[Info-vax] IE8 got me too :-( Sorry Jeff.

[Paul Sture]

In article <00A97BA4.8E447103 at SendSpamHere.ORG>,
 VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG wrote:

> In article <4b53cc31$0$273$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, 
> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?= <arne at vajhoej.dk> writes:
> >On 14-01-2010 08:04, Bill Gunshannon wrote:
> >> In article<00A97820.3EB74593 at sendspamhere.org>,
> >> 	VAXman-  @SendSpamHere.ORG writes:
> >>> In article<4b4e7946$0$279$14726298 at news.sunsite.dk>, 
> >>> =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Arne_Vajh=F8j?=<arne at vajhoej.dk>  writes:
> >>>> On 13-01-2010 08:50, AEF wrote:
> >>>>> I actually tried IE8 at work, hoping it would be better than IE6. But
> >>>>> it was blurrier on the monitor. I checked it on others' machines and
> >>>>> the blurriness varied, and all the monitors were ViewSonics. (I did
> >>>>> only check 2 or 3 others, but mine was blurrier than IE6 and that's
> >>>>> all that really mattered to me.) So I went back to IE6. And I did
> >>>>> check if you could do that before I tried IE8. It turns out that all
> >>>>> you have to do is uninstall it, except that a certain OS patch would
> >>>>> get in the way if you have it and you'd have to uninstall that first,
> >>>>> then reinstall after expunging IE8 from your machine.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I do have Firefox installed at work and I use that for some sites, but
> >>>>> others work better on IE6. Hate the spastic Find function in IE6, but
> >>>>> at least you can use it to highlight a link, or get near it with an
> >>>>> easier target and then tab to the link, and without the mouse just
> >>>>> press Return and it works! Safari can't do that, but Safari is better
> >>>>> with multiple choice items in forms and for printing. Safari puts all
> >>>>> the print params on a single page! I've never understood why all the
> >>>>> important things like page size, orientation, number of copies,
> >>>>> certain things on the Page Setup dialog box and such aren't all in one
> >>>>> place. WHY THE HELL DON'T THEY PUT THEM ALL IN ONE PLACE LIKE SAFARI
> >>>>> DOES? Arghhhh.
> >>>>
> >>>> IE6 is pretty bad in AJAX context due to its deviation
> >>> >from the standards. IE8 is a lot better. It actually passed
> >>>> ACID2.
> >>>
> >>> Let me know when it can pass ACID3.  AFAIK, only Safari does so.  Firefox 
> >>> is
> >>> close.  It gets to 93/100.
> >>
> >> Why should anyone care?  It is good business to make sure your web
> >> pages work with as many browsers as possible and not just with some
> >> obscure standard. It is customers being able to see your web page
> >> that makes sales, not some claim that you wrote your page to comply
> >> with ACID3.
> >>
> >> Too many people in this profession have lost site of the core value.
> >> The computer needs to adapt to the user, not the user to the computer.
> >
> >No.
> >
> >In the 90's some people somehow got the idea that software
> >engineering practices did not apply to HTML and friends.
> >
> >That was wrong.
> >
> >Writing C code with undefined behavior and hack it to work
> >on HW X, OS Y and C compiler Y may work, but it will result in
> >huge cost for future maintenance.
> >
> >Writing non-W3C-compliant HTML and hack it to work on
> >OS X and browser Y may work, but it will also cost in the end.
> 
> That would be Safari on OS X. ;)

I wouldn't count on it, but:

http://preview.tinyurl.com/643k4u

"Addressing a developer conference in Sydney Australia, Microsoft CEO 
Steve Ballmer said the idea of using WebKit as the rendering engine 
within its web browser was "interesting" and added "we may look at that."

On the other hand:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/microsoft/?p=1705

http://www.browser-watch.com/2009/03/24/internet-explorer-9-will-not-use-
webkit/

-- 
Paul Sture