I’ll leave Chris’ notation to show all sides of the discussion.

Oh, but I’m really glad they eliminated my ability to work around those issues.

MICROSOFT YOU SUCK.

-rt

If that’s the case, I definitely understand, and share, your frustration.

But of course now I have no way to explicitly fix it because all the condition non-FF methods were eliminated. F@#$@#$ing microsoft.

If you want to follow the specs, fine, but don’t kill all the conditional crap AND refuse to follow the specs. This crap really pisses me off.

-jr

Yes, I’ve heard it should be out now, although not publicly available. If I get my hands on one, I will definitely see what it goes for.

When it comes to application/xhtml+XML, as far as I know, it’s the MIME type to use for XHTML while application/xml are for general XML files.

I also like Anne’s idea about a standard compliant IE in which it plays a role. But of course it has to be a stable and good implementation of it, otherwise it’ll just do more harm than good.

erinmars,

Thanks for thoroughly expressing your opinion. Your stance seems a bit harsh to me personally, but I definitely share the pain you feel.

However, if the IE team delivers on what Chris addressed in his update post, it will definitely become a totally different ballpark for us.

We are barking up the wrong tree. MS does not care about the plight of those using standards. That is marketing speak. What makes them listen? A class action lawsuit against them for the agony, suffering, research, hacking, long hours and desolation of making totally compliant and beautiful CSS work in their pitiful excuse for browser software. Class actions involve stakeholders, attorneys, investors, PR, Wall Street –the only voices that MS really listens to.

Would have given them the benefit of the doubt if I read anything promising on IE7 beta and had hopes that they would do the right thing. I should know better. All that they did was to adopt what they perceive as competition from ff: tabbed browsing and PNG support. They obviously care less about standards or the plight and frustration of professionals that are forced to work with their pathetic software. There is no reason for them to build for standards as long as we hack to get around their flaws. I am betting that they assign IE development to entry level, temp programmers. All the superstars are working on x-box.

Here’s a money saving suggestion for MS: download the source code for ff, slap your brand on it and ship it with your OS. Thanks in advance. Save the time that your junior developers waste on IE. Your investors will be happy. You will be more efficient. Your user base will be better served. Most of your security issues as they relate to your browser software will be fixed. The Web development community can celebrate the expectation of a 40-hour work week.

There are plenty of top-level law firms out there who would take up this battle just for the PR. This would be a global lawsuit. If you google IE sucks, you will see what I am talking about. Not to mention view source on code using variables relating to IE that I won’t post to this forum.

The lawsuit would seek damages for the pain, agony and suffering by developers, designers and pages authors who adhere to standards for the good of the Internet community. Might as well toss in the clients who are billed extra hours for development and QA. Not to mention large e-commerce groups. Hosting services since they are the brunt of the QA. Change the CSS, post, check in IE, repeat….

If we multiply the hours necessary to apply and test hacks by our numbers, then by our average hourly wage, I am quite certain that the amount is trillions of dollars and billions of hours- yes I know that the outcome of a settlement may not even produce a penny in my pocket – of course the lawyers would be the beneficiary. But if I could just do my job as expected, I would have more time to enjoy my life outside of work. I know that when I build a site using standards, it takes me on average another 5-10 hours to apply CSS hacks so that the site work similarly in IE(6+). I don’t go beyond that these days. If I had to do that, would just use one big image map and call it a day. Standards, schmandards.

Support for the http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml namespace is something different, and I don’t think they will include support for it in IE7.

The DOCTYPE switch, by using a XHTML or a strict HTML 4 DOCTYPE, is exactly the same as in IE 6, for achieving strict rendering and correct box model.

No extra renderering features, nothing.

PNG support is supposed to work from what I’ve heard (haven’t tested it myself yet), but there has also been mentioned in places that the PNG transparency doesn’t work when the image is highlighted or printed.

I’ve not seen nor downloaded nor tested the IE7 beta, but in the write-ups I’ve read, One of the development team mentioned IE7 will use DOCTYPE checking to adjust its behavior.

I’m assuming that if you don’t change your DOCTYPE, then IE7 will behave like IE6 (margin quirks etc) but with some new DOCTYPE value (it was implied) all our wildest dreams will come true or something like that. Now if we can just find out that new DOCTYPE value.

Another biggie folks have been asking for is PNG transparency support. How’s PNG support? In backgrounds? In dropdowns? Do tell.

Yes, as stated in some other places, it might be that the focus of this beta release was to get something out there, and that maybe the next one will include a better rendering engine.

Doesn’t sound too likely, but that’s what I’m clinging on to.

Shaun,

I didn’t even think of it from that aspect. That it could actually be interpreted as:

…reducing the time needed for developing and testing on different versions of Internet Explorer.

God, I hope that’s not the case.

I think by that they mean between IE6 and IE7. IE7 is very compatible with IE6 - sadly ;(

I have that almost literally in my own post: “[…] but a guy can hope! And be impatient.”

I feared the marketing ploy aspects of this, too, but Molly’s very convincing in this matter, and she’s not one to be full of crock.

Absolutely, that was my first thought too!

Jim,

That is, unfortunately, a very accurate description.
A bit sad, isn’t it?

David,

Yes, when I read that qoute I felt a bit dumbfounded. Reducing the time needed for multiple web browser testing? Hmm…
Following standards, maybe?

David, Faruk, Martin,

One still has to dream and hope. It is just the first beta, and I (naively?) hope that all the fuzz about the Microsoft/WaSP task force wasn’t just a marketing ploy from Microsoft’s side.