Free Power Tools Brochure
Get Mark Minasi's
17-page guide today!



      

advertisement

Get Newsletters

  • Get the Latest News
  • Product Updates
  • Helpful Tricks
  • Productivity Tips

Subscribe Now!

August 02, 2005 01:02 PM

IE 7.0 Technical Changes Leave Web Developers, Users in the Lurch

Rating: (0)
Windows IT Pro
InstantDoc ID #47208

In a recent blog posting , Microsoft Internet Explorer (IE) Lead Program Manager Chris Wilson revealed many of the technical improvements that Microsoft will add to IE 7.0 for its final release. Almost all the improvements are related to bugs in IE's implementation of Cascading Style Sheets (CSS), an HTML-like technology that Web developers use to create Web sites. Many of these bugs aren't fixed in the currently available IE 7.0 Beta 1 release, Wilson noted. Wilson's post raises some serious questions about IE 7.0, not the least of which is this: If IE 7.0 Beta 1 doesn't include the fixes that most Web developers need, why did Microsoft release IE 7.0 Beta 1 only to a small group of Web developers and other testers, not to the general public as originally promised?
   
Wilson's post is disappointing because Microsoft doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE 7.0. Instead of using well-established Web standards, IE 7.0 will continue to foist proprietary technologies on Web developers, forcing them to choose between two competing ways of creating Web sites. "In IE 7.0, we will fix as many of the worst bugs that Web developers hit as we can, and we will add the critical most-requested features from the standards as well," Wilson said. "Our intent is to build a platform that fully complies with the appropriate Web standards, in particular CSS 2. I think we will make a lot of progress against that in IE 7.0 through our goal of removing the worst painful bugs that make our platform difficult to use for Web developers."

The most critical point in Wilson's post, in my mind, is Microsoft's admission that it will fail the crucial Acid2 browser-compliance test , which the Web Standards Project (WaSP) designed to help browser vendors ensure that their products properly support Web standards. Microsoft apparently disagrees. "Acid2 ... is pointedly not a compliance check," Wilson noted, contradicting the description on the Acid2 Web site. "As a wish list, [Acid2] is really important and useful to my team, but it isn't even intended, in my understanding, as our priority list for IE 7.0." Meanwhile, other browser teams have made significant efforts to comply with Acid2.
   
Microsoft blames backward-compatibility problems for the stalemate over true Web standards compatibility. Put succinctly, the company has gone its own way for so long and now has to support so many developers who use nonstandard Web technologies that it will be impossible to make IE Web-standards-compliant without breaking half the commercial Web sites on the planet. Furthermore, by halting all IE development for several years before reconstituting the IE team to create IE 7.0, Microsoft has set back Web development by an immeasurable amount of time.
  
My advice is simple: Boycott IE. It's a cancer on the Web that must be stopped. IE isn't secure and isn't standards-compliant, which makes it unworkable both for end users and Web content creators. Because of their user bases, however, Web developers are hamstrung into developing for IE at the expense of established standards that work well in all other browsers. You can turn the tide by demanding more from Microsoft and by using a better alternative Web browser. I recommend and use Mozilla Firefox, but Apple Safari (Macintosh only) and Opera 8 are both worth considering as well.
  
I'll update my IE 7.0 preview on the SuperSite for Windows today to reflect recent IE 7.0 developments. My IE 7.0 review will be available later this week.

ARTICLE TOOLS

Add a Comment

1) It looks like someone changed the article. It does not say "equally well" anywhere.

2) If IE 7 is standards compliant, and a web site breaks, then it was already broken. That is no excuse to forego compliance in IE. Microsoft is just making up excuses for trying to lock people in to their product. Btw, if you use Windows, you are not as locked in as you might think.

3) Fortunately, IE 6 (and I assume IE 7, since they say it is more compliant) is close enough to standards compliance that a web site can be standards-compliant, and then make a few minor adjustments to still be usable in IE (and the site can remain compliant). Yes, it would be nice if web site designers did not have to custom tailor for IE, but it's not like web site designers can't use standards compliance without breaking IE. They can both be achieved. Web site designers that design standards non-compliant sites are just lazy/stupid/ignorant. It has been a long time since I worried and fretted over supporting multiple browsers. It is pretty easy.

4) A boycott on IE? That seems kind of redundant. I mean, anyone who knows what a browser is is using something else anyway. That would be like boycotting glass chewing, or placing a boycott on jamming your toe in a door.

bobbleball 8/8/2006 12:59:16 AM


We're already boycotting IE. I use Firefox.

byronsnake 4/27/2006 9:51:25 PM


I have to say that anyone in defense of IE is ill informed. This fight isn't about the end user of the sites. Your right,99% of the people out there have no idea what w3c compliance is and doesn't care. It's about the developers that have to make concessions for a non compliant browser and the added time it takes us.

But...If you wanna talk about the user end of this lets look at an exert from www.schneier.com.
[quote]
This study(http://bcheck.scanit.be/bcheck/page.php?name=STATS2004) is from August, but I missed it. The researchers tracked three browsers (MSIE, Firefox, Opera) in 2004 and counted which days they were "known unsafe." Their definition of "known unsafe": a remotely exploitable security vulnerability had been publicly announced and no patch was yet available.

MSIE was 98% unsafe. There were only 7 days in 2004 without an unpatched publicly disclosed security hole.

Firefox was 15% unsafe. There were 56 days with an unpatched publicly disclosed security hole. 30 of those days were a Mac hole that only affected Mac users. Windows Firefox was 7% unsafe.

Opera was 17% unsafe: 65 days. That number is accidentally a little better than it should be, as two of the upatched periods happened to overlap.

This underestimates the risk, because it doesn't count vulnerabilities known to the bad guys but not publicly disclosed (and it's foolish to think that such things don't exist). So the "98% unsafe" figure for MSIE is generous, and the situation might be even worse.[/quote]

So beyond the fact the browser is compliant, it's also unsafe. But these same people that sit in IE's corner are also the same ones that don't know enough to not get viruses/trojans/keylogers because there just not well enough informed or knowledgeable enough to know the difference.

Locrian 4/11/2006 9:55:37 AM


I wish Firefox and other browsers had the sense to allow coloured scrollbars. What kind of nonsense is it to eschew them on the grounds that visually challenged folk might have problems with 'em? It's these sorts of decisions - and the plain fact that IE is more forgiving of coding errors - that is the reason for IE's popularity; apart from the monopoly factor. But would we really be better off being monopolised by slowbo Firefox? Tabs. I manage perfectly well without them, actually, and will turn 'em off in IE7.

tpeck 10/13/2005 9:35:24 AM


windows internet explorer 7 downoad page is here: http://windows.czweb.org/show_article.php?id_article=61

swen9/11/2005 4:50:02 AM


Firefox will continue to raise.

Because things won't change...

Anonymous User 9/9/2005 1:27:18 AM


I don't need a reason to boycott IE. Firefox is way better. IE is so far behind, I doubt MS can ever catch up.

Anonymous User 9/3/2005 7:49:36 PM


Ask yourselft the following question, do the majority of end users even know what standards compliance is? I would say no. They want new UI features in the browser and that is what Microsoft is giving them. One has to be pragmatic.

Anonymous User 8/28/2005 10:31:03 AM


How to prepare for Internet Explorer 7 - http://my.opera.com/nicomen/journal/7

Anonymous User 8/18/2005 5:20:55 PM


It's good to know that Apple is so Secure I should go get me one.

http://news.zdnet.co.uk/software/mac/0,39020393,39213407,00.htm


Anonymous User 8/17/2005 11:03:30 PM


You must log on before posting a comment.

Are you a new visitor? Register Here

advertisement

Windows XP Share Privileges

I've two PCs, ABC and XYZ, both are running windows xp Pro, and both have simple file sharing disabled. And I want to share a folder on ABC, to be ...222-96225

advertisement

GOOGLE LINKS
SPONSORED LINKS
FEATURED LINKS

Podcasts

To successfully implement virtual desktops, IT administrators must carefully match user requirements to specific desktop technologies. Listen to this podcast to learn what you need to keep in mind when formulating your approach to desktop virtualization.

Downloads

PacketTrap IT is a comprehensive and affordable network management and application monitoring solution that solves problems associated with bandwidth, network and application performance, and connectivity. Gain insight into your network - try PacketTrapIT free for 21 days!

Web Seminars

Aside from its employees, data is an organization’s most important resource. Join Windows technical specialist and 11-time MVP John Savill to learn the best practices for managing data using features in Windows Server.
View this web seminar on demand!

eLearning Series

We bring the experts direct to you to share their real-world perspective and expertise. During each event, three sessions stream in real time, so you can learn, ask questions, and get solutions.
Upcoming event: Getting the Most with Exchange 2010 with Paul Robichaux

Subscribe to Windows IT Pro!

Windows is a trademark of the Microsoft group of companies. Windows IT Pro is used by Penton Media Inc. under license from owner.