digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Warning: The Content in this Article May be Inaccurate

Readers have reported that this story contains information that may not be accurate.

IE7 is basically non-compliant with CSS web standards.

webdevout.net — IE6 51% IE7 55% Firefox 93% Will this affect Web 2.0?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • kedaar, on 10/12/2007, -58/+17As Gartner is saying Web 2.0 going to be Hot Technology with Greatest Potential Impact it is spurring to see IE7 has such a low CSS compatibility.
    • phpirate, on 10/12/2007, -14/+48However IE7 has a whole lot of bug fixes. I don't like the fact either that they're once again screwing over developers, but at the very least theres more options avaliable to us since the IE6 bugs will no longer haunt us.

      The best part is the IE download page: http://www.microsoft.com/windows/ie/default.mspx "We heard you" doesn't appear to apply for web standards, which is what developers have been critizing all these years.
    • adjustafresh, on 10/12/2007, -2/+80"...the IE6 bugs will no longer haunt us."

      Um, you do realize that there will still be a rather large percentage of IE6 users after version 7 arrives, right? Although version 7 will be an automatic update and many users will install it, there will still be a great deal of people who opt not to install it or uninstall it. Users who are using operating systems older than XP cannot use IE 7 either; they're stuck with version 6, and we're stuck supporting it.
    • shiftt, on 10/12/2007, -9/+102what pissed me off the most was when Bill Gates said there will be a new version of IE every year
      that means every year they will find new ways to screw over developers

      why cant microsoft stop pretending that it knows what's best for us and just adopt to the freakin standards?
    • Trav3133, on 10/12/2007, -14/+80web 2.0 is just a buzz word
    • ksgant, on 10/12/2007, -4/+109I don't have Web 2.0. I'm still on the old Web 1.0

      When was the upgrade and who do I contact to get the upgrade files? I don't think my ISP is set up for Web 2.0 yet.

      OK, all kidding aside. Whoever came up with that buzzword should be beaten. You know how many times I've had to explain that to people with those exact same questions? "I don't have Web 2.0 yet. Where do I buy it?"
    • silenceHR, on 10/12/2007, -1/+28buzzword or not, it doesnt really matter.
      what matters is poor compatibility .... and what makes it even worse, now we will have to watch for IE 5.5, IE 6 and IE 7 buga and quirks. like it wasnt enough that you had to make CSS hacks for IE 5, now you'll get one more.

      sorry, but this is really annoying. i wish more corps adopt alternatives, just so we can force MS to follow bloody _STANDARDS_.

      is that so difficult??
    • epohs, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Here you go ksgant:

      http://www.designlaw.org/
    • echeese, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Here's another mirror: http://www.earthvox.com/webdevout/
    • gaznet, on 10/12/2007, -29/+34IE7... Whats the fuk*n point??? why bother when you have Firefox?
    • NikhilPK, on 10/12/2007, -5/+37@gaznet

      Because web designers have to make sure their sites are compatible with all browsers as not everyone uses firefox
    • Robotsu, on 10/12/2007, -5/+647 minutes ago shiftt said, "what pissed me off the most was when Bill Gates said there will be a new version of IE every year
      that means every year they will find new ways to screw over developers

      why cant microsoft stop pretending that it knows what's best for us and just adopt to the freakin standards?"

      Well, I completely agree that Microsoft needs to start adhereing to standards, it's four or five years overdue... but I don't really see how the new release cycle will hurt. At least I would hope that the updated release cycle is to continually improve and release new features. If I was Microsoft, I would start to take a serious approach to battling alternative browsers, as the Internet itself becomes increasingly important not only in terms of communication, but specifically entertainment. I don't think they want to loose a growing platform that serves as the foundation through which most of the Internet is viewed.
    • motang, on 10/12/2007, -11/+7@shiftt because Microsoft is arrogant that is why they want to do everything their own way, which ultimately be the downfall of them.
    • ziadoz, on 10/12/2007, -19/+12Why does everyone think Firefox is the answer to web standards? I love my Firefox (because I love my customizability) but its naive to think Firefox is the cure to everything on the web. Thats purely a myth spread by Mozilla to get some more website hits. The best answer to the problem of standards is competition in all forms. The more vendors that make standards compliant browsers, the more Microsoft will do to keep IE7 up-to-scratch. If everyone used Firefox though I'm damn sure we would be a similar situation to now where Mozilla would be setting de-facto standards of their own. Roll on more browsers I say, not just Firefox!
    • j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -4/+10Microsoft is everywhere. There won't be the "downfall" of Microsoft anytime soon. Please stop fooling yourself. They are a corporation, and corporations want everything done "their" way. That's what pleases the stockholders, and that's what pays the jobs of thousands of people.
    • YoDiggity, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15All I know is that IE 7 Beta 3 still fails to render half of the Mozilla 1.0 demos. Now that's sad. http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/demos.html
    • eth3l, on 10/12/2007, -17/+6@gaznet

      Firefox is just a buzz word, the real alternative is Opera.

      umm, isn't IE7 still just in Beta? wouldn't it be wise to wait until Final release to determine how much it sucks?
    • DefaultXR, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8adjustafresh:

      No, we could just tell them to come back to the site with FireFox or Opera or some other browser that doesn't rape standards.
    • Agret, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11"Because web designers have to make sure their sites are compatible with all browsers as not everyone uses firefox"
      Ah yes ensuring compatibility with Opera and Safari is a tough task but it's not hard..... Theres only 1 or 2 quirks you need to fix. Anyone using IE can be detected with javascript and redirected to the spread firefox page and your site will be fine.
    • mystere, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7According to Chris Wilson, (IE PM), the analysis of IE's CSS performance is flawed, for instance it count a single feature (such as counting the "inherit" keyword once for each selector) and likewise dings them for every proprietary feature they support.

      http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx
    • Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+29I'm the author of this resource, and I'd like to clear up a few things.

      First of all, "inherit" is listed individually with every single property in the CSS 2.1 specification. The specification doesn't imply that it's some kind of global property, nor does Internet Explorer implement it as such. IE supports "inherit" for the "direction" property, and as far as I know nothing else. Thus it isn't reasonable to list it as some kind of global value.

      Also, I do *not* give browsers incomplete ratings for supporting propietary features. I give them incomplete ratings when the violate the CSS 2.1 specification. CSS 2.1 defines exactly how vendor-specific properties and property values must be named: prefixed with a "-" or "_" character. It specifically says that a browser must fail on any property value not prefixed with a "-" or "_" that isn't part of a W3C CSS specification. Most browsers support vendor-specific properties, but usually in a way that conforms to the specification. Internet Explorer often does not.

      Also, it's completely unreasonable to expect any development team to bring something like IE6 up to Firefox's and Opera's level of standards support in this relatively short amount of time. IE7 improved over IE6 about as much as the latest versions of Firefox and Opera improved over their predecessors. Today's problems are mainly due to Microsoft's *past* actions of supporting CSS wrongly at a fundamental level and cutting off development efforts for so long. If Gecko or Presto (Opera) developers had done what Microsoft did, regardless of the amount of effort put into them today, they would also have a darn tough time clawing back into the competition. CSS 2.1 is a very large and complex standard, and it's simply unreasonable to expect any development team with any amount of resources to support it overnight.
    • Herolint, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21This is exactly why I don't use any Microsoft products anymore. Microsoft continuously screws over developers again and again in an attempt to sequester them into the Microsoft camp.

      What a crappy way to treat not only your customers, but also those who want to develop things for your stupid platforms.

      This year, I've stopped caring if my web work functions in IE or not. I'm sick of dealing with them and my customers are sick of paying extra to support IE. I simply tell my customers that due to IEs poor adherence to well defined and documented standards, they will have to use a different browser (Firefox, Opera, Mozilla, Konqueror, Safari, etc.). No complaints so far.

      Microsoft should just flush this polished turd and be done with it.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11I see MS are still up to their old evil, poisonous ways. Nothing has changed.

      But don't worry. This strategy isn't going to work. The world isn't locked into IE nearly as much as it used to be. There is a better choice that didn't exist before -- several better, standards compliant choices.

      Browsers themselves will not be as significant as before, considering how many different ways there are now to access the same info. Mobile devices and game consoles with browsing capabilities, desktop gadgets, etc. They don't use IE7, they follow industry standards. What advantage do IE7s proprietary standards offer?

      And I honestly feel that any developer that doesn't follow those industry standards should have their dev license revoked and be banished to Afghanistan.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -9/+4"IE7... Whats the fuk*n point??? why bother when you have Firefox?"

      You do know that MS plans to infect users with IE7 via Auto Update, don't you?

      That's the point. It's time for the DoJ to have a talk with MS again.

      They should offer a choice of options, like Firefox via auto update too! :p
    • verifex, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2http://digg.com/tech_news/IE7_Project_Manager_Responds_To_Critics
    • damentz, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1@eth1

      dumbass stop making fake users with @ so that you can act like your fixing someones error. Gaznet hasnt made a post before you.
    • rowanjl, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Actually, yes he has you arse.
    • nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3"what matters is poor compatibility .... and what makes it even worse, now we will have to watch for IE 5.5, IE 6 and IE 7 buga and quirks. like it wasnt enough that you had to make CSS hacks for IE 5, now you'll get one more."

      Say no to IE5.x. I guess it's different when it's your job, but stats on my hobby sites show that very few use < IE6. I won't design for < Opera 8 either. There's nothing wrong with telling people they have to upgrade, Adobe's Flash does it all the time and people are ok with it.
    • gaza222, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Seems strange to me as I'm working on a project that renders true in FF and looks perfect and in layout terms rendered true in IE7 however not in IE6. So i would have believed it was more compliant. Plus it doesn't have that blueish tint to transparent images grrrrrrrr hated that!
  • Rub3X, on 10/12/2007, -9/+75IE7 Doesn't work with digg.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -21/+7Depends on what you're talking about, the AJAX on the page is a known problem it's not IE7 specific. But every once in a while i get a rendering problem. But it only happens on about 20-40% of my visits. Other times it's just fine. I think it has something to do with the way Ads are laid out.

      I have a specific problem with the google ad banner...oh no is this a conspiracy...NO!
    • i440, on 10/12/2007, -18/+12I use IE6. IE7 didn't display the comments correctly (though IE6 isn't exactly great either...)
    • Yanks2435, on 10/12/2007, -13/+12Digg seems to hate IE6 too, it locks up and loads slow alot. I find myself having to use Opera sometimes on Digg, oh well.
    • Dayz, on 10/12/2007, -10/+134People use IE to view digg?
    • hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -19/+19@Yanks: And not Firefox?
    • cronot, on 10/12/2007, -19/+53Digg me down if you want, but I think the underlying html and ajax on Digg is also (if not mostly) to blame - as in badly designed/written. Of all sites I visit daily, Digg is one of those that take the longest to load (on any browser).

      Then again, I never bothered to check their code to make sure of that, so maybe it's their Server that is handicapped.
    • Trav3133, on 10/12/2007, -20/+8they are elitests @ digg and care not for microsoft.
    • olddirtycr, on 10/12/2007, -21/+3Or your connection just sucks # cronot
    • Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -4/+18Digg runs great on Firefox. Any slowdowns are more likely the cause of overloading the servers, not the browsers rendering.
    • cronot, on 10/12/2007, -4/+23Sorry, but no, olddirtycr. I've got a 8Mbit pipe here, and that bandwidth is free most of the time, everything comes in a flash. Except for Digg.
    • workharderscum, on 10/12/2007, -21/+11@cronot

      "I think the underlying html and ajax on Digg is [...] to blame"
      "Then again, I never bothered to check their code"

      Yeah, I'll digg you down for that....
    • p1mpjuice, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17@work

      No. He's actually right about that. Something with the comment system.
    • pygmalion, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14I find Digg sucks as far as incremental loading/rendering goes. Can take several seconds (and even a beach ball on OS X) before I can finally see something. Shouldn't need to load the entire comments tree before I can see the top of the page...
    • jbohlinger, on 10/12/2007, -6/+30Oh this comment stream hurts to read - Digg isn't playing nice with IE? Please. IE can't handle digg. Not to say that Digg is perfect, but it is a page working with web standards that I don't have problems with in Opera or Firefox.

      In other words, Digg is playing by the rules, IE just doesn't know them in the first place.
    • workharderscum, on 10/12/2007, -5/+0@p1mpjuice

      It was the second statement that bothered me more than the first.....
    • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15I think you all are missing the point here its not Digg, its IE that is the problem...
      Firefox has no problem with it. Firefox is something like 93% compliant with web standards and IE is only 53% compliant with web standards...it doesn't take too much though to see who is at fault here.
    • merreborn, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Damn:
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.digg.com

      So much for digg being standards compliant, eh?
    • Dotnetsky, on 10/12/2007, -5/+10That's funny, I've been reading Digg with IE 7 for quite a while, and haven't seen any problems. Get over it.
    • bsdeluxe, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@merreborn: Are you really going to bust Digg's chops over their ads (which, in all likelyhood are outside of their control)? Come on!
    • Goner, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2IE 7 also doesn't work with GoldMine, popular CRM application... It causes GoldMine users to be unable to see various things like their email, notes, etc. Terrible.. Thanks Microsoft!
    • Tom_Riddle, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@ merreborn

      not even Apple is 100% standards compliant.

      worse than digg actually

      7 errors
    • joshfraz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1People have reported that diggs' ads don't show up correctly in IE. Could this be the reason why?

      Warning Line 48 column 64: cannot generate system identifier for general entity "n".
      ...et/adserver/adview.php?what=zone:133&n= ac63eb52' border='0' alt=''>
    • Rosco, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@Rub3X
      Even though my primary browser is Firefox and Seamonkey, after your comment I decided to load up IE7 and try going to Digg.com myself. I'm using Beta 3 or IE7, and Digg.com seems to work perfectly fine for me here. Not sure what your issue could be though.
    • madoublet, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0merreborn - most of the errors look like character encoding issues most likely provided by third party ads. so technically, the page is probably standards compliant. but hey, we do not all need to know what we are talking about. eh?

      on another note, w3c standards are merely a suggestion. the implementators actually define the standards.
    • stlcadet11, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I don't understand why people insist on using ***** that doesn't work half the time.

      Say you have carpet and tile floors and you were going to buy a new vacuum, would you buy the one that only works on carpet because that is what the carpet manufacturer recommends (IE) or would you buy the one that works on both that all the vacuum experts agree is the better (firefox).

      Ok ***** comparison, but you get the point.
    • zerblat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1One thing about digg is that it uses a *lot* of mark-up. E.g. for this page (i chopped of the looong URLs):
      $ curl -s http://digg.com/tech_news/IE7_is... | wc -c
      253132
      $ curl -s http://digg.com/tech_news/IE7_is... |lynx -stdin -dump | wc -c
      129517

      So, almost half of the HTML is mark-up (i.e. tags), the other half is text. And bear in mind that digg comments contain no formatting (except for paragraphs and links).

      As a comparison:
      $ curl -s http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/10/1213216.shtml | wc -c
      442311
      $ curl -s http://slashdot.org/articles/06/08/10/1213216.shtml | lynx -stdin -dump | wc -c
      432341

      Obviously, in part this is because /. comments in general tend to be much longer than the one-liners you see here. And of course, lynx -dump isn't a perfect way of stripping tags (e.g. it adds lots of superfluous white space), but it's close enough.
    • zerblat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I probably should have cut out the references that lynx adds... Using html2text instead of lynx -stdin -dump gives me these numbers for bytes of pure text vs complete size of HTML:
      digg: 88699/289239
      Slashdot: 290781/447997

      So, the ratios are actually worse...
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9"IE7 Doesn't work with digg."

      Good. That will hopefully keep some of the rabble out.
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4"Damn:
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.digg.com

      So much for digg being standards compliant, eh?"

      Look at the errors. They are related to the adserver. Isn't that Google's code?
    • Braska, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Well, If you look at the link that is the "w3" Validator - most of the reasons it fails: are quick fixes and caused by the advertising on the site; maybe advertisers should receive a kick in the nuts as well as the IE Dev Team.

      "Damn:
      http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=www.digg.com

      So much for digg being standards compliant, eh?"
    • grnative8675309, on 12/18/2007, -0/+1http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http://digg.com/tech_news/IE7_is_basically_non_compliant_with_CSS_web_standards

      every reply has the same id: c-reply-wrapper
      Looks like Digg made a mistake
    • Rub3X, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I use FF all the time but the rss reeder I made uses IE. If you want to try it go to a digg link where there is a comment that has been dugg down. Click show comment and the box will get bigger but no comment appears. And yes google ads don't work with digg and IE either lol.
    • burstgoof, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0"IE7 Doesn't work with digg."

      You mean Digg doesn't work with IE7. And, actually, for the most part it does work... there are some bugs here and there (the comment system), but that's up to the digg developers to fix, not the IE developers.
    • koorlle44er, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0In this time, I have found an absolutely RIDICULOUS amount of problems with Flash. While doing that media player, I had to go from Flash Player 7 to Flash Player 6 because of an undocumented bug that occurred only in that version, and then down AGAIN to 5, again because of an undocumented problem.

      That's just the start of it too. I can't count on both hands and feet how many times flash has just screwed something up a ridiculous amount, and the only way to fix it was hidden on google page #10 on my 100th search.

      http://www.datingfilter.com/dating-free-site/
  • newbill123, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11While I agree with the generalized headline of this digg, I'm not sure this is the best article to back up that gut feeling most of us have to our bosses and IT departments.

    When you pull up Safari or Konqueror, you'll see a lot of question marks in their chart tally. That gives the impression that there's some subjectivity in judging the test results. Obviously he has a setup of each to get _some_ numbers; he just can't make final judgements yet.

    That's confirmed even more by the disclaimer that reads, "Most of the above information comes from testing and research conducted by one person. It is possible that these tables contain errors."
    • kedaar, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15Yes, I agree one person's research can not be used for baseline but this story will drive others to test more.
    • wicketr, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5My guess is he started with a baseline check of what Firefox had and compared that to IE. The only real thing I care about is PNG partial transparency support. Everything else can be worked around fairly easily.
    • Apage43, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Opera and Safari are less common, and Safari requires a mac to test with, so of course not everything will be tested on them (even less so with safari). The numbers are based on individually testing each feature of CSS.
  • petroK, on 10/12/2007, -0/+35It seems like Opera always stacks up well in these standards compliance issues (and several speed and stability tests I have seen)... yet I cannot seem to tear myself away from firefox.
    • jbohlinger, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14Whenever I recommend a new browser to a non-tech savvy person I find that Opera is the best choice. While I use FF because of the extensions and tools it provides it is not the best web experience. Opera is. They consistently kick both IE and FF to the curb.

      If you are using FF without extensions, you should just be using Opera.
    • 83457, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I used Opera for a few weeks after version 9 was released and I prefer it over Firefox. I switched back to Firefox permanently at work though because of extensions I rely on.
  • Damienk, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8Bill STILL can't do anything right? Geesh, what did you expect.

    Kill Bill's Browser. -- http://killbillsbrowser.com/
  • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -90/+6lozz

    CSS sucks anyways, Flash has 97% saturation, more than any other plugin, and works on any platform...Think CSS is more powerfull? Digg Labs.
    • PiratedTVPro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+48... and is completely uncrawlable...
    • doktored, on 10/12/2007, -5/+47Flash is bloody terrible... I can't stand sites with it... Yes show me your stupid moving navigation again... Byeeee.
    • loof, on 10/12/2007, -2/+45The problem with flash is everyone hates using flash sites. Sure they're pretty, but from a usability standpoint they're usually a mess.
    • robcornelius, on 10/12/2007, -18/+13you sir... are an arse
    • BitSlash, on 10/12/2007, -4/+24and if you're using linux... then the site is worthless.
    • steger, on 10/12/2007, -5/+32uhh, css has 100% saturation, it's not a plug-in, I don't have to download from some third party website in order to view content. CSS is powerful, but it's not a programming language like javascript, c# or VB. It's a language set to separate style from content. not to do crazy sounds when you scroll over a button.

      PLUS, I've said this every time this has been posted. This originally came from a /. story last week (and on digg about 3 times last week) about Paul Thurrott's article about hi complaints about IE7 Beta 1 which was dated as August 1st, 2005.


      IE7 Beta 3 is much better with CSS compliance than IE7 Beta 1 was. I know personally because I've tested every beta (Being a web developer with a Microsoft partner has its benefits). Just try it now or wait till it gets installed on your machine before you make a lame IE bashing attempt.
    • fizzyalex, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23Flash and CSS have nothing to do with each other. Flash is used for graphical pages, while CSS is used to keep HTML looking and acting like you want it to.

      Crazy...
    • steger, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1his*
    • hifiDesign, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2@robcornelius: I concur.
    • myheaditches, on 10/12/2007, -1/+23If you say flash is better than CSS, then you have failed at recognizing why CSS exists. If I want to change the style of a web page, in CSS all I have to do is change the CSS document. One page. In flash, I have to redo my changes to each page. Also, CSS and HTML can be edited in any text editor. Flash? Not so much.
      If your entire site is on one flash page, then how do I link to a page to show to someone?
      If your site uses flash and causes my computer to get nice and toasty, then I'm going to hunt through my open web pages (usually about 20-30) and close ones that are making Camino run at 90% CPU. Sorry, but your super awesomerific flash page isn't worth my sterility.
    • Spatulas, on 10/12/2007, -4/+8Ahahaha, I laugh at you.
      In the past year, I have done extensive Flash Actionscript development, including making a fully featured media player with caching, ad breaks, etc.
      In this time, I have found an absolutely RIDICULOUS amount of problems with Flash. While doing that media player, I had to go from Flash Player 7 to Flash Player 6 because of an undocumented bug that occurred only in that version, and then down AGAIN to 5, again because of an undocumented problem.

      That's just the start of it too. I can't count on both hands and feet how many times flash has just screwed something up a ridiculous amount, and the only way to fix it was hidden on google page #10 on my 100th search.
    • Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Also, Flash uses a limited set of CSS for it's styles and can also use HTML for markup. Flash doesn't replace CSS because they aren't even the same type of product.

      Also, I can kill you with my brain.
    • fforw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11flash 8 does not work on linux..
    • weareglass, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Um, to whoever said Flash was for graphics and CSS was for making text legible is dead wrong. Maybe you could say Flash is for animation and CSS is for still design, but CSS is very much a useful graphical tool.
    • WorldGroove, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@PiratedTVPro
      Flash is uncrawlable... but there are workarounds(albeit, alittle awkward).
      http://www.sitepoint.com/article/instant-visibility-fast
      WebDevs do stuff like this for those folks who still have those "trendy" websites completely done in flash.
    • supermansuper, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@myheaditches
      "If your entire site is on one flash page, then how do I link to a page to show to someone?"

      Here is how to get from Google to Adobe... Click here:
      http://maps.yahoo.com/beta/#mvt=m&maxp=location&q2=601%20Townsend%20St,%20San%20Francisco,%20CA&gid1=30102160&q1=1600%20Amphitheatre%20Pkwy,%20Mountain%20View,%20CA&trf=0&lon=-122.24659&lat=37.596824&mag=7
  • itguru624, on 10/12/2007, -10/+6I will admit, Opera is faster than Firefox, Opera's tabs load in a better fashion than Firefox, but other than that I refuse to move from Firefox. There is an extension for better tab browsing to load like opera. IE7 is microsoft stealing ideas again.
  • Geckomind, on 10/12/2007, -5/+9What a surprise! Nothing changed since v6 then... I've been noticing it frak up in the beta. Well, I only use it for testing my projects anyway. I'm back on Opera.
  • domomike, on 10/12/2007, -12/+23The fix to this is simple: Start creating web pages that spot out IE7 and take them to a page that lets them know that the web page is too advanced for their browser and they should upgrade to Firefox.
    • EggzDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+21That's punishing the viewer and not the company with the uncompliant browser. For your own site that's fine - but imagine if a corporate client told a prospective buyer or investor to come back with a better browser?
    • cmiller1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+40That actually happens all of the time to those of us who don't use IE.
    • EggzDiggs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6And I'm sure you walk away with a happy feeling about that website. Or maybe you come back after downloading the latest IE version? See what I mean?
    • MysteryFCM, on 10/12/2007, -6/+7A website that tells me I have to use FF to use it instantly stops me visiting it again .... I like to choose my own browser dammit!
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9"A website that tells me I have to use FF to use it instantly stops me visiting it again"

      Yes, exactly. And IE-centric pages have been doing pricely that to users of other browsers for years.

      It's time to fight back!
  • UCFMark, on 10/12/2007, -0/+21I'm thinking that this may be useful:
    http://www.duggmirror.com/tech_news/IE7_is_basically_non_compliant_with_CSS_web_standards/

    The fact is, IE isn't going anywhere for the foreseeable future. I worked for a small IT consulting company this summer, and none of the clients would be comfortable switching from IE just because of their comfort level. Hell, most of them complained when we moved them from Outlook 10 to Outlook 11!
    • linkinpark342, on 10/12/2007, -17/+2Is the dugg mirror working for anyone? I can't get it to load...
    • linkinpark342, on 10/12/2007, -16/+1Please bury, got it to work
    • OBKenobi, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"I worked for a small IT consulting company this summer, and none of the clients would be comfortable switching from IE just because of their comfort level."

      I've switched some mega-noobs over to Firefox in the past. They didn't have any trouble with it once they knew how the GUI worked. Now they prefer it once they realized how customizable it is.
  • mentholmoose, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Isn't the number for IE7 from sometime last year? I could've sworn seeing an article on here a couple of weeks ago that had those exact same numbers, and the article was written a year ago.
  • SixSence, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0source server got diggified. :|
  • MisterKen, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Are we supposed to be surprised?
    • SixSence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Oh, sorry my goal of submitting comments on digg isn't to surprise you. My bad.
  • deepdish, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6Is MS doing this on purpose to break CSS 2.0?

    Wouldn't be the first time.
    • Spatulas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13I believe this quote from some questions from Håkon Wium Lie on slashdot a while ago about sums that up:
      "It's quite clear that Microsoft has the resources and talent to support CSS2 fully in IE and that plenty of people have reminded them why this is important. So, why don't they do it? The fundamental reason, I believe, is that standards don't benefit monopolists. Accepted, well-functioning, standards lower the barrier of entry to a market, and is therefore a threat to a monopolist.

      From that perspective, it makes sense to leave CSS2 half-implemented. You can claim support (and many journalists will believe you), and you also ensure that no-one can use the unimplemented (or worse: buggily implemented) features of the standard. The only way to change the equation is to remind Microsoft how embarrassing it is to offer a sub-standard browser. And to use better browsers.

      Another reason for not making a IE too good is that it will compete with Windows. A modern browser is an application platform; the combination of HTML, JavaScript, CSS and DOM allows developers to target the web instead of Windows, Linux, or Mac. "

      from http://interviews.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/06/23/1443203
  • aonaran, on 10/12/2007, -1/+14You're kidding right? Flash is your solutiuon to CSS issues?? I've seen very few flash sites I'd visit on a regular basis, for all the problems CSS gives when trying to maintain compatibility with IE, I'd still rather see a less "flashy" site in CSS than one in mainly flash.

    For one thing flash sucks for accessability for those with vision problems, and it always takes longer to load a flash program than a text/graphic/CSS menu.
  • micklerlop, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9why is it so hard for microsoft to make it complaint with web standards? i just dont see the reason. they have all the money in the world and IE is probably their most used software.
    • cypher543, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3IE? Their most used software? I would say Windows is higher up on the list than IE. Besides, you need Windows to run IE. Unless of course you run it in Wine. But who would do that?

      o.O
  • airj1012, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4I've never understood how people can digg a site when it's down and the duggmirror too. Do they just digg it off the topic without reading anything?
    • headzoo, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7So they have it bookmarked, and they can go back later and read it.. when it's not down.
    • MightyGiant, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1They should digg it when it's now down and use their browser to bookmark it.
    • airj1012, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1You can't digg it if you don't know what the story says. It's great that they can bookmark it and read it later, thats when they should digg it too. Doesn't make any sense.
    • MightyGiant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1That's supposed to say "not" down. One letter flops my entire arguement backwards.
  • metabahn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9In my opinion Microsoft should keep their nose out of the web industry. They're going to end up "Microsofting" the web and will render it utterly useless. Microsoft seems to have a problem following standards.

    The problem is Microsoft has such a huge section of the market using IE. Most of those people that use it don't understand the problems IE has so they see no reason to switch to Firefox.

    Get Firefox...
  • elnerdo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+5Ok, it won't load, and the duggmirror won't load either, but I saw this on Slashdot before, and I'm pretty sure that this article is one year old.

    That means that it DOESN"T MEAN ANYTHING.
    • bluflame, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The article talks about Opera 9, which is barely a few months old.
      You could comment on the article if you had anything useful to say.
      I suggest you stop speaking out of your ass.

      Anyhow, IE7's not going to be the way to go for me, only because of the name recognition. Are people using Red Hat going to switch to vista when it comes out? Probably not. Am I going to stop using Opera? Probably not.
    • 1337freek, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1that's funny i dont remember firefox 2.0 being released last year....
  • kubudubudubuntu, on 10/12/2007, -8/+4omg, IE7 this will blow up in microsoft's face
  • Chasuk, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Microsoft is counting on XAML and the Windows Presentation Foundation to allow such enticing web-based user interfaces that Web 2.0/AJAX, XUL, and Flash will look primitive by comparison, but with considerably greater ease of use.

    I'm not saying that this corresponds with reality, but that's MS's plan.
  • AaronMT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12Internet Explorer 7 is so bad at rendering newly updated CSS websites that it's rather sad yet hilarious.

    Have a look at DeviantART, www.deviantart.com : In IE7 then in Firefox

    The difference is night and day in what the user see's and experiences.

    As well might I add, Digg has Google Ad render problems in IE7 as well when you open up a users comments, the text dissapears!
    • Tyrax, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6I believe those are both problems with digg and applying IE6 hacks that IE7 ignores. But it fun to just lay all the blame on microsoft, isn't it?
    • tommajor, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1wow, that is bad!
    • Xiretsa, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1Tyrax: So it isn't MS fault that sites have to use hacks to get stuff to work in IE6 and then they change it so sites now are broken if they used these hacks. I have a hard time thinking that sites used these hacks just for fun.
    • RustIndy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1The new Deviant Art is also badly fuxored in Opera :(

      I really want to use Opera as my everyday browser, but if all these big sites insist on performing client detection via user agent, Opera is going to die despite it's great goodness.
  • ojstone, on 10/12/2007, -1/+16I really don't understand why people don't use firefox as their primary browser... you could avoid all these problems.
    • melmyfinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+15It's because normal people are too lazy and too uninformed. The most common responses you'll hear is:

      * Firefox? What's that? (If I don't know it then I don't want to install it).
      * I don't want to have to learn another program.
      * But I already have IE and it's built-in so I don't have to install anything.
    • BadassCheese, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4People could just like the look and feel if IE over firefox. I personally choose opera for the interface.
    • mefisto, on 10/12/2007, -12/+1Omg .. people .. wake up.
      Stop viewing world in black and white.

      There is more then win an linux, ie and firefox, good and evil ..
    • sirfergy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+4IE7 B3 is a nice browser. I like it since it's faster than FF and just works. FF is a fine browser too. You can have competing software in the world.
    • occupant, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2You're missing the point. As a web developer, the problem is mine, not the end user's. As long as 'some' people use IE, I have to support it (and FF and Safari and Opera). And what really ticks me off is that it makes me look bad - my nincompoop clients will think their website is busted because I didn't do it right.

      MS is making it worse again - at least if they kept its crappy css rendering the same it wouldn't require any more work on my end. But no, now it's going to be non-compliant in entirely new ways! Yay! I can hardly wait for Box Model Hack 2.0!

      Time to go back to tables.
  • melmyfinger, on 10/12/2007, -11/+9I wish we could file a class action lawsuit against M$. IE is such *****. They dominate the browser industry with what, 87% market share? And they're ignorant enough to think that web STANDARDS doesn't matter! With that kind of market share dominance they (should) have the RESPONSIBLITY to leverage web standards everywhere.
    • dshPls, on 10/12/2007, -4/+9How the ***** can you sue someone when you have a easy option to switch away from their product?
    • rhamej, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12MS IS adhering to standards. The only problem is the standards they are following are their own.
      IE7 is beta, so there is still hope.
    • negtive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9That's exactly what they're thinking. They're trying to leverage *their* standards, not ones drafted by an external organization (W3C).
    • EricAnderton, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Actually I think the problem is that at %87 market share, they pretty much *are* the web standard. Sticking to an obtuse and obscure rule book for rendering pages is only to their advantage at this point; it causes them the fewest headaches.
    • melmyfinger, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3dshPls, I see your point exactly. That's why I said I "wish."

      In my perfect world, some crafty lawyer would come in and bring a strong case. I mean look at that one McDonalds case; people sued McDonalds for making us fat when we clearly have the right to choose not to eat their fatty food.
    • IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Lawsuit? No more lawsuits please! Lawsuits just makes a few lawyers very rich and does very little for the industry and consumer, just let the market deal with it. FireFox is doing better but they just need to get into mainstream marketing to reach the regular non tech users.
  • oSiBo, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4Ho cmon MS fix your damn software !

    I love Windows and your products but IE being not compliant to the major web standards is a pain in the ass really. I am a web dev. for my summer internship and hooo the pain I encounter with display bugs of IE ! MS must be stopped or get a good kick in the ass.

    /rant

    - SiB -
  • kenobi, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10microshaft developers must not be smart enough to read RFCs and standards documentation to implement them...
  • ravenofwinter, on 10/12/2007, -3/+11As Homer Simpson says:

    Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.

  • IchiroBoston, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4MS can get away with this because it just comes with every copy of the OS by default and they will distribute it via update. Most people just don't even know there are other options, maybe we should start calling it the Netscape Effect ;)
  • KevinJB, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4The author's younger brother was (is) basically my mentor for XHTML and CSS. If he is any reflection of his sibling, he is a genius.
  • MCrass, on 10/12/2007, -3/+10This is a bit of a chicken vs egg situation. What good are standards if the majority of the market doesn't follow them? Standards tend to end up being de-facto, determined by the market leader (or group of leaders). If IE7 doesn't work with CSS standards, but works with Microsoft's own twisted interpretation of them, then the reality of the matter is, MS CSS becomes the standard.

    I'm not defending MS and their misuse of CSS rendering in IE, I'm just saying it seems kind of silly for groups like the W3C, who don't actually produce much of anything anymore, and then rabid anti-MS people to go crazy about how unfair it is. Anyone can draft a standard. Today, I hereby proclaim the new Mike HTML Standard, it involves tags like which makes text explode into little bits. Doesn't mean anything though unless browsers plan on properly implementing it.

    I've always felt that standards should be decided by the people producing software in the affected market space. Looking at the Working Group for CSS on the W3C page, I see four companies/groups that actually make web browsers. A lot of those extra people make things more difficult.
    • technique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Microsoft was one of the many companies that supported the creation of W3C.
    • Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8Then why does MS ignore them?
    • KevinJB, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Why don't you ask them?
    • Berkana, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Microsoft also started the "web fonts initiative", where there would be a large standardized package of fonts that every browser would include so you could use fancy fonts without having to rasterize them into images just to use a cool font that most browsers don't have.

      . . . then, they abandoned it. Why? Because they're greedy monopolists; it's easier for them to force everyone to use the fonts that come with Windows. Same with the W3C standards.

      And you know who's hand is behind all this? The ***** Steve Ballmer.
    • FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It was probably abandoned for multiple reasons. It's easy to say they are greedy and leave it at that, but I really doubt that's the whole truth. It's far more likely that the owner of the project was moved to another project and a replacement was never assigned. Or the project owner just left. This type of thing happens all the time, even with OSS, browse SF and see how many good projects have died.
  • Jescro, on 10/12/2007, -7/+4arg. MS is so dumb
  • daonlyfreez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+9Tell us something new. Microsoft per definition is not compatible, it always has tried to enforce it's own 'standards', ignoring the rest.
  • dcharti, on 10/12/2007, -5/+5IE cripples the internet and its users. Ban IE.

    http://www.w3junkies.com/toocool/
  • damonic, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Well, it is still in beta - lets hope they fix it before Vista launches. Oh wait, IE8 will be out by then...
  • jadedknight, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1I would say as the public gets more tech savy, unless Micorosft drops IE, we are going to have to deal with IE for about another 20 years. At witch point all the youngsters have grown up and are mostly using FireFox.
  • yohan, on 10/12/2007, -5/+6Half-Life One doesn't work with IE7! (crashes) OH MY GOD FIREFOX FOREVER! :)
  • Zwirko, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4With IE7 it is impossible to view comments that are below threshold.
    When you click [below viewing threshold, show commenthide comment] the box rolls down, the text is visible, then it vanishes once the box is "down" fully. Really annoying.
    Guess those comments just weren't worth viewing anyway.
  • RojoKayako, on 10/12/2007, -11/+1Say all you want about "Web Standards", but they'll never be standards as long as most people refuse to abide by them. As a result, this is why "Gold" is a standard and Bull$hite is not - and it's why most developers follow Microsofts lead and not the supposed "CSS Standard".

    Deal with it.
  • technique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I wish an open source browser would've been in full force when the DOJ thing went down a few years back. They could've required Microsoft to include the open source version with all versions of Windows. That would trump the "it's already installed" argument -- plus maybe some less-savvy users would have given it a shot and never "learned" IE in the first place. Hindsight's 20/20, right?
  • robbrydon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2Listen, I know that I am going to get dugg down for saying this, but did anyone read the word 'beta' when they tried to download IE7. When IE7 comes out of beta, no matter how good Firefox 2.0 is, Mozilla will have a hard time keeping thier existing customer base let alone increasing their small percentage of the market.

    P.S. Microsoft does not make money selling IE.
    • Aculeus, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Firefox doesn't have a customer base. Firefox is free, they have a user base.
    • ocram, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Until Google and a slew of Web 2.0 companies attempted to use a perpetual beta period as an excuse to release substandard products, beta software was generally considered to be (for the most part) feature complete.

      Also it has been publicly stated that the IE development team will not fully implement XHTML or CSS2, at least in version 7.
  • Holocaust, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2IE7 is killing so many site with it's poor outdate support for web design.
    Look at deviantart.com which is loaded with css scripts. While yes there is currentlly tons of little bugs around the site Firefox seems to handle it really good, heard that Opera does okay aswell....
    Try opening it with IE7, HOLY CRAP!
    Everything single thing is messed up and not showing up correctly.
    Why can't Microsoft just give up on IE and port either Firefox or Opera with their OS.

    I think Microsoft should rather focus more on creating Vista, and let third parties worry about a internet explorer.
  • lwdallas, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1So, you mean that something that is free works better than something MS has spent globs of money on?
  • SpookyET, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I don't think this page is very accurate. Opera supports more standards than FF 1.5. It even passes the Acid 2 test, and yet, it's portrayed bellow FF in every category.
    • Nanobe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4You might be looking at Opera 8.5. Opera 9 shows a higher percentage than Firefox 1.5 for CSS 2.1
  • robohoe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Bah, more html/css nightmares for devs...*sigh*
  • mikedoth, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3So lets see, when I design a website I have to make a script for Firefox, Opera, IE7, IE6, IE5 and so on.
    • markdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0@teamparadox "Are we forgetting its still in beta? lets not take potshots until its a final build."

      It's not likely to change. The IE team have decided to fix many CSS bugs so sites that have relied on CSS hacks for IE6 & co will most likely look like crap under IE7 until the site devs modify their CSS (e.g. with conditional comments) to account for improved CSS support in IE7. Yes, it's a PITA but MS _are_ improving IE so they should be congratulated. Believe it or not IE7 is a step in the right direction.

      And for all the geeks/fanboys clamouring for all users to switch to Firefox - wake up and smell the coffee. Most users are scared to death of their PCs, do not know how to use them properly and haven't got the vaguest notion what Firefox is, nevermind CSS. Many still see IE as "the Internet".

      Firefox is good but I get the feeling that people only really like it because 1) it's not Microsoft 2) extensions. I don't think that anyone has moved to Firefox because it has better CSS support - unless you're a web developer.

      Mark - Opera, FF & IE user
  • teamparadox, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Are we forgetting its still in beta? lets not take potshots until its a final build.
    • dagamer34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Rendering engine isn't going to change from now until release.
  • myobie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+5Microsoft just does not have the desire to make IE the best at adhering to standards...they had a chance to put Firefox to shame, with their budget and resources. The could have implemented far greater things, faster.

    I would like to see where Safari & Konquerer rank there.
  • Tyrax, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Microsoft has a response:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/cwilso/archive/2006/08/10/694584.aspx
  • janeoblivian, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1God dammnit, IE. I hope this gets ironed out by the final release. If not, well then ***** IE. People are always whining "Not coding for IE is being lazy." Well, I say, let them bend over and take it if they want. But Microsoft has to change, and if not, developers need to send a message.
    • Grimfaire, on 10/12/2007, -7/+1I think you have it backwards. The "standards" are wrong. If anything has a market share above 75%.. then it's not that product that is wrong but the standards. Sure, M$ has a lot of problems and makes a lot of mistakes. But they make software that people use. You can preach all you want about the benefits of Firefox, Opera, whatever... but the standard organizations commonly are filled with people with a decidedly anti-M$ bent. Thus they almost automatically dissapprove of any standard that M$ puts forth.

      Look at the "Open Office" standard. The M$ word XML save is certainly a lot easier to work with, follows the "standards" for XML and has a much larger market share.

      I'm not saying because M$ has a large market share that they should entirely be the standard, but saying that something that currently has over 80% of the market is not standards compliant is just stupid.
    • janeoblivian, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't care if microsoft is use by 80% of internet surfers. THEY DO NOT CREATE THE STANDARDS. So, by not conforming to the OFFICIAL web standards, they completely defeat the purpose of even having said standards. I shouldn't get migraines everytime I want to code a web page, because it doesn't display properly in IE. Nor should i have to marr my code with hacks.
  • 404UserNotFound, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I still remember, after years of not messing around with HTML that I decided to get back into Web development. My stepdad needed a website for his business, so I decided to learn CSS and XHTML. I went to W3Schools and carefully crafted the CSS and XHTML until both validated perfectly under jigsaw and the W3 Validator.

    I closed firefox, and opened the page in Internet Explorer... to my dismay the page which rendered perfectly in Firefox was slaughtered.

    Microsoft's share in the browser market is dropping due to the negative word of mouth by those of us who work on computer systems, and who spread the gospel of Mozilla to those we assist in fixing computer issues.

    Sure it might hurt my future business for users I run tech support for if I get them to use a safer browser... but I personally find the use of IE distasteful after my experiences away from it.
    • AlexApetrei, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1what the hell are you banging on about ...

      You went to w3c learned xhtml and css and made a perfect website which looked like poo in IE ..., i dont beleive you, get out of here.

      If it dont look right in IE, you dont have a business web site, deal with it.
    • markdav, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@404UserNotFound "I went to W3Schools and carefully crafted the CSS and XHTML until both validated perfectly under jigsaw and the W3 Validator".

      Valid CSS and XHTML doesn't guarantee that your site will look as intended in all user agents. There are rendering bugs in all browsers and, yes, IE is the worst culprit. Hell even the validation services aren't perfect - they have bugs as well.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 100 of 103 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.