Erik Funkenbusch wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Aug 2005 03:20:39 +0100, Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>> Paul Thurrott:
>> "Wilson's (IE Lead Program Manager) post is disappointing because
>> Microsoft doesn't plan to fully support the latest CSS standard in IE
> I'm not even sure what that means "support the latest CSS standards".
> Neither CSS 2.1 or 3 is even in recommendation stage, and we all know (or
> should anyways) that a browser that implements a standard before it's
> finalized is just creating yet another nightmare we have to support when
> it's implementation invariably differs from the final standard.
These words were not mine, they were Paul's. I fully agree with your
> CSS2.0 was never fully implemented by any browser, and isn't going to be
> (which is the reason for 2.1).
> Frankly, if *ALL* Microsoft did was fix the bugs in IE6 i'd be ecstactic
> at having a browser that did what I expected it to do, even if it didn't
> support everything I wanted it to. My life would be SO much simpler.
However, this assumes that you are using Windows XP. This creates a
different type of "nightmare" as you called it. Once developers begin to
cater for a majority (Windows XP, possibly with IE7), older computer
systems will suffer. I wrote about it a few hours ago:
Then again, here is more of a reason to use Firefox...
> Happily, that doesn't appear to be all their doing, though they're not
> going to have full support, with lots of stuff they didn't support
> Is it a disappointment? Sure, but I doubt anyone expected it to be
The disappointment can be broken up as follows:
1) IE7 only supports XP+. This was /not/ the initial plan
2) IE7 'extends' RSS without any world-wide consensus
3) IE7 keeps some developers in the dark
4) IE7 primarily imitates Firefox (tabs, search bar, maybe live bookmarks)
5) IE7 will urge users to use MSN search (unfair exploitation of a monopoly)
I could probably think of more, but I'll stick to the 5-point 'take home'
Roy S. Schestowitz