SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 51 to 67 of 67
  1. #51
    ¬.¬ shoooo... silver trophy logic_earth's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    CA
    Posts
    9,013
    Mentioned
    8 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by awasson View Post
    Again, I don't buy it.... How long has anything been supported in Win95/98/ME/2K. They don't allow IE9 to work in anything less than Vista and I don't recall how far back IE8 goes but I would say that particular stance on backwards compatibility is somewhat flawed.
    You would think that would you? But whatever. It doesn't matter. Things are the way they are and you cannot change it.
    Logic without the fatal effects.
    All code snippets are licensed under WTFPL.


  2. #52
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,595
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by awasson View Post
    I don't recall how far back IE8 goes but I would say that particular stance on backwards compatibility is somewhat flawed.
    Neither IE8 nor IE7 will work on anything earlier than Windows XP.

    I think the issue with Internet Explorer is its lack of backwards compatibility. People are far less inclined to update software that they have to pay for (such as their operating system) than they are to upgrade free software (such as their web browser). The main reason that the old incompatible versions of IE continue in use is that the more recent versions of IE will not run on the older operating systems.

    If IE9 were backwards compatible to Windows 2000 then the time taken to for everyone using IE to upgrade to that version would be many years less than the current situation where those still using Windows 2000 because they can't upgrade past IE6 because even IE7 is incompatible.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  3. #53
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Again though, you can't expect to be using decade old technology (or older) and then expect to be able to use the latest software, and even expect to view modern websites without them breaking. You just can't. It's not like that for any other technology. You have to break some backwards compatibility if you want to make progress, there is no other way around it.

    Look at MacOS - There was a solid brick wall built between OS9 and OSX - nothing from one will work on the other at all, yet you don't hear people complaining about this, but MS who do their best to make badly coded websites appear OK on their modern browsers get all the flak.

  4. #54
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,017
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    Again though, you can't expect to be using decade old technology (or older) and then expect to be able to use the latest software, and even expect to view modern websites without them breaking. You just can't. It's not like that for any other technology. You have to break some backwards compatibility if you want to make progress, there is no other way around it.

    Look at MacOS - There was a solid brick wall built between OS9 and OSX - nothing from one will work on the other at all, yet you don't hear people complaining about this, but MS who do their best to make badly coded websites appear OK on their modern browsers get all the flak.
    Oh where to begin....

    How about with the old technology new software bit. I can run Chrome 10.x on Windows XP. It doesn't have quirks mode and it supports all the new wiz-bang features, acid 3, the works... That's roughly a ten year old OS running perhaps the best browser available

    As a matter of fact there are many articles around that describe how to get Chrome or Firefox to work with Win2k as well. It's not that the software won't work, it's that it has been designed not to work.

    That said, I totally agree with your stand on backwards comaptibility. Apple did a great thing when they dumped Classic Mac OS in light of OSX. Mind you, we are talking about two different things. OSX is a complex operating system that provides the environment for software to run and a browser is a piece of software that runs on top of said OS utilizing a great deal of the OS for support. That aside, it's too bad MS didn't do the same when they updated their browser from IE6 to present day. If they had dumped their broken model and followed standards (that were in place with FF, Opera, Safari, etc...) we wouldn't have 4 versions to deal with. Why is it do you suppose that we don't have this mess with any of the other browser vendors?

    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    ...but MS who do their best to make badly coded websites appear OK on their modern browsers get all the flak.
    That's hardley the concern. I think the real concern is that with all the backwards compatibility BS engineered into IE, developers are concerned that modern websites will render as expected. That's my concern anyway.
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  5. #55
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Chrome might well run on XP, but I bet it doesn't take advantage of the same hardware acceleration the IE9 probably does. Also, don't forget that the IE engine is quite deeply embedded into the windows core on earlier versions of windows... there are compatibility issues there. I would also argue against it being the best browser ever

    The reason MS had to maintain backwards compatibility was so that people actually used the new browsers, and in time, the new OS's. Apple was able to break backwards compatibility with OSX because they had such a low market share that they could afford to. Windows/IE cannot.

  6. #56
    SitePoint Wizard bronze trophy
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Vancouver BC Canada
    Posts
    2,017
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I think the point of Chrome, FF, Opera, etc... on Windows is that they're fast without the purported hardware acceleration that IE enjoys. As a matter of fact I don't think IE is anywhere close to Chrome when comes to speed. I can't say for IE9 yet though... I've been playing with IE9 beta on Win7 for a while but I still need to uninstall it and put the full version on to see how it feels compared to Firefox/Chrome, etc. No doubt it's a better browser than any IE before it.

    I'm not really a Chrome fanboy. I've had it on my everyday machine for testing since it was in beta and added web dev toolbar and firebug. What I've found is, now that it's somewhat hardened, I'll open it for testing and then continue using for some time as I continue to test and develop until I realize I'm not in Firefox anymore. That to me is an indicator that I might switch from FF to Chrome. It's darned fast and I think it might even be leading the challenge of CSS/HTML support (CSS3/HTML5/WebGL). Opera may be in the lead but I've lost track of that sort of thing.

    And yes, MS obviously has the greatest market share by a long shot which makes it all that more unfortunate that they chose to continue to try and support bad habits of IE5.5/6 websites. I remember about 7 or 8 years ago a young developer friend of mine (ironically he's a year older than me) came up to me and said that he didn't need to learn how web standards worked because he could mess about in Dreamweaver with nested tables and it looked great in IE. He didn't care about Apple/Linux computers or Netscape 5/6, Mozilla, Opera, etc.... As long as it wokred in IE, he was satisfied. Of course he has long since stopped doing anything for the web but his attitude was enabled by backwards compatibility thinking of making crap code look good. Anyway, I've rambled way off topic by now
    Andrew Wasson | www.lunadesign.org
    Principal / Internet Development

  7. #57
    Programming Since 1978 silver trophybronze trophy felgall's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, NSW, Australia
    Posts
    16,595
    Mentioned
    24 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Stormrider View Post
    but MS who do their best to make badly coded websites appear OK on their modern browsers get all the flak.
    Surely with the other browsers not bothering to do that those badly coded websites still end up looking like garbage for the 2/3 of people who don't use IE.

    Microsoft's policy of doing this might have made sense when they had 90%+ of the market but, now that IE6, IE7, IE8, and IE9 have barely more users between them to what Firefox has, the policy makes less sense now. They'd have done better to make sure IE9 works the same way as all the other browsers do rather than worrying about backwards compatibility for web sites that hardly anyone will see the way they were intended to look in a couple of years time.
    Stephen J Chapman

    javascriptexample.net, Book Reviews, follow me on Twitter
    HTML Help, CSS Help, JavaScript Help, PHP/mySQL Help, blog
    <input name="html5" type="text" required pattern="^$">

  8. #58
    SitePoint Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    2,582
    Mentioned
    29 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If a bad site is so bad it can't keep up with standards (or at least abuse tables enough) to look good in modern browsers, it likely doesn't have anything worth viewing anyways.

    Also, FF, Chrome, etc. don't really need to worry about being backwards compatible because they're largely standards compliant right from the beginning.

  9. #59
    SitePoint Wizard silver trophybronze trophy Stormrider's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Nottingham, UK
    Posts
    3,133
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    Surely with the other browsers not bothering to do that those badly coded websites still end up looking like garbage for the 2/3 of people who don't use IE.
    Indeed they do, which is why companies using intranets etc designed for IE6 don't tend to use other browsers!

    Quote Originally Posted by felgall View Post
    They'd have done better to make sure IE9 works the same way as all the other browsers do rather than worrying about backwards compatibility for web sites that hardly anyone will see the way they were intended to look in a couple of years time.
    They have. IE9 should render to standards mode by default.

  10. #60
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    39,777
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Note to all:

    Please keep the thread on topic as it seems to have veered away from the original question.

    i.e.
    IE9 forces the child page to the same DOCTYPE as the parent page

  11. #61
    SitePoint Enthusiast jackburd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    35
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    do we still need a special code for IE 9?

    IE is always special...

  12. #62
    SitePoint Member
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    4
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's showing the page in "Compatability View," which essentially drops back to what IE7 did. The tip-off (took me a long time to realize this) is the empty vertical scrollbar at the far right (not the scrollbar in the iframe itself).
    In IE9, take a look at Tools, Compatability View Settings, and see if my domain is listed there.

  13. #63
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    279
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Old, old thread, but I've been paying attention to this issue for the last 2+ years. IE10 still had the bug in it - the DOCTYPE of the content of the iframe was ignored. But IE11, mirabile dictu, appears to get it right. Try my demo page in IE11, and I think you'll see that the embedded page renders correctly. With IE9 or IE10, it doesn't.

    http://misterneutron.com/iframe/

  14. #64
    SitePoint Evangelist silver trophybronze trophy
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    406
    Mentioned
    21 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hi EarlyOut,
    I wonder if it is a real bug of IE; anyway it is a firm html-error! *)
    (and there are more, the html-validator is shouting)

    In the page of nbc the <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=5"> is in the wrong place: before the <html> tag, instead of inside the <head>.

    If you move the <meta> inside the <head>, IE10 is doing well:

    If you delete the whole <meta> completely, and the document starts with <html> (without doctype), IE10 can handle it also:

    According to Browsershots, IE9 does the same.

    Some more info about IE10 and quirks mode: msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ie/hh869300%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
    _______
    *) Or maybe nbc did it deliberately, against iframe-robbery.

  15. #65
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    279
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    It's very tough to sort out. The MS documentation was very clear that the DOCTYPE of the parent page would be applied to the child page in the iframe, regardless of the explicit DOCTYPE of the child. Perhaps having no DOCTYPE in the child somehow avoids the problem.

    I'm just happy that this is something I can file away in the "ignore unless it comes roaring back" file. IE9 is dying fast (in my site stats, it's accounting for fewer visitors than IE8, in fact), and if IE11 is getting pumped out as a regular update, IE10 will vanish equally quickly.

  16. #66
    SitePoint Addict EarlyOut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Sector R
    Posts
    279
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Here's the wonderful diagram I recall encountering when I first ran into this issue. If this doesn't tell you what's Wrong in Redmond©, I don't know what will.

    http://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/ie...velopers_1.svg

    And yet, for all that, they don't really define what they mean by a page that "indicates" quirks mode. "Indicates" how, exactly?

  17. #67
    The CSS Clinic is open silver trophybronze trophy
    Paul O'B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Hampshire UK
    Posts
    39,777
    Mentioned
    158 Post(s)
    Tagged
    3 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by EarlyOut View Post
    Here's the wonderful diagram I recall encountering when I first ran into this issue. If this doesn't tell you what's Wrong in Redmond©, I don't know what will.
    Yes the mind boggles


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •