http://www.webstandards.org/2007/12/19/ie8-passes-acid2-test-2/

Blimey. Cor luvvaduck and no mistake. Just after the announcement that Opera are complaining to the European Union (http://www.webstandards.org/2007/12/13/opera-complains-to-europe-over-ie-lock-in/) about Internet Explorer’s dodgy standards support, Chris Wilson reports (http://www.webstandards.org/2007/12/13/opera-complains-to-europe-over-ie-lock-in/#comment-59212) that an internal build of Internet Explorer 8 passes (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2007/12/19/internet-explorer-8-and-acid2-a-milestone.aspx) the Acid2 test (http://www.webstandards.org/action/acid2/).

This doesn’t necessarily mean that IE8 has fixed all its float oddities, or its hasLayout hilarities. But what it does mean is that there is another browser war, and Microsoft did decide to come (http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/archives/001006.html).


Added 20 December 2007: Markus Mielke of the Internet Explorer team confirms “HasLayout will be history with IE8 (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-style/2007Dec/0151.html)“. Exciting times…

Awesome! This will make a few things happen:

1. It will put massive pressure on the Mozilla/Firefox team to work that much harder to support standards (Mozilla will be way behind IE and Opera at that point).

2. Maybe it will force Apple to do something about its-buggier-than-hell Safari (if they just fixed their support for ECMA I'd be happy, but standards would be a great start).

3. It will put even greater emphasis for differentiation on product features, since standards support will no longer be a primary reason to choose one browser over another. That means heavier innovation (not that I'm displeased with the current browser feature list for most manufacturers).

4. It will give everyone a great foundation for support of upcoming standards. Like it or not (I tend to "not"), HTML5 is coming. CSS3 is anticipated in the future too - I can't wait for that!

Great work, Microsoft. I'll believe it when I see it...but I'll be encouraged in the meanwhile.

Oddly enough, the Acid2 test randomly stopped working on Firefox 3 and Opera, despite working earlier - a mirror located on hixie.ch however still works!

2. Maybe it will force Apple to do something about its-buggier-than-hell Safari (if they just fixed their support for ECMA I'd be happy, but standards would be a great start).

Who cares Apple.

Who cares Apple.
Ask the clients that view their new website on an Apple machine and start complaining to me about layout problems :mad:

In the video I saw about this, it shows they were all studying the Acid2 test to accomplish really just that: a good Acid2 test. I wonder if the other flaws and failures in the Trident engine are fixed upon release of version 8.

Not to be a real Opera fan boy but if you use Opera (which has been the leader for CSS compliance for a while) on their development pages there are examples of what they have been implementing.

These features include SVG (Scalable vector graphics) HTML5 form controls and various other features. So really.. Opera are still ahead of the game.

God I hate Internet Explorer. Please let it die. A happy Firefox user

Not to be a real Opera fan boy but if you use Opera (which has been the leader for CSS compliance for a while) on their development pages there are examples of what they have been implementing.

These features include SVG (Scalable vector graphics) HTML5 form controls and various other features. So really.. Opera are still ahead of the game.

If opera thought they were "ahead of the game" they would not have sued MS earlier this month. Obviously, if MS builds a "compliant" web browser then Opera does not have a product to market.

And we won't even get into the push Microsoft will have with Deepfish (mobile IE 8?) on mobile devices (phones/pda, etc). Opera is feeling some pressure...

Opera was moving along nicely as a paid browser until FireFox came along. Their attempts to go "free" never picked up any traction since FF had already won the hearts and minds of geeks and nerds. Now opera has to eat their own dog food and live with the mistakes they made in the past.

I'm glad to see MS making the transition... glad to see the "compliance guy" they hired is actually making progress. There were a lot of people saying it was a ploy or that nothing would change... well, seems MS has put his talent to work....

If opera thought they were "ahead of the game" they would not have sued MS earlier this month. Obviously, if MS builds a "compliant" web browser then Opera does not have a product to market.

And we won't even get into the push Microsoft will have with Deepfish (mobile IE 8?) on mobile devices (phones/pda, etc). Opera is feeling some pressure...Of course they are. Nobody markets better than Microsoft. The vast superiority of Opera's product doesn't even come close to making up for Microsoft's ability to push their software. If you don't have juggernaut-type dollars backing your product, you have to concentrate either on best development or best marketing. Opera concentrated on the former, Microsoft on the latter. Why, I don't know. Microsoft could have concentrated on both. It looks like they are now - I'm glad they're (apparently) done giving standards lip service and are actually going to do something about their past developmental woes.

Opera was moving along nicely as a paid browser until FireFox came along. Their attempts to go "free" never picked up any traction since FF had already won the hearts and minds of geeks and nerds. Now opera has to eat their own dog food and live with the mistakes they made in the past.Opera was a great browser when we had to pay for it (I paid - it was worth every penny and more), and it's a great browser now that it's free. The fact that it was paid for so long did make it hard for Opera to gain traction.

I was thinking maybe the whole paid v. free argument wasn't all that valid, because Firefox was a free browser for many years, back when it shared its name with its development team, Mozilla. But the grassroots/viral spread of Fx couldn't have been achieved if people had to pay for it. So yeah, Opera may have cost itself valuable traction as a paid application for so long.

I'm glad to see MS making the transition... glad to see the "compliance guy" they hired is actually making progress. There were a lot of people saying it was a ploy or that nothing would change... well, seems MS has put his talent to work....I'm thrilled as well. They promised this would happen back when IE6 was in development, and they broke that promise badly, through their next two browser releases. Microsoft can make up for a lot of broken trust with a good release!

Of course they are. Nobody markets better than Microsoft. The vast superiority of Opera's product doesn't even come close to making up for Microsoft's ability to push their software.

I'll take your word on Opera's browser "vast superiority" over IE. I've developed sites since the late 90s and never had trouble with ie... well, nothing out the norm. Matter of fact, I've not had any issues with ie with any of my sites or any other site for that matter. Heck, I build it, it shows. I visit a site, it shows on my screen. I won't get into "compliant." I'm talking about how it looks... and how "normal" people look at it... people say if it works, what is the issue....

Firefox came in and used good ideas to market against Microsoft... that is the rub. You can claim that Opera had this marketing issue, but Microsoft comes back and says, "Yes, but FireFox had an entire page in the Wall Street Journal. FF is ahead in "x" market in europe and making "x" progress here and here...."

That is the problem with your statement... FireFox was able to market successfully against Microsoft... what happened to Opera? If Firefox had success, why can't opera have the same success?

If Opera can't battle MS, then why have they not been able to market against FF? Hey, FF and opera is on the same level... matter of fact, I'd expect opera to have a larger cash flow and more monies in the bank than FF. Opera should be able to roll right over FF.... lol

That is the issue for opera... that darn FF.

And now that darn IE moving in being compliant.

I am for Opera though... the more competitors the better... microsoft makes crap products (or products that sit) unless they are pushed... once pushed (have someone to kill), MS can release some darn nice stuff.... the bottom line is without opera and FF there would not be an IE 7 in this form... nor a compliant IE 8. Just like without amd we would not have the wonderful products from intel. Companies rest/lose focus/etc unless they have competition.

I'll take your word on Opera's browser "vast superiority" over IE. I've developed sites since the late 90s and never had trouble with ie... well, nothing out the norm. Matter of fact, I've not had any issues with ie with any of my sites or any other site for that matter. Heck, I build it, it shows. I visit a site, it shows on my screen. I won't get into "compliant." I'm talking about how it looks... and how "normal" people look at it... people say if it works, what is the issue....You assume I'm talking about standards. Well yeah, Opera has always been vastly superior in that regard. But I'm talking more about feature sets. Opera was always much more powerful from a feature standpoint. Mozilla figured this out and put together a platform that allowed developers to create features (and made more features standard) Now IE is developing with feature sets in mind. Neither product comes close to Opera out of the box (Fx is equal, perhaps a hair superior, with extensions - IE is coming along - tabbed browsing, whoopie - Opera was doing that six years ago).

That is the problem with your statement... FireFox was able to market successfully against Microsoft... what happened to Opera? If Firefox had success, why can't opera have the same success?I was actually giving credence to your statement about Opera being a paid solution. The reason they had so much difficulty marketing is because they would have had to market a $30-40 product against a free product that everyone already had. Fx starting free gave them a major edge when it came time to gather the troups. And there were more troups to gather, because, let's face it, open source has a strong dedicated following. Opera's only "soldiers" are the people who have discovered it and enjoy using it. Going free was a good move. It was also a late move.

If Opera can't battle MS, then why have they not been able to market against FF? Hey, FF and opera is on the same level... matter of fact, I'd expect opera to have a larger cash flow and more monies in the bank than FF. Opera should be able to roll right over FF.... lolI'm afraid we'll never know the answer to that question, but obviously they're not playing on a level field. They're not out-marketing Fx, they're not rolling over anyone, and that would lead me to believe they do not have access to the cash you expect them to have.

The Mozilla team works for free, and it has backing from sources all over the world. I would expect R&D at Opera is expensive, since everyone who works on their products gets paid (minus widget makers, but that's peripheral). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Fx's coffures were much better stocked than Opera's.

The Mozilla team works for free, and it has backing from sources all over the world. I would expect R&D at Opera is expensive, since everyone who works on their products gets paid (minus widget makers, but that's peripheral). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Fx's coffures were much better stocked than Opera's.

You are right... I did not think of that.... well, I kinda did, but I figured they "should" have some money stashed away for a rainy day and went with that.

Either way, I don't want to see opera go away... that will be bad for consumers, if they know it or not. I do want to see IE get better, that will be good for consumers as well...

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/helpdesk/admin/index.php?_a=maintickets&_m=viewmain&_i=237244Agreed on all counts :) I definitely don't want Opera to die - I love using it too much. And I definitely want to see IE become a better, stronger, more developer-friendly browser!

If Opera can't battle MS, then why have they not been able to market against FF? Hey, FF and opera is on the same level... matter of fact, I'd expect opera to have a larger cash flow and more monies in the bank than FF. Opera should be able to roll right over FF.... lol
Probably not - Opera have a much smaller browser share than Firefox, and both browser's primary source of income are through Google / Yahoo referred searches; Mozilla must rake in hundereds of millions a year.

So which browser should I be using now?

So which browser should I be using now?

Opinion based, but I think the majority of those in the know would point you to Opera, but that in itself is opinion-based too :stickout:

The Mozilla team works for free, and it has backing from sources all over the world. I would expect R&D at Opera is expensive, since everyone who works on their products gets paid (minus widget makers, but that's peripheral). It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Fx's coffures were much better stocked than Opera's.
I'm pretty sure they don't work for free. I remember reading somewhere that they do get paid from the money made from the search box. Mozilla definitely have full-time employees.

It's like the guy who manages Ubuntu.. he gets paid 600k a year or something thereabouts.

Some different opinions on standards seem to be brewing thanks to Opera's lawsuit against Microsoft. I've not had a good read on it yet though. Interesting article..

Is the Sacred Cow of Web Standards Headed for the Slaughterhouse?

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/12/is-the-sacred-c.html#more

Some different opinions on standards seem to be brewing thanks to Opera's lawsuit against Microsoft. I've not had a good read on it yet though. Interesting article..

Is the Sacred Cow of Web Standards Headed for the Slaughterhouse?

http://blog.wired.com/monkeybites/2007/12/is-the-sacred-c.html#moreIt is a good article, though it's highlighting opinions (and even actions) that have been in place ever since W3C formed.

1) W3C is notoriously slow about implementing new standards and standard updates. Developers have been pulling their hair out over this for years. Words cannot describe how badly I want CSS3 codified. Once this happens, it will still probably be five years before it can be used, because browser have to catch up (IE and, to a lesser extent, Safari are the problem children here). But it starts with W3C issuing the specification.

2) Browsers have been developing above and beyond standards since the day W3C was formed. This is an area in which IE has always excelled. I don't think any developer has any beef with additional non-standard features. The gripe is, if you're going to build these, at least have the courtesy to get the standards right first! I love the fact that Fx and Opera are supporting portions of CSS3 already, and I love many of the things IE has implemented over the years (conditional statements, alpha filters, page transitions - ok, so these are actually annoying, but it's the thought that counts). I think you earn the right to experiment like this only after you've put your best effort into supporting the foundational specifications. Get those right, then expand from there.

3) W3C isn't going anywhere (this isn't mentioned in the article - I'm just mentioning it now). One of the worst things that could happen would be to establish a competing standardization board. Web developers and browser manufacturers would go nuts trying to serve more than one master! In many ways, the W3C is a good organization. In many ways, it is almost fatally flawed. Fix it!

YMMV :)

It is a good article, though it's highlighting opinions (and even actions) that have been in place ever since W3C formed.

1) W3C is notoriously slow about implementing new standards and standard updates. Developers have been pulling their hair out over this for years. Words cannot describe how badly I want CSS3 codified. Once this happens, it will still probably be five years before it can be used, because browser have to catch up (IE and, to a lesser extent, Safari are the problem children here). But it starts with W3C issuing the specification.

2) Browsers have been developing above and beyond standards since the day W3C was formed. This is an area in which IE has always excelled. I don't think any developer has any beef with additional non-standard features. The gripe is, if you're going to build these, at least have the courtesy to get the standards right first! I love the fact that Fx and Opera are supporting portions of CSS3 already, and I love many of the things IE has implemented over the years (conditional statements, alpha filters, page transitions - ok, so these are actually annoying, but it's the thought that counts). I think you earn the right to experiment like this only after you've put your best effort into supporting the foundational specifications. Get those right, then expand from there.

3) W3C isn't going anywhere (this isn't mentioned in the article - I'm just mentioning it now). One of the worst things that could happen would be to establish a competing standardization board. Web developers and browser manufacturers would go nuts trying to serve more than one master! In many ways, the W3C is a good organization. In many ways, it is almost fatally flawed. Fix it!

YMMV :)


Did you read some of the other articles hyper-linked to that article? What a mess...

1. Users are another issue. Some users can't or won't upgrade their browser or use a public system with an old browser. On my business site I have a mix of css and tables that would make your skin crawl... but it works with all browsers (end result). Problem: I've ran into the issue with being "compliant" and having older browsers (customers) not being able to see a portion of my site... or it not showing up correctly. Can't afford missed sales, so I go the route of "making it work." Part of this is my lack of knowledge in CSS as well (ie making it work with css)...

2. Agree 1000%. Maybe you should suggest this to MS, opera, and mozilla. ;)

3. Agree, again. I remember 10 years ago trying to build sites for different browsers. I finally gave up and devoted my energy to only IE. IE 6 smoothed things out (plus I was getting better) and that is when I started shooting for other browsers. Of course, I went through the pain of people still using older browsers.

Your #2 is dead on though... get everyone compliant (on the same page), then move from there. I can certainly understand MSs pain though. Getting compliant while attempting to not break what you have implemented in the past. History (ie apple, inc) shows that when you make drastic moves you lose customers.

Did you read some of the other articles hyper-linked to that article? What a mess...Nope - only so many hours in the day *sigh*

1. Users are another issue. Some users can't or won't upgrade their browser or use a public system with an old browser. On my business site I have a mix of css and tables that would make your skin crawl... but it works with all browsers (end result). Problem: I've ran into the issue with being "compliant" and having older browsers (customers) not being able to see a portion of my site... or it not showing up correctly. Can't afford missed sales, so I go the route of "making it work." Part of this is my lack of knowledge in CSS as well (ie making it work with css)...There is a certain point where supporting customers with legacy browsers hurts them more than it helps them. Older browsers are less capable and often pose a greater security risk than newer browsers. I think there's a cut-off point where you're allowed to insist that people upgrade. This is especially true considering all major browsers are free. There is very little excuse not to upgrade anymore, except that it may not be convenient to do so.

So, what is that cut-off? Up until a year or two ago, I personally set it at IE 5.0 (and then IE 5.5). Today, I think IE6 is a perfectly reasonable cut-off. Good fundamental markup will work in Firefox as far back as Moz 1.5 (pre-Firefox, back in the Firebird days). I cut off Opera at major version numbers, which is pretty reasonable, knowing the Opera userbase.

During the past couple years I pushed NS 4.x off my support list, and IE5.2Mac was a natural drop. Microsoft EOLed this years ago - there's little reason developers should continue to support it too.

So, I put the browser cut-off around 7-8 years ago. I think it is reasonable to expect people to upgrade their browsing software within 7-8 years' time (usually happens with an OS upgrade for IE and Safari at least, and OS patches will do it too - really, how can you AVOID upgrading!). I think, I hope, that's sufficient to cover close to 100% of most sites' visitor bases. I'm not going to lose sleep over not catering to visitors who use browsing technology developed last century. Those visitors will still be able to see and use a well-made site. It just won't look quite as pretty. Plus I think the development community owes it to them to encourage them to upgrade by not codependently enabling their bad browsing habits :stickout:

^^ That's all just one man's take on things though :)