Web standards? IE? Firefox? BS!
It's a rare person who wants to hear what he doesn't want to hear. - Dick Cavett
I am really getting tired of seeing all these "holier than thou" articles, comments and rants about how Internet Explorer sucks because it doesn't implement "web standards" correctly, and how Firefox "does".
Bottom line? A bunch of BS! Neither one does! Here are a few images from the ACID 2 Test which deliberately invokes invalid CSS to see how browsers handle it:
IE TEST:
FIREFOX TEST:
REFERENCE IMAGE:
Bottom line? Users need to quit their political, opinionated rants and work to ensure that browser manufacturers all work together so that there is seamless, consistent behavior across browser brands - whether it be rendering, Javascript, CSS, the DOM, or whatever. Standards take time to create, and a lot of thought goes into it. The standards are there for a reason.
Let's stop the BS. Browser manufacturers and users all need to stop attacking each other and instead -- work to provide a consistent, standard set of browser behaviors for developers and users. You don't do world domination with web browsers. Everyone benefits. My two cents.
Well, at Mozilla we're trying. As you can see from that test, we were considerably better than IE and today we pass that particular test perfectly with the alpha builds of Firefox 3. See http://ajaxian.com/archives/firefox-30-passes-acid-2-css-test
ReplyDeleteWith Firefox, Opera, and Safari all handling the Acid 2 test this year, that leaves only IE in the non-compliance camp. IE needs to fix this for its next version, IE8 and web developers need to put the pressure on them to do that.
- Asa
No one ever said firefox was perfect. But it's allot closer to it than IE and at least we know their working towards full CSS implimentation.
ReplyDelete"Let's stop the BULLSHIT and work to ensure a pleasant, consistent behavior for users and developers alike. Everyone benefits. My two cents."
Thats what the W3C has spent 10 years trying to achieve. Microsoft have spent 10 years ignoring the rest of the world.
I completely agree. However, I think these Firefox-fanboys/IE-haters (as opposed to people who just plain like to use Firefox) have an ulterior motive. IE7 is not so bad that it deserves anywhere near the ire focused on it. After all, it's just a frigging piece of software. The reason they do it is because it's a foothold to chip away at MICROSOFT -- the company. i.e., "The Evil Corporation".
ReplyDeleteCouldn't agree with you more, Peter. I am getting tired of people saying IE7 sucks all the time-- it's actually running my project's JavaScript faster than FireFox does!
ReplyDeleteI really think the "every browser renders the same output" is a rather utopian idea. I think we need better frameworks that mask the complexity or allow the developer to deal with it better. For example, we all know what CSS stands for. Why do most of the sites I read about resort to CSS hacks in a single stylesheet instead of utilizing another stylesheet? For example, with ASP.NET you could have a main stylesheet called Common.css, and one for each browser (IE6.css, Firefox2.css) that would be dynamically included when the respective browser hits the site. I have found that by using this method my sites end up with easier to understand css (NO CSS hacks).
ReplyDeletePeter, maybe more important though: Testing VALID CSS and seeing that work consistently. If you have broken CSS code that's the developers problem - we shouldn't push that off to the browser vendors. But the real problem is if you have Valid CSS code that renders completely different in different browsers.
ReplyDeleteLike you I don't care who dunnit, I just like to see it fixed or consistent at least. But the bottom line is this: who's going to make Microsoft fix IE? They know they have problems with their CSS and it's not compliant. Yet they haven't fixed it.
While FireFox is not perfect either, it's a heck of a lot closer to standards than IE.
I've railed about this a bunch in the past in columns and posts but in the end hollering and scream doesn't make a damn of a difference. We're at the vendor's mercy and as long as the major vendors (IE, FireFox, Safari) aren't compatible we'll always be screwed because regardless you'll have to test all of it.
It sucks...
Good comments all. I cleaned up the post to be a little less "in your face" but the content is the same.
ReplyDeleteI agree with everything you said. I am so sick and tired of the browser argument, what I really want to write my own browser and tell them all to get screwed (they all suck, IMO). Unfortunately I dont have the time nor the knowledge to do that!
ReplyDeleteNot to mention that IE7 crashes in various situations and when I use Firefox on the errant page, it handles it just fine. I am glad to hear that Firefox 3 will pass the acid 2 test, and disappointed that IE doesn't even appear to have a timeline as to when it will be compliant.
ReplyDeleteI just wonder if Microsoft really has much incentive to follow standards. If you are making tons of money (they are) why bother?
I agree that it is we the developers and users who need to turn up the heat and make these people deliver quality standards-compliant products.
I really think the "every browser renders the same output" is a rather utopian idea. I think we need better frameworks that mask the complexity or allow the developer to deal with it better. For example, we all know what CSS stands for. Why do most of the sites I read about resort to CSS hacks in a single stylesheet instead of utilizing another stylesheet? For example, with ASP.NET you could have a main stylesheet called Common.css, and one for each browser (IE6.css, Firefox2.css) that would be dynamically included when the respective browser hits the site. I have found that by using this method my sites end up with easier to understand css (NO CSS hacks).
ReplyDeleteYou remember how Adobe's PDF was supposed to be a really "portable" document format but it really isn't?
ReplyDeleteUtopianism in browser rendering is quite a subjective concept. Browsers that implement standards in CSS (for example) should still be expected to render the contents so they look substantially similar, IMHO. That's what the standards are there for, no?
I agree that they should render reasonably close html, but with frameworks abstracting this knowledge from us we could render our pages without worrying about browser quirks. When the vendors finally become "standards-compliant", the framework changes, but ideally our pages don't.
ReplyDeleteBesides, what are the chances that every major browser vendor is going to jump on the bandwagon every time the "standards" change?
Standards rarely change. Standards bodies come out with new versions (e.g. CSS3) only after a great deal of discussion, study, and consensus. But the elements of the existing (e.g. CSS2) standard are rarely changed.
ReplyDeleteyour article is a bit contradictory...it is VERY clear from the pictures you showed that Firefox produced an image MUCH MUCH closer to the actual image. The IE image has NO RESEMBLANCE WHATSOEVER to the actual image. That is a big difference don't you think? Firefox 3 promises much better things. Besides Firefox is less than 2 years old but IE has been around for God knows how long...yet look at the results
ReplyDeleteI don't think my article is contradictory at all, I think you are simnply focusing on the hole instead of the donut. I'm *glad* that Firefox did a better job, and I'm even happier that 3.0 will be 100% standards compliant.
ReplyDeleteInstead of spending our time being Firefox or IE fanboys, how about let's spend our time being standards fanboys?
GRRR! There IS no reference rendering! How can there be when the acid2 test fails CSS validation, i.e. it's not valid: Ergo there IS no 'correct' rendering.
ReplyDeleteYou simply cannot feed non compliant code into a browser, and then claim non-compliance for that browser.
Here is a challenge for the fan boys. Rewrite acid2 to be compliant, and THEN do your tests...