even if it doesn't make sense. Later on their message turned into, hey don't use anything except what we think is standard. For example they think using tables are not standard, even though it is in the standard. They are part of this culture who thinks that it is cool to put a link to creative commons web site. They link to sites like cnet, eweek, wired etc... They will have a heart attack if their little web page doesn't validate. They threaten to stop supporting IE in their sites, they rant all day long. Most of them like macs, they use macs, they bash Microsoft, etc... What I am trying to say is that, that culture doesn't represent where the world stands today. They are noisy, but they are not the world. You can find a similar situation with respect to operating system choice. Go to the web, similar sites, you will find out that macs are better in every respect, but people don't switch to Macs and certainly it  is not better.


    You say that you haven't seen a specific action taken because of people such as Zeldman. Where were you when Mozilla/Netscape and Opera were fixing their compliance with the specification in standards mode? Where were you when I was writing my site from scratch so it complied with HTML 4.01 and made use of external CSS1 stylesheets? Where were you when thousands hundreds of thousands of sites fixed their code to comply with a specification because of these people?

    Keskos wrote:
    The real decision makers are people using these technologies. That means millions of people around the world. You got to listen to what they say, and even though I can easily bash Microsoft here, I am reasonable enough to know that the minute they break my apps I am going to be upset about them, because I don't have time to deal with those old programs now. I am also giving you the proof that this is not about Microsoft, but all software producers, because they don't get it right the first time. Check out bugzilla, mozilla still has many bugs to fix, including about standards support.


    If you don't vote on election day and you don't like the results of an election, you have no right to complain. If you don't comply with a specification and your site breaks in a new version of x browser, you have no right to complain. If you vote on election day and you don't like the results of an election, you have every right to complain. If you comply with a specification and your site breaks in a new version of x browser, you have every right to complain.

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    LarryOsterman wrote:
    Manip wrote:But FireFox fixes most of these issues and that doesn't break sites. I mean of course some don't work and others look slightly odd but 90% work perfectly.


    Manip, did you forget the <dripping with irony> tags in your post?

    If Microsoft made that change, then 10% of the web sites would stop working.

    And people would SCREAM!


    I doubt that 10% of the websites that are already broken would stop working and people are already screaming because the IE Team isn't fixing things.

  • User profile image
    Keskos

    Shining, I believe you have lack of experience in software business, or developing a product that mass number of people use.

    " If there is no standard way of doing things, there will be no way to address your concerns while ensuring a bright future."

    Standards etc... mean nothing to people. People use applications and they have zero tolerance when things stop working.

    "If something is done now, 10 years from now, the web will be less of a mess and backwards compatibility wouldn't be an issue."

    People are already working on these now as you know. So there is nothing new that has to be done now. IE developers are working, Mozilla developers are working, W3C is working etc...

    "If nothing is done now, the web will exponentially get worse and backwards compatibility will continue to be an issue."

    Wrong! One of the important reasons why we don't see independent developers developing for Linux is that some developers responsible for core libraries break things, because they improve them. Miguel De Icaza is the person who tells this. Windows still run DOS apps, even though it is a huge overhead, yet Windows gets better and better with every release. There is no such thing as backwards compatibility will create havoc in the future. I think what you are saying is FUD. You just try to scare people for no good reason. Also you make all sorts of wrong assumptions. We have this new XHTML, but what's the advantage of using XHTML over HTML. There is no clear advantage, in fact it has all sorts of disadvantages. It is harder to write there are less number of tags, so it is not straightforward to move HTML to XHTML. Browsers support HTML better than they support XHTML. Besides, so many people make so many mistakes that, XHTML just doesn't work for them.
    " I don't see how coding your site according to a specification will cause it to become broken when x browser's developers fix a flaw it their browser's support of that specification"

    That's probably because you haven't developed a complex program yourself or didn't have deep experience with html or xhtml. There are all sorts of things going on there. It is so complex that, one specific set of tags working great doesn't work that much great if you mix it with other tags. There are lots of weird bugs. Try to go a little deeper than what you read on alistapart. Believe me, it is extremely frustrating, there is no perfect browser out there. So far I like mozilla and IE only. Safari is coming strong, but the last time I checked it wasnt' there yet. Opera is nowhere near IE or Mozilla.

    " I agree with you regarding everything in that paragraph except for the last sentence because the W3C is supposed to resolve these issues"

    Look, W3C doesn't implement browsers. Implementing a browser is something different than producing specifications. W3C wasn't even able to resolve the problems I am having with Mozilla and yet you claim that it resolves problem. It doesn't do anything, all it does is produce guidelines, specifications. Specifications don't talk about which bugs you should have only, how bugs should be ordered. These things make it very hard for us to properly code for browsers, because each browser has its own bugs with different quantities.

    " I know that you don't have time to fix your code everytime someone thinks you should move forward. That is why you must fix your code because if you do, you will be able to continue to code according to the specifications that you chose to code according to for a very long time (as long as both browsers exist and browser makers keep support for those specifications)"

    First of all, my site already works with Mozilla. What do you want me to fix there? I already learned the specification in detail, and use it extensively. However, before the version change in mozilla, I also thought I did, but Mozilla developers decided to fix a bug and screw me. Developing for two browsers is already a pain in the *, developing for arrogant developers who refuse to respect their own users is even more painful. Mozilla developers are like new pop stars thank think everybody worships them thus they are immune to criticism.

    "This is why I tell them that they must fix standards mode even if sites that rely on an incompliance with x specification will be broken by fixing standards mode."

    I think you don't understand what this means. It is an insult to your users. It is like saying f*** off to your users. People don't care about moral issues like standards or whatever you want to call it. If you modify C++ specification and modify all new compilers so that they refuse to compile old C++ code, I am going to be very very mad. You can't tell me that the new stuff is much better, I just don't care. It doesn't matter one bit whether it is 1000 times superior, yet there is no clear advantage to the new stuff (XHTML) on the web. XHTML is something done to please computers, not people. The only nice thing is CSS, and people use it extensively. You just can't tell people to work on their old sites to make it work in new browsers. It is meaningless and suicidal. People will refuse you, they will kick your * Smiley


    " You say that you haven't seen a specific action taken because of people such as Zeldman. Where were you when Mozilla/Netscape and Opera were fixing their compliance with the specification in standards mode? Where were you when I was writing my site from scratch so it complied with HTML 4.01 and made use of external CSS1 stylesheets? Where were you when thousands hundreds of thousands of sites fixed their code to comply with a specification because of these people?"

    What are you talking about? Are you worshipping Zeldman? Where was I? What kind of a question is that? Here is the situation. Imagine bunch of workers fixing road and assume that I am cheering near the road telling workers that they got to fix the road because cars are passing from there, it would be dangerous if they don't do it etc... I go to town and give conferences to people that worker have to fix the road because of this and that. I spread the word and eventually workers finish their work, fix the road and then all of a sudden I become a hero, because I spent so much effort to make them fix the road. That's what Zeldman did.

    I have used CSS, not because Zeldman told me to do it, because that's a better way of doing it. If you are acting because Zeldman told to do so, that's your problem. I have seen CSS sites before I have seen Alistapart and these standards zealots. I liked css and never thought that I was being complaint with standards or anything like that. It was all about making things easier for me. I tried several times doing without tables, not because I believed what these zealots were saying, but I find it to be much more easier to construct a layout using divs. I mean, these people had zero effect on me, and they might have effect on you, but that doesn't mean that you would never choose the right way of doing things if it wasn't Zeldman. You seem to think that, only people reading alistapart are using css and standards. Standards has nothing to do with those people. Anybody can go and use them. Hundreds of thousands of sites fixed their code because of Zeldman? Now I am sure you are smoking pot here. You are reading too much online content my friend. There are millions of people who use css etc... because they read about them in so many places and zeldman is not the only person writing about it. Zealots are not the only people talking about css, they simply talk more about this abstract thing called standards. I am a user of css, but for some reason I got to worship Zeldman if I truly want to be standard complaint it seems according to you. If you truly believe that, frankly I think Zeldman did a great job of associating the word standard with himself. I think you are not normal if you think that somehow we should be all thankful to Zeldman for bringing standards to the web. There were hundrends of books talking about CSS, HTML, XHTML without mentioning the word standards. This is all about doing something, zealots destroyed the meaning of standard. You are using the word as if it is God and in many cases in a stupid way, like Zeldman brought us this, as if he is the messenger of God and thus we should worship him too. Stop smoking pot and reading too much web I think you will be fine again. I see the overuse of standards only from zealots, not from normal people. When you explain what CSS is, you don't repeat standard over and over again. Zeldman's book which is supposed to be about web design is wasting half of itself just to explain what standards mean etc... The book's title is "standards". Give me a break here. The guy is trying to play the role of prophets here. He is trying to be this nice guy who simply want to save your soul by spreading the word of God, sorry I meant standards, even though all he is going to talk about is the CSS technology and HTML/XHTML. There is nothing more to that, yet it seems that he was able to convince so many poor souls over the net that he plays a bigger role in css, html and xhtml. I don't think you are normal on thes issues.

    You seem to be hyped a lot about these things, thinking that there is a separate abstract thing called standards and that everybody has to worship it in such a way that we can't do anything outside of it, we have to strictly follow it, and as the messeger of standards we have to worship Zeldman and buy his book which talks about God, ops I mean standards. Oh, yeah, Zeldman is not distributing his book for free, but as the messenger of God, that's acceptable, right? When the God changes things, we have to follow his new orders and drop whatever we have adopted before. This is all crazy. You are not talking about css, html, xhtml anymore, you seem to be in a different world now.

    " If you don't vote on election day and you don't like the results of an election, you have no right to complain. If you don't comply with a specification and your site breaks in a new version of x browser, you have no right to complain. If you vote on election day and you don't like the results of an election, you have every right to complain. If you comply with a specification and your site breaks in a new version of x browser, you have every right to complain."

    I vote every day by using or not using specific technologies, browsers. So far I rejected XHTML. I rejected Opera. I accepted IE and Mozilla. I definitely vote. I have every right to complain if a new version of browser doesn't show my page properly. Standards is not God my friend, you should definitely stop smoking here. I can question, complain about everything related with W3C, and browsers. I dare to see a browser that will attempt to break my site. Mozilla breaks my site, because it is not used extensively. People are using browsers to access such sites, they are not just using browsers. Browsers are tools, not the goal. W3C is also a tool, not the goal. The goal here is people. People is the God, not the W3C.

  • User profile image
    manickernel

    uhh Keskos.... spell check is great..... too bad they don't have "logic check"

  • User profile image
    Shining Arcanine

    Keskos wrote:
    Shining, I believe you have lack of experience in software business, or developing a product that mass number of people use.


    If lacking experience means failing to see the future, you're right.

    Keskos wrote:
    " If there is no standard way of doing things, there will be no way to address your concerns while ensuring a bright future."

    Standards etc... mean nothing to people. People use applications and they have zero tolerance when things stop working.


    What would you say if God decided to make the physics of every area 5 ft away from another area different? A standard way of things is important?

    Keskos wrote:
    "If something is done now, 10 years from now, the web will be less of a mess and backwards compatibility wouldn't be an issue."

    People are already working on these now as you know. So there is nothing new that has to be done now. IE developers are working, Mozilla developers are working, W3C is working etc...


    The IE developers' atitude towards compatibility with broken standards support in standards mode being their #1 concern when fixing things will not help the matter.

    Keskos wrote:
    "If nothing is done now, the web will exponentially get worse and backwards compatibility will continue to be an issue."

    Wrong! One of the important reasons why we don't see independent developers developing for Linux is that some developers responsible for core libraries break things, because they improve them. Miguel De Icaza is the person who tells this. Windows still run DOS apps, even though it is a huge overhead, yet Windows gets better and better with every release. There is no such thing as backwards compatibility will create havoc in the future. I think what you are saying is FUD. You just try to scare people for no good reason. Also you make all sorts of wrong assumptions. We have this new XHTML, but what's the advantage of using XHTML over HTML. There is no clear advantage, in fact it has all sorts of disadvantages. It is harder to write there are less number of tags, so it is not straightforward to move HTML to XHTML. Browsers support HTML better than they support XHTML. Besides, so many people make so many mistakes that, XHTML just doesn't work for them.


    If all sites were written to a specification and browsers had proper support for it, we wouldn't have any of these problems.

    Keskos wrote:
    " I don't see how coding your site according to a specification will cause it to become broken when x browser's developers fix a flaw it their browser's support of that specification"

    That's probably because you haven't developed a complex program yourself or didn't have deep experience with html or xhtml. There are all sorts of things going on there. It is so complex that, one specific set of tags working great doesn't work that much great if you mix it with other tags. There are lots of weird bugs. Try to go a little deeper than what you read on alistapart. Believe me, it is extremely frustrating, there is no perfect browser out there. So far I like mozilla and IE only. Safari is coming strong, but the last time I checked it wasnt' there yet. Opera is nowhere near IE or Mozilla.


    As an astronomer did with his law of equal space, I did with that sentence. It has a hidden meaning and you need to understand the sentence to understand the meaning and doing so would cause you to agree with me. Even through this won't help matters, I'll spell it out for you.

    If the website is coded according to the specification and the browser was coded according to the specification, it would render properly. If the browser was not coded exactly according to the specification, the site would not view correctly but would view correctly when the browser is fixed. This is why I don't see how coding your site according to a specification will cause it to become broken in the future. However, coding your site according to what a browser renders (like you have done) and not to the spec is likely to cause it to become broken in the future.

    Keskos wrote:
    " I agree with you regarding everything in that paragraph except for the last sentence because the W3C is supposed to resolve these issues"

    Look, W3C doesn't implement browsers. Implementing a browser is something different than producing specifications. W3C wasn't even able to resolve the problems I am having with Mozilla and yet you claim that it resolves problem. It doesn't do anything, all it does is produce guidelines, specifications. Specifications don't talk about which bugs you should have only, how bugs should be ordered. These things make it very hard for us to properly code for browsers, because each browser has its own bugs with different quantities.


    Actually, they do considering the W3C consists of companies and organizations such as Microsoft, Opera and Mozilla.

    Since you seem to care about whether or not your site works in tomorrow's browser, I'll tell you what to do to ensure that it works in tomorrow's browser. Go to the Firefox/Mozilla forums or talk to one of the Firefox/Mozilla developers and say: "I've been coding without standards for a really long time and I'm sick of my site's lack of forward compatibility. My site uses <insert technologies here>, would you mind linking me to the specifications revelent to me?" I'm sure that they would be overjoyed to help you out. And yes, you'll have to go through compatibility charts to see which browser supports what and it will take longer because browsers have broken standards support (which is why I'm here now) but in the end you'll be a much happier person.

    Keskos wrote:
    " I know that you don't have time to fix your code everytime someone thinks you should move forward. That is why you must fix your code because if you do, you will be able to continue to code according to the specifications that you chose to code according to for a very long time (as long as both browsers exist and browser makers keep support for those specifications)"

    First of all, my site already works with Mozilla. What do you want me to fix there? I already learned the specification in detail, and use it extensively. However, before the version change in mozilla, I also thought I did, but Mozilla developers decided to fix a bug and screw me. Developing for two browsers is already a pain in the *, developing for arrogant developers who refuse to respect their own users is even more painful. Mozilla developers are like new pop stars thank think everybody worships them thus they are immune to criticism.


    I'll admit Open Source developers are mostly jerks (which is why I don't like them) but they are doing something Microsoft is failing to do. Puting standards in standards mode ahead of compatibility when you cannot have both due to a browser bug.

    Keskos wrote:
    "This is why I tell them that they must fix standards mode even if sites that rely on an incompliance with x specification will be broken by fixing standards mode."

    I think you don't understand what this means. It is an insult to your users. It is like saying f*** off to your users. People don't care about moral issues like standards or whatever you want to call it. If you modify C++ specification and modify all new compilers so that they refuse to compile old C++ code, I am going to be very very mad. You can't tell me that the new stuff is much better, I just don't care. It doesn't matter one bit whether it is 1000 times superior, yet there is no clear advantage to the new stuff (XHTML) on the web. XHTML is something done to please computers, not people. The only nice thing is CSS, and people use it extensively. You just can't tell people to work on their old sites to make it work in new browsers. It is meaningless and suicidal. People will refuse you, they will kick your * Smiley


    Microsoft already did that, it is called Visual Basic.NET and I think the IE team should learn a few things from the Visual Basic.NET team...

    Keskos wrote:
    " You say that you haven't seen a specific action taken because of people such as Zeldman. Where were you when Mozilla/Netscape and Opera were fixing their compliance with the specification in standards mode? Where were you when I was writing my site from scratch so it complied with HTML 4.01 and made use of external CSS1 stylesheets? Where were you when thousands hundreds of thousands of sites fixed their code to comply with a specification because of these people?"

    What are you talking about? Are you worshipping Zeldman? Where was I? What kind of a question is that? Here is the situation. Imagine bunch of workers fixing road and assume that I am cheering near the road telling workers that they got to fix the road because cars are passing from there, it would be dangerous if they don't do it etc... I go to town and give conferences to people that worker have to fix the road because of this and that. I spread the word and eventually workers finish their work, fix the road and then all of a sudden I become a hero, because I spent so much effort to make them fix the road. That's what Zeldman did.


    Would you cut it out with the worshipping garabage? Every time I say something you say "are you worshipping <insert organization/company/person/group/whatever here>" or "are you smoking." I find it to be very immature but if you are trying to give me the impression that you have maturity issues you are doing a very good job of it.

    In regard to the rest of your post, please refer back to that last paragraph.

Conversation locked

This conversation has been locked by the site admins. No new comments can be made.