Comments on: Talking with Microsoft about IE.next http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/ Working together for standards Wed, 27 Mar 2013 12:19:03 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Uwe http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-57650 Uwe Sat, 07 Apr 2007 00:09:23 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-57650 I can’t see how the changes to the event model will affect the size of the “major JS libraries”. The libaries I use support most legacy browsers, and I assume still will if and when this change is occurs. Does any other browser vendor support “arbitrary node-matching API and better error reporting” if not refer to above (forking hell!). I can’t see how the changes to the event model will affect the size of the “major JS libraries”. The libaries I use support most legacy browsers, and I assume still will if and when this change is occurs.

Does any other browser vendor support “arbitrary node-matching API and better error reporting” if not refer to above (forking hell!).

]]> By: andrew woods http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-54580 andrew woods Sat, 10 Mar 2007 04:40:51 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-54580 I would like to suggest an include("filename.js") command. Every other programming language has this. isn't enough. If I'm writing a class in javascript that is dependent on another file, i don't want to have to remember to put a script tag for my support files. Also, perhaps MSFT could use "text/ecmascript" for standards based scripting, and leave they existing javascript for backwards compatability. that would make it possible for everyone to phase out the current javascript implementation over time. And yes, I agree with the need for better debugging tools. The Firefox Error Console is good, but the Firebug extension is even better. That would be a good place for MSFT to start. I would like to suggest an include(“filename.js”) command. Every other programming language has this. isn’t enough. If I’m writing a class in javascript that is dependent on another file, i don’t want to have to remember to put a script tag for my support files.

Also, perhaps MSFT could use “text/ecmascript” for standards based scripting, and leave they existing javascript for backwards compatability. that would make it possible for everyone to phase out the current javascript implementation over time.

And yes, I agree with the need for better debugging tools. The Firefox Error Console is good, but the Firebug extension is even better. That would be a good place for MSFT to start.

]]> By: John Resig - Future-Proofing JavaScript Libraries http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-52243 John Resig - Future-Proofing JavaScript Libraries Thu, 01 Mar 2007 07:47:59 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-52243 [...] I was in the group of JavaScript developers who provided feature/bug fix recommendations to Microsoft for their next version of IE. A huge issue that we were faced with was that we were knowingly asking Microsoft to both break their browser and alienate their existing userbase, in the name of standards. [...] [...] I was in the group of JavaScript developers who provided feature/bug fix recommendations to Microsoft for their next version of IE. A huge issue that we were faced with was that we were knowingly asking Microsoft to both break their browser and alienate their existing userbase, in the name of standards. [...]

]]> By: Kem Apak http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-47310 Kem Apak Fri, 16 Feb 2007 00:48:18 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-47310 It is great that you guys addressed the issues that has great importance to JavaScript development community. I cannot agree more everything that is mentioned. It is nice to talk, and I do believe they have great developers believe in standards. But somehow they cannot reflect this in IE. <strong>Lets hope Redmond starts to follow standards.</strong> It is great that you guys addressed the issues that has great importance to JavaScript development community. I cannot agree more everything that is mentioned. It is nice to talk, and I do believe they have great developers believe in standards. But somehow they cannot reflect this in IE. Lets hope Redmond starts to follow standards.

]]> By: La domo de karotoj » Novaĵoj pri TTT-legiloj http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-45426 La domo de karotoj » Novaĵoj pri TTT-legiloj Sun, 11 Feb 2007 02:48:06 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-45426 [...] Mia favorata TTT-legilo estis eldonita ekde preskaŭ monato. Sed pri aliaj TTT-legiloj Mikrosofto malkovris iujn detalojn pri IE.next (la venonta eldono de Esplorilo), kaj Netskapo planas eldonon 9.0 (ne nurvindoza kiel 8.x) de sia eksa reĝo de TTT-legiloj. [...] [...] Mia favorata TTT-legilo estis eldonita ekde preskaŭ monato. Sed pri aliaj TTT-legiloj Mikrosofto malkovris iujn detalojn pri IE.next (la venonta eldono de Esplorilo), kaj Netskapo planas eldonon 9.0 (ne nurvindoza kiel 8.x) de sia eksa reĝo de TTT-legiloj. [...]

]]> By: Andrew http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-43884 Andrew Wed, 07 Feb 2007 16:23:22 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-43884 I can't see how the changes to the event model will affect the size of the "major JS libraries". The libaries I use support most legacy browsers, and I assume still will if and when this change is occurs. Does any other browser vendor support "arbitrary node-matching API and better error reporting" if not refer to above (forking hell!). I can’t see how the changes to the event model will affect the size of the “major JS libraries”. The libaries I use support most legacy browsers, and I assume still will if and when this change is occurs.

Does any other browser vendor support “arbitrary node-matching API and better error reporting” if not refer to above (forking hell!).

]]> By: Andreas http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-43203 Andreas Tue, 06 Feb 2007 03:06:57 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-43203 application/xhtml+xml instead of just text/html - this essentially means parsing the html differently (as xml), don't know if it's possible for ie7's rendering engine (re) at all to accomplish this or if a new re is requrired, anyway I guess a new re wouldn't hurt, and even though such a decision might not pay off immediatly, it is certainly a good investment in the long run and ie should make such long term decisions/investments the sooner the better. Also I guess a lot of existing xml libaries/ground work can be reused, being stricter/exacter/less sloppy should make things easier after all. application/xhtml+xml instead of just
text/html – this essentially means parsing
the html differently (as xml), don’t
know if it’s possible for ie7′s rendering engine (re) at all to accomplish this or if a new re is requrired, anyway I guess a new re wouldn’t hurt, and even though such a decision might not pay off immediatly, it is certainly a good investment in the long run and ie should make such long term decisions/investments the sooner the better. Also I guess a lot of existing xml
libaries/ground work can be reused,
being stricter/exacter/less sloppy
should make things easier after all.

]]> By: Gérard Talbot http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-43098 Gérard Talbot Mon, 05 Feb 2007 21:14:20 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-43098 Aaron, I appreciate the time and efforts you and others invested into the making of this list. If I can speak for all of us, we all want the next IE to be more (a lot more) W3C web standards compliant and more useful+correct+capable in javascript/DOM matters. 3 more comments from me. 1- In the Features section of the list, it is mentionned <a href="http://www.w3.org/DOM/Test/#ThisDocument" rel="nofollow">W3C DOM Conformance Test Suite (DOM 1 Core)</a>. <strong>IE7 failed 85 tests</strong> at W3C DOM Conformance Test Suite (DOM 1 Core) . Opera 9.02 had 27 failures and Firefox 2.0 had 14 failures. 2- Regarding concerns to not “break the web” for the large number of sites using the proprietary IE event model, I just want to say that one day, web authors will have to upgrade their coding techniques, their habits, etc. They will have to be told to upgrade their code, to use new+better authoring tools, to rejuvenate their design approach and implementation methods, to consult web standards references, documentation, to read this or that "Tip and trick" from a web standards guru (1). You can not expect badly designed, poorly coded, invalid or non-standards webpages to work endlessly, forever without any detrimental consequences while, on the other hand, browser manufacturers are spending thousands and thousands of hours into improving the rendering engine when triggered into standards compliant rendering mode. Support for legacy browsers has to stop somewhere, at some point. (1) I am convinced this is the main and most important reason as to why Molly Holzschlag was hired by Microsoft. 3- Microsoft has to start addressing usability and accessibility matters too and to improve its UAAG 1.0 guidelines compliance. - Site Navigation toolbar and <link rel="..."> not implemented http://webcoder.info/reference/LinkBars.html http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/use-links - selecting via keyboard (placing caret and then arrow keys) or mouse dragging a selection of text from within an absolutely positioned block is <strong>impossible to perform</strong>. That should be treated and considered as a serious usability-behavior bug - implement UI settings to allow users to override some specific HTML attributes or javascript features which are known to limit accessibility of content, to restrict accessibility and usability: noresize in frames, scrolling=no in frames, frameborder=no in frameset, window.open() features which remove resizability, scrollability, menubar in secondary windows and not allowing the user to override these author requests, alternate style selector UI (<a href="http://archive.webstandards.org/css/winie/#Alternate_stylesheet_UI" rel="nofollow">this has been a request from web standards since 1998</a>), etc. 4- Regarding the implementation of the W3C DOM 2 event model, I am for a CSS2Compat mode in IE8 which will be triggered when using the same doctype declarations which triggered IE6 and IE7 into CSS1Compat mode (when querying document.compatMode). Best regards, Gérard Talbot Aaron,

I appreciate the time and efforts you and others invested into the making of this list. If I can speak for all of us, we all want the next IE to be more (a lot more) W3C web standards compliant and more useful+correct+capable in javascript/DOM matters.

3 more comments from me.

1- In the Features section of the list, it is mentionned
W3C DOM Conformance Test Suite (DOM 1 Core).

IE7 failed 85 tests at W3C DOM Conformance Test Suite (DOM 1 Core) .

Opera 9.02 had 27 failures and Firefox 2.0 had 14
failures.

2- Regarding concerns to not “break the web” for the large number of sites using the proprietary IE event model,
I just want to say that one day, web authors will have to upgrade their coding techniques, their habits, etc. They will have to be told to upgrade their code, to use new+better authoring tools, to rejuvenate their design approach and implementation methods, to consult web standards references, documentation, to read this or that “Tip and trick” from a web standards guru (1). You can not expect badly designed, poorly coded, invalid or non-standards webpages to work endlessly, forever without any detrimental consequences while, on the other hand, browser manufacturers are spending thousands and thousands of hours into improving the rendering engine when triggered into standards compliant rendering mode. Support for legacy browsers has to stop somewhere, at some point.
(1) I am convinced this is the main and most important reason as to why Molly Holzschlag was hired by Microsoft.

3- Microsoft has to start addressing usability and accessibility matters too and to improve its UAAG 1.0 guidelines compliance.
- Site Navigation toolbar and <link rel=”…”> not implemented
http://webcoder.info/reference/LinkBars.html
http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/use-links
- selecting via keyboard (placing caret and then arrow keys) or mouse dragging a selection of text from within an absolutely positioned block is impossible to perform. That should be treated and considered as a serious usability-behavior bug
- implement UI settings to allow users to override some specific HTML attributes or javascript features which are known to limit accessibility of content, to restrict accessibility and usability: noresize in frames, scrolling=no in frames, frameborder=no in frameset, window.open() features which remove resizability, scrollability, menubar in secondary windows and not allowing the user to override these author requests, alternate style selector UI (this has been a request from web standards since 1998), etc.

4- Regarding the implementation of the W3C DOM 2 event model, I am for a CSS2Compat mode in IE8 which will be triggered when using the same doctype declarations which triggered IE6 and IE7 into CSS1Compat mode (when querying document.compatMode).

Best regards,

Gérard Talbot

]]> By: Trails http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-43062 Trails Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:43:22 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-43062 Progress! Good job WaSP, nice to read about these kinds of things! Progress! Good job WaSP, nice to read about these kinds of things!

]]> By: Dominic Shiells http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/comment-page-1/#comment-43052 Dominic Shiells Mon, 05 Feb 2007 18:05:03 +0000 http://www.webstandards.org/2007/02/04/talking-with-microsoft-about-ienext/#comment-43052 Is there ever going to be a day when you can program a web page and you dont have to think about whether in one browser it will work or not work!!! Will we ever see that with IE.next as they are behind on web standards on everything to XHTML to CSS Is there ever going to be a day when you can program a web page and you dont have to think about whether in one browser it will work or not work!!!
Will we ever see that with IE.next as they are behind on web standards on everything to XHTML to CSS

]]>