Got equipped with SCREW ATTACK!

[ASheridan]

 @blakeyrat said:

IE's just as good as all the other browsers, get the fuck over it.

Hahahahahahahahahahaa hahahahahahaha!

Oh, wait, you were serious weren't you? Damn.

[MiffTheFox]

The only reason IE10 is "behind" Chrome and Firefox is that Google and Mozilla like to add unspeced features in a proprietary manner where Microsoft, to everyone's surprise, is waiting for the specification to be implemented in a standard way.

Then again I think MS should start implementing -webkit-CSS3 and webkitHTML5 in IE like Opera and Mozilla threatened to do.

On the third hand, we're only a few more years from a glorious Webkit monoculture, so maybe we should stop fighting change and stop adding -o- and -moz- prefixes.

[ASheridan]

@MiffTheFox said:

The only reason IE10 is "behind" Chrome and Firefox is that Google and Mozilla like to add unspeced features in a proprietary manner where Microsoft, to everyone's surprise, is waiting for the specification to be implemented in a standard way.

IE10 is probably a different ball game, but that's not available for a large proportion of users, whereas other browsers are, so while it might be an unfair fight, it's one of Microsofts making.

However, when IE9 launched, it was touted as a modern browser, yet was only just catching up on features that had existed in other browsers for ages. Bringing up the argument that IE was only following the specifications is just not good enough. The W3C moves so slowly on specs, and it helps nobody to sit idle. This is the Web, and industry which should be moving fast. So browsers implemented draft ideas and IE sat back and watched. Just look at http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/ie9/ for an idea of how well it fared against other browsers of an age with it.

I'd like to point out that I'm well aware of IE getting flak for implementing unspecced stuff. That's more though to do with the way they implemented it rather than the idea, using all sorts of weird stuff. Document.all, DirectX CSS filters, et al. The one good idea they've had I think which still hasn't made it into the spec is conditional comments, but that's probably a good thing seeing what people are doing with browser "sniffer" scripts today.

[dhromed]

@ASheridan said:

I'll give you a clue, it's all about the time it takes the user agent to make a request to the server and the server to respond,

 

Oh, then just don't include the blog CSS on the home page. analogous for other pages.

It may come into play when you're loading lots of libraries, like having 5 jquery UI components, plus bootstrap, plus whatever.css etc.

But that's just speculation.

The latest website I did has a total of 171 selectors in 1038 LOC, spread over 6 files (which are obviously not all included all the time). 171 is 16% of the total code. Using that same ratio, 4000 selectors roughly means 24000 lines of CSS.

So until you can show me the website that reasonably has this, I currently don't think 4000 is a sane number of selectors for any website.

Of course, twitter foists a 5MB minified javascript file on you when you look at the picture slideshow, so it may very well happen. But we can all agree that's insane.

On the other hand, we all know what sort of useless junk wisdom is embodied by "4096 selectors should be enough for everyone". I guess generated CSS could conceivably produce >2^12 selectors at some point? 

[dhromed]

@ASheridan said:

The one good idea they've had I think which still hasn't made it into the spec is conditional comments, but that's probably a good thing seeing what people are doing with browser "sniffer" scripts today.

 

conditional comments are fucking awesome.

Or rather, they were, when I had to do different things  for IE6, 7 and 8. Fuck, I thought it was so useful, I built it as an argument into the html header writer I delevoped for our CMS.

[dhromed]

@ASheridan said:

Just look at http://people.mozilla.com/~prouget/ie9/ for an idea of how well it fared against other browsers of an age with it.

 

For the record, IE9 supports text-shadow, and gradients.

I know this because I've used them.

I retract my false statements because my memory is apparently completely defective.

Ok back to IE9 bashing, which it deserves.

[dhromed]

@blakeyrat said:

It's over now, IE's just as good as all the other browsers, get the fuck over it.

 @blakeyrat said:

I'd even go as far as saying that IE is less shit than the others.

That is wrong. It's still the least-supporting browser with the least-responsive, least-useful UI and still the most byzantine bullshit preferences dialog that nobody ever adressed in 15 years.

So no. It's not awful,  but every other browser is markedly better. Fuck, my mother uses Chrome.

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

@blakeyrat said:

It's over now, IE's just as good as all the other browsers, get the fuck over it.

 @blakeyrat said:

I'd even go as far as saying that IE is less shit than the others.

That is wrong. It's still the least-supporting browser with the least-responsive, least-useful UI and still the most byzantine bullshit preferences dialog that nobody ever adressed in 15 years.

So no. It's not awful,  but every other browser is markedly better. Fuck, my mother uses Chrome.

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

 

[dhromed]

@bjolling said:

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

 

I'm using a 13 year old OS at home, and a 4 year old OS at work. I'm hoping to remedy the former soonish.

I was also hoping to get IE10, but there's no link to it on microsoft.com.

[spamcourt]

@bjolling said:

@dhromed said:

@blakeyrat said:

It's over now, IE's just as good as all the other browsers, get the fuck over it.

 @blakeyrat said:

I'd even go as far as saying that IE is less shit than the others.

That is wrong. It's still the least-supporting browser with the least-responsive, least-useful UI and still the most byzantine bullshit preferences dialog that nobody ever adressed in 15 years.

So no. It's not awful,  but every other browser is markedly better. Fuck, my mother uses Chrome.

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

 

 

Only for Windows 8. The most optimistic report I could find said Windows 8 had about 1% of the desktop share, and Wikipedia puts it at 0.32%. IE6 still has a 6% usage share. Just saying.

 

[bjolling]

@spamcourt said:

@bjolling said:

@dhromed said:

@blakeyrat said:

It's over now, IE's just as good as all the other browsers, get the fuck over it.

 @blakeyrat said:

I'd even go as far as saying that IE is less shit than the others.

That is wrong. It's still the least-supporting browser with the least-responsive, least-useful UI and still the most byzantine bullshit preferences dialog that nobody ever adressed in 15 years.

So no. It's not awful,  but every other browser is markedly better. Fuck, my mother uses Chrome.

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

 

 

Only for Windows 8. The most optimistic report I could find said Windows 8 had about 1% of the desktop share, and Wikipedia puts it at 0.32%. IE6 still has a 6% usage share. Just saying.

 

Strange. A quick survey at my home and among my colleagues places it closer to 90%.

On the other hand, my corporate desktop uses Firefox 11. Why not bash that one instead?

 

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

@bjolling said:

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

 

I'm using a 13 year old OS at home, and a 4 year old OS at work. I'm hoping to remedy the former soonish.

I was also hoping to get IE10, but there's no link to it on microsoft.com.

I can't feel sorry for Windows XP (and neither for Vista). Here is a link for Windows 7:

http://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2012/11/13/ie10-fast-fluid-perfect-for-touch-and-available-now-for-windows-7.aspx

 There is no excuse. Now start bashing IE10

[ASheridan]

@bjolling said:

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

The link I provded earlier is comparing IE9 against browsers of the same age. I agree that it is unfair to compair and old version of one browser with a new version of another, but that's not what I'm doing here, and not what I have been doing. I keep pointing out that like-for-like IE has been shown to be found wanting. And I'll drop the IE bashing as soon as you can get IE10 installed on all those WinXP machines that my companies clients seem to favour.

[dhromed]

 I don't want to inflict Windows 7 on myself.

[bjolling]

@ASheridan said:

@bjolling said:

Stop bashing IE9. IE10 has been out for months now so compare to the latest version, just like you would with the other browsers. Or does your mother also use a 2-year old version of Chrome?

The link I provded earlier is comparing IE9 against browsers of the same age. I agree that it is unfair to compair and old version of one browser with a new version of another, but that's not what I'm doing here, and not what I have been doing. I keep pointing out that like-for-like IE has been shown to be found wanting. And I'll drop the IE bashing as soon as you can get IE10 installed on all those WinXP machines that my companies clients seem to favour.

The link I have provided is comparing IE10 for Windows 7 with Chrome 23 and Firefox 16.

I'll stop asking for a fair comparison once you convince my clients to drop Firefox 11 in favor of Firefox 16

 

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

I don't want to inflict Windows 7 on myself.

Without any sarcasm, but I think you are really missing out. Please read the discussion you yourself sparked with your question on http://forums.thedailywtf.com/forums/p/12251/199488.aspx:

@dhromed said:

I'd like to know how people fill in the blanks when they are presented the following sentence:

"I don't really want to go back to XP, because I'd have to miss Vista's ______________________________________________________________________...n  "

All that + Windows 7 is way better than Vista

 

 

[ASheridan]

@bjolling said:

The link I have provided is comparing IE10 for Windows 7 with Chrome 23 and Firefox 16.

The link you provided doesn't give a decent comparison, it's a comparison on one test. Hardly conclusive.

@bjolling said:

I'll stop asking for a fair comparison once you convince my clients to drop Firefox 11 in favor of Firefox 16

What? This makes no sense? By Fx 11 they are on auto updates anyway

 

[ASheridan]

@bjolling said:

Windows 7 is way better than Vista

Can't disagree with that. Vista was only marginally better than WinME!

But still, all those WinXP machines in offices and homes world over which won't be updated for a while because:

• A new Windows OS will cost, considerably more in an office environment where even group licensing is gonna cost a packet
• Computers may be too old to run Win7/8, so yet more costs upgrading hardware
• Internal apps/hardware might prevent upgrades 

So you see, there's plenty of valid reasons why someone might not be able to upgrade their version of IE. And as Microsoft doesn't even offer updates to older browsers to fix bugs, this leaves people with old versions of IE, which are awful compared to their counterparts of the same age.

[MiffTheFox]

@ASheridan said:

@bjolling said:

The link I have provided is comparing IE10 for Windows 7 with Chrome 23 and Firefox 16.

The link you provided doesn't give a decent comparison, it's a comparison on one test. Hardly conclusive.

@bjolling said:

I'll stop asking for a fair comparison once you convince my clients to drop Firefox 11 in favor of Firefox 16

What? This makes no sense? By Fx 11 they are on auto updates anyway

 

I used Firefox 3.5 well into the era of Firefox 9! I only switched to Chrome because Javascript apparently does need to be JIT compiled now.

And as mentioned earlier in this thread, many corporate policies require re-certification of software for every new major version, if not every new version outright.

If only there was a mechanism for Firefox to indicate that a new version is only a minor change from the old one.. oh well.

[Cassidy]

@dhromed said:

I retract my false statements because my memory is apparently completely defective.

 

You'd better make a note of that lest you forget in future.

@MiffTheFox said:

If only there was a mechanism for Firefox to indicate that a new version is only a minor change from the old one.. oh well.

I wish there was a mechanism for a user to check for Firefox updates.

There's a button marked "check for updates" but that seems to be a mislabelled "download and upgrade Firefox" button.

 

[bjolling]

Come'on, don't reply in several messages. It makes quoting complicated

@ASheridan said:

@bjolling said:

The link I have provided is comparing IE10 for Windows 7 with Chrome 23 and Firefox 16.

The link you provided doesn't give a decent comparison, it's a comparison on one test. Hardly conclusive.

It's a start. It shows you CAN compare features correctly. Now go and do your own comparisons in the same way and publish your results. Then you can truly bash based on facts and not on emotion.

@ASheridan said:

@bjolling said:

I'll stop asking for a fair comparison once you convince my clients to drop Firefox 11 in favor of Firefox 16

What? This makes no sense? By Fx 11 they are on auto updates anyway

So in corporate locked-down environments, users can update their software to the latest versions? @ASheridan said:

But still, all those WinXP machines in offices and homes world over which won't be updated for a while because:

• A new Windows OS will cost, considerably more in an office environment where even group licensing is gonna cost a packet
• Computers may be too old to run Win7/8, so yet more costs upgrading hardware
• Internal apps/hardware might prevent upgrades 

So you see, there's plenty of valid reasons why someone might not be able to upgrade their version of IE. And as Microsoft doesn't even offer updates to older browsers to fix bugs, this leaves people with old versions of IE, which are awful compared to their counterparts of the same age

So in corporate locked-down environments, users can not update their software to the latest versions?

Why are you making this fake distinction? In corporate environments, nothing goes to the latest version: not Windows, not IE, not Firefox, not Chrome... So you need to take this out of the equation by comparing versions of applications at the time of their release

 

[dhromed]

@ASheridan said:

By Fx 11 they are on auto updates anyway

 

Auto-updates have been there since 3, I think, but silent updates only since 13 or 14. This distinction is important.

[dhromed]

@bjolling said:

Please read the discussion you yourself sparked with your question

 

That was XP vs Vista, not Vista vs 7.

I used to think 7 was fappity awesome until I used it for 5 minutes and saw no reason at all to enjoy it, and the new taskbar was a total bust. But we've had that discussion and I explained why I thought it wasn't that great. But, we can always re-do a thread in the same vein:

 

I don't want to go back to Vista because then I'd miss _______________________________ from Win7

[dhromed]

@Cassidy said:

@dhromed said:

I retract my false statements because my memory is apparently completely defective.

 

You'd better make a note of that lest you forget in future.

 

It's quite a challenge. I know. I've been there. Maybe not.

 

[Cassidy]

@dhromed said:

It's quite a challenge. I know. I've been there. Maybe not.

 

I think Schrödinger nicked my notebook.

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

I'm using a 13 year old OS at home, and a 4 year old OS at work. I'm hoping to remedy the former soonish.

@dhromed said:

@bjolling said:

Please read the discussion you yourself sparked with your question

That was XP vs Vista, not Vista vs 7.

Yes, I know, I quoted it from that thread myself. I even said below my quote that you get all that + the additional improvements in Windows 7.

Windows Vista is a 13 year old OS now? Apologies, I thought you referred to Windows XP. All the improvements that were made between XP and Vista are still there. The list that was created in that thread is still valid for Windows 7 and Windows 8.

 I see why Blakey enjoys debating with you guys. Are you this dense or is all this just an elaborate joke and I'm not in on it?

 

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

I used to think 7 was fappity awesome until I used it for 5 minutes and saw no reason at all to enjoy it, and the new taskbar was a total bust. But we've had that discussion and I explained why I thought it wasn't that great. But, we can always re-do a thread in the same vein:

I don't want to go back to Vista because then I'd miss _______________________________ from Win7

You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make it drink. So I'll pass on this one

[ASheridan]

@bjolling said:

Come'on, don't reply in several messages. It makes quoting complicated

I was replying to two posts, so I made two replies

@bjolling said:

It's a start. It shows you CAN compare features correctly. Now go and do your own comparisons in the same way and publish your results. Then you can truly bash based on facts and not on emotion.

 You call it a start, I call it only part of the picture. And besides, I wasn't the one who brought IE10 into this. I very specifically mentioned versions 7/8/9, and I pointedly didn't compare those old versions of IE to newer versions of other browsers. You are the one who seems to be drawing that link.

@bjolling said:

So in corporate locked-down environments, users can update their software to the latest versions?

Again, I wasn't really talking about the latest versions of browsers, so this is basically a non-point. I was specifically talking about old versions of IE, and how they were lacking compared to similarly old versions of other browsers. In-fact, most of this conversation started after I mentioned how IE could have benfitted from updates, given its long release cycles and general crappity-crap attitude to code.

@bjolling said:

Why are you making this fake distinction? In corporate environments, nothing goes to the latest version: not Windows, not IE, not Firefox, not Chrome... So you need to take this out of the equation by comparing versions of applications at the time of their release

Which I did, and I even provided a very good link of IE9 compared to other browsers of its time. If you remember, Microsoft also went on about how IE9 was such a great browser and was ahead of all the others, when the facts showed otherwise. Something tells me that their same claims this time about IE10 being the most bestest and betterer than everything else might have this same issue. But that's just me, I'm a little skeptical of the company that's given us what is possibly the worst web browser for the past decade.

 

 

 

[MiffTheFox]

I don't want to go to 7 because then I'd miss _headers in Explorer_ from Vista

 

No, my explorer Window has too many items to summon the context menu.

No, I don't have the menu bar showing by default.

No, there is no fucking sort option in the organize menu!

 

Sorry, personal pet peeve.

[dhromed]

@bjolling said:

Windows Vista is a 13 year old OS now?

 

...no, XP is.

@bjolling said:

All the improvements that were made between XP and Vista are still there.

Thing is, I still have XP at home, and at some point I thought hey maybe I should upgrade to Vista, but then 7 came out, and I thought maybe I should upgrade to 7, but neither Vista nor 7 gave me good enough reasons to upgrade, despite that thread about Vista's features. It seems only DX10 can do that now, and only if game- and hardware makers force my hand by dropping support for DX9/XP.

So I'm looking at Win8 now, which I tried in a VM a while back and I liked it. I'm going to be left behind soon anyway, if I don't. And reinstalling is a pain in the ass, so I prefer putting that off as long as humanly possible.

And that is the situation!

[bjolling]

@ASheridan said:

You call it a start, I call it only part of the picture

Same difference? It also mentions the addition of CSS text shadows and CSS gradients, which is something dhromed mentioned was missing in IE9, so it's not just the one test for which they created the graphs.

@ASheridan said:

I wasn't the one who brought IE10 into this. I very specifically mentioned versions 7/8/9, and I pointedly didn't compare those old versions of IE to newer versions of other browsers. You are the one who seems to be drawing that link.

I brought IE10 into this already on the very first page of this thread. Your link appears on page 3 and not even in response to anything I said. You're on my subconscious blacklist because of your constant bickering with Blakey so I don't read much of what you write if it doesn't instantly appeal to me.

 

[dhromed]

@bjolling said:

which is something dhromed mentioned was missing in IE9,

 

*cough* I said the opposite and then retconned myself. Not sure if that's the same.

[ASheridan]

@bjolling said:

It also mentions the addition of CSS text shadows and CSS gradients, which is something dhromed mentioned was missing in IE9, so it's not just the one test for which they created the graphs.

The addition? That kinda proves my point. Other browsers have had gradients and text shadows for a long while, before even IE9 came out.To IEs credit though, I'm pretty sure IE9 could handle gradients and text shadows.

@bjolling said:

I brought IE10 into this already on the very first page of this thread. Your link appears on page 3 and not even in response to anything I said. You're on my subconscious blacklist because of your constant bickering with Blakey so I don't read much of what you write if it doesn't instantly appeal to me.

A little childish, but it probably explains why you missed a lot of what I was saying. Still, it's not like the posts have been deleted, so you can always read them now. Incidentally the link I posted was on page 3, but my other comments were started on page 1.

 

[MiffTheFox]

@ASheridan said:

The addition? That kinda proves my point. Other browsers have had gradients and text shadows for a long while, before even IE9 came out.To IEs credit though, I'm pretty sure IE9 could handle gradients and text shadows.

IE6 5.5 could handle gradients and text shadows long before Chrome and Firefox even existed.

What's that? DX filters don't count because they're a propretary feature? Well, unless you're talking about genuine W3C CSS gradients and shadows and not -moz-gradient or -webkit-text-shadow, filters are fair fucking game.

Although I can't find any data of when Gecko/Webkit implemented specific W3C CSS3 features vs their proprietary versions.

[ASheridan]

@MiffTheFox said:

IE6 could handle gradients and text shadows, long before Chrome and Firefox even existed.

I'm well aware of them, but they were awful implementations of the features available in browsers now. The gradients only supported 2 colours, and no kind of directionality except down, and the shadows filter only works in 45° increments and looked awful. They might be the precursor, but they just don't compare. It's a bit like comparing a horse and cart to a modern car. Sure, they are both methods of transportation, but one is slow and leaves crap all over the place.

[dhromed]

@dhromed said:

It seems only DX10 can do that now, and only if game- and hardware makers force my hand by dropping support for DX9/XP.

 

And it just happened!

Time to get my settings backups in order.

[blakeyrat]

@ASheridan said:

However, when IE9 launched, it was touted as a modern browser, yet was only just catching up on features that had existed in other browsers for ages.

IE8 supported 100% of finished W3C specs. IE9 supports all of that, plus a ton of HTML5 in-progress specs.

@ASheridan said:

Bringing up the argument that IE was only following the specifications is just not good enough. The W3C moves so slowly on specs, and it helps nobody to sit idle.

Oh so you're well aware that the problem is the W3C's fault, you're just blaming Microsoft because... I dunno, brain worms? Not enough love as a child? Shoulder-mounted aliens from Jupiter? How about maybe blame the party that's actually at-fault, eh?

I hate talking to you.

@ASheridan said:

The one good idea they've had I think which still hasn't made it into the spec is conditional comments,

If you ignore XMLHttpRequest, which like 2/3rds of all websites (including this shitty one) rely on.

The other good stuff, Firefox and the W3C did rip-off, they just changed the name to make it slightly less obvious it was being ripped-off. Take the innerText property for example. Oops, I mean "textContent" property.

The best idea Microsoft's had that hasn't made it into the specs is the readyState property. Without that, it's literally impossible to make a bug-free JavaScript that can run both included on a page and as a bookmarklet. (Although I guess since browsers are now disabling bookmarklets that matters less and less.) Having the only way to tell if a component is loaded be a event is retarded-- what if you want to tell if it's loaded, but you may or may not have missed the event (i.e. the event was triggered before your JavaScript was able to initialize)? There's no way to retroactively find out-- unless you're in IE.

It's such an obvious shortcoming to the specs it boggles my mind that the W3C hasn't-- HAHAHAHA I couldn't even finish that sentence

[blakeyrat]

@bjolling said:

You're on my subconscious blacklist because of your constant bickering with Blakey so I don't read much of what you write if it doesn't instantly appeal to me.

I hate talking to him.

[Cassidy]

@ASheridan said:

@bjolling said:

Come'on, don't reply in several messages. It makes quoting complicated

I was replying to two posts, so I made two replies

 

I think that was aimed at me.

I iz guilty of that.

[Ben L.]

@MiffTheFox said:

@ASheridan said:

The addition? That kinda proves my point. Other browsers have had gradients and text shadows for a long while, before even IE9 came out.To IEs credit though, I'm pretty sure IE9 could handle gradients and text shadows.

IE6 5.5 could handle gradients and text shadows long before Chrome and Firefox even existed.

What's that? DX filters don't count because they're a propretary feature? Well, unless you're talking about genuine W3C CSS gradients and shadows and not -moz-gradient or -webkit-text-shadow, filters are fair fucking game.

Although I can't find any data of when Gecko/Webkit implemented specific W3C CSS3 features vs their proprietary versions.

The difference between filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.MotionBlur(strength=13, direction=310) progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Blur(pixelradius=2) progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Wheel(duration=3); and actual real CSS is that -moz-text-shadow and -webkit-text-shadow are available as simply text-shadow in all standards-compliant browsers, which means you can make browser-specific styles OR ACTUALLY MAKE A STYLESHEET THAT IS USEFUL TO STYLE YOUR WEBSITE. With Microsoft's way, the stylesheet is a few hundred kilobytes heavier and only works in one or two buggy browsers.

[MiffTheFox]

@Ben L. said:

The difference between filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.MotionBlur(strength=13, direction=310) progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Blur(pixelradius=2) progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Wheel(duration=3); and actual real CSS is that -moz-text-shadow and -webkit-text-shadow are available as simply text-shadow in all standards-compliant browsers, which means you can make browser-specific styles OR ACTUALLY MAKE A STYLESHEET THAT IS USEFUL TO STYLE YOUR WEBSITE. With Microsoft's way, the stylesheet is a few hundred kilobytes heavier and only works in one or two buggy browsers.

So what? Even something as minor as changing the property name makes it a incompatible implementation. Remember TOPMARGIN/LEFTMARGIN vs MARGINHEIGHT/MARGINWIDTH? document.all vs docume I can't find any data on when Chrome or Firefox became "standards-compliant" since everybody and their dog think that -moz- and -webkit- properties count as proper cross-browser implementations. I guess this means that I either have to forgo old versions of browsers that would crop up in corporate environments or just stick -moz- and -webkit- in front of every CSS3 property just to be safe. Like I said

@MiffTheFox said:

I can't find any data of when Gecko/Webkit implemented specific W3C CSS3 features vs their proprietary versions.

I still don't see what problem is with

filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient(graidientType=1, startColorstr=#FFFFFFFF, endColorstr=#00000000)

when you already have to add

background-image: linear-gradient(left , rgb(0,0,0) 0%, rgb(255,255,255) 100%);
background-image: -o-linear-gradient(left , rgb(0,0,0) 0%, rgb(255,255,255) 100%);
background-image: -moz-linear-gradient(left , rgb(0,0,0) 0%, rgb(255,255,255) 100%);
background-image: -webkit-linear-gradient(left , rgb(0,0,0) 0%, rgb(255,255,255) 100%);
background-image: -ms-linear-gradient(left , rgb(0,0,0) 0%, rgb(255,255,255) 100%);
background-image: -webkit-gradient(linear, left top, right top, color-stop(0, rgb(0,0,0)), color-stop(1, rgb(255,255,255)));

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

For the record, IE9 supports text-shadow, and gradients.

I know this because I've used them.

I retract my false statements because my memory is apparently completely defective.

Ok back to IE9 bashing, which it deserves.

@dhromed said:

@bjolling said:

which is something dhromed mentioned was missing in IE9,

 

*cough* I said the opposite and then retconned myself. Not sure if that's the same.

 

Now I know you are playing me.

- First you say IE9 supports text-shadows and gradients. Then you correct yourself saying it doesn't. But when I said "dhromed mentioned IE9 is missing CSS text-shadows and CSS gradients", you claim to have said the opposite.

- Or when you said you the "XP to Vista" enhancements don't apply to your situation, even though you admit to having a 13 year old OS (which logically should be Windows XP) and to wanting to upgrade to Windows 8

You are constantly changing your statements just so you can contradict me all the time

 

[bjolling]

@ASheridan said:

@bjolling said:

I brought IE10 into this already on the very first page of this thread. Your link appears on page 3 and not even in response to anything I said. You're on my subconscious blacklist because of your constant bickering with Blakey so I don't read much of what you write if it doesn't instantly appeal to me.

A little childish, but it probably explains why you missed a lot of what I was saying. Still, it's not like the posts have been deleted, so you can always read them now. Incidentally the link I posted was on page 3, but my other comments were started on page 1.

Not childish, just economical. I don't have a lot of time so I try to only read posts that are valuable to me. If dhromed says someting about fonts or TheCPUWizard talks about .NET optimizations I pay close attention.

OTOH if you or Boomzilla say something in a "Microsoft versus Open Source" thread (especially if Blakey is involved as well) I consider it as background noise and I scan for posts from people that don't get so easily distracted in pointless flame wars. Unfortunately sometimes I miss interesting stuff from you guys but that's a risk I'm willing to take.

In case you would care, I'm reading your linked article now (someone on mozilla.com saying Firefox is better than IE9 - no surprise there). But I can't go back in time to take it into consideration for something I posted this afternoon.

Edit : it sure is funny to read. The author claims that Firefox supports more web standards than IE9 and gives some examples like File API. Obviously I don't take his word for it and I go to the W3C Website

@W3C on File API said:

Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than work in progress.

I always learned in Math that you only need 1 counter exampe to disprove a theory. In this case I disproved the article. A working draft is not a standard so Microsoft is correct not to take those into account.

[dhromed]

@bjolling said:

Now I know you are playing me. [...] You are constantly changing your statements just so you can contradict me all the time

 

I don't care about you. If you want me to care about you, say smart or beautiful things. Don't pick a fight. That's just tiresome.

[quote user="bjolling"]- First you say IE9 supports text-shadows and gradients. Then you correct yourself saying it doesn't. But when I said "dhromed mentioned IE9 is missing CSS text-shadows and CSS gradients", you claim to have said the opposite.[/quote] 

My original statement was that IE9 did not miss those. Then I crossed it out because I'm a twat. I'm not sure if that counts as explicitly saying that IE9 does miss those. It does in your book? Ok great cool fine. Have a stroopwafel.

Look, my priorities right now are wondering what kind of vegetable survives freezing better than zucchini, and also going to bed and dreaming of perfect next-day leftovers from wonderful meals. Geez.

[Ben L.]

@MiffTheFox said:

@Ben L. said:

The difference between filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.MotionBlur(strength=13, direction=310) progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Blur(pixelradius=2) progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.Wheel(duration=3); and actual real CSS is that -moz-text-shadow and -webkit-text-shadow are available as simply text-shadow in all standards-compliant browsers, which means you can make browser-specific styles OR ACTUALLY MAKE A STYLESHEET THAT IS USEFUL TO STYLE YOUR WEBSITE. With Microsoft's way, the stylesheet is a few hundred kilobytes heavier and only works in one or two buggy browsers.

So what? Even something as minor as changing the property name makes it a incompatible implementation. Remember TOPMARGIN/LEFTMARGIN vs MARGINHEIGHT/MARGINWIDTH? document.all vs docume I can't find any data on when Chrome or Firefox became "standards-compliant" since everybody and their dog think that -moz- and -webkit- properties count as proper cross-browser implementations. I guess this means that I either have to forgo old versions of browsers that would crop up in corporate environments or just stick -moz- and -webkit- in front of every CSS3 property just to be safe. Like I said

@MiffTheFox said:

I can't find any data of when Gecko/Webkit implemented specific W3C CSS3 features vs their proprietary versions.

I still don't see what problem is with

filter: progid:DXImageTransform.Microsoft.gradient(graidientType=1, startColorstr=#FFFFFFFF, endColorstr=#00000000)

when you already have to add

background: linear-gradient(left , #000, #fff); is black on the left and white on the right. The IE one you referenced is white on the left, light gray in the middle, and white on the right.

I don't blame you for being confused - the confusing syntax Microsoft provides is nothing like the correct syntax that every other browser supports.

[MiffTheFox]

@Ben L. said:

the confusing syntax Microsoft provides is nothing like the correct syntax that every other browser supports.

Every browser except Safari <= 5.0 and Chrome <= 9.

And Webkit still doesn't support the actual "correct" syntax, i.e. linear-graident.

This is the kind of bug you'd iron out in your SASS/LESS templates anyways. At least we have CSS preprocessors to tide us over until the webkit monoculture arrives.

[PJH]

@dhromed said:

Look, my priorities right now are wondering what kind of vegetable
survives freezing better than zucchini

Blanch them first.

[dhromed]

@PJH said:

@dhromed said:

Look, my priorities right now are wondering what kind of vegetable survives freezing better than zucchini

Blanch them first.

 

O goodie. Thanks.

[wrack]

@bjolling said:

A working draft is not a standard so Microsoft is correct not to take those into account.

And thus, you've just agreed with Blakeyrat. :)

(Note - that's NOT a bad thing!)

[bjolling]

@dhromed said:

@bjolling said:

Now I know you are playing me. [...] You are constantly changing your statements just so you can contradict me all the time

I don't care about you. If you want me to care about you, say smart or beautiful things. Don't pick a fight. That's just tiresome.

I wasn't looking for a fight. I was angry because I thought you were trolling me. Re-reading the thread a bit I see where I interpreted things incorrectly. My apologies. In my defense: an internet forum is not an easy way of communication.

I'll probably never say things here that will be considered smart or beautiful on this forum, I can only try to add value to a conversation from my experiences. I'm an early adaptor for Microsoft technologies, I'm running Windows 8 on my desktop, my laptop and my tablet, I have a Windows Phone, Xbox and so on... but as a consultant I always end up at big rigid corporate environment. The latest client runs on Windows XP, IE8, Firefox 11, Office 2003 ... so I have a very good understanding of the advances that Microsoft is making and I really want to share these experiences. Once you go Windows 7 (or 8), it's horrible to be forced to go back to XP. The same goes for Office and the rest.

It's not Microsoft that is slowing down progress, it's these corporations that care mostly about software stability and not about being on the cutting edge. They have fixed budgets, fixed release windows, rigid project structure usually waterfall, fixed server images and also fixed versions of the target browser which usually is the one present on their fixed desktop image (which only changes when doing a full desktop OS upgrade). This reduces an awful lot of risk from the equation. Open source software in such an environment suffers the same fate as Microsoft software: I'm stuck with a Firefox 11 that doesn't want to load GreaseMonkey and I don't blame Mozilla for that. If they would go for Ubuntu 12 + FF16, they would stay on Ubuntu 12 + FF16 for the next 10 years and redirect apt to their corporate approved package repository.

Maybe most on this forum are working at smaller and more agile companies and it's this that divides the people here?

TL;DR this thread derailed long time ago