Microsoft/W3C HTML 4 Test Suite

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kevin C.
  • Start date Start date
K

Kevin C.

Just found this little utility over at w3.org. It's interesting to see that
IE6 fails a number of the specification tests. Should this imply that
Microsoft will be putting forth a concerted effort to match the specs in
IE7?

Are there any pertinent articles w/ Microsoft people talking about IE7?
 
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html said:
Just found this little utility over at w3.org. It's interesting to see that
IE6 fails a number of the specification tests. Should this imply that
Microsoft will be putting forth a concerted effort to match the specs in
IE7?
Click to expand...

There's not going to be an IE7, at least not as separate product.

And if Microsoft put forth any effort to match public open
standards, it would represent a very large (and welcome) change of
direction by corporate management.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
 
Kevin C. said:
Just found this little utility over at w3.org. It's interesting to see that
IE6 fails a number of the specification tests. Should this imply that
Microsoft will be putting forth a concerted effort to match the specs in
IE7?

Are there any pertinent articles w/ Microsoft people talking about IE7?
Click to expand...

There are two issues here:

1. Better IE support of standards: Microsoft's stated policy for years has
been that it is more interested in responding to customers' needs than with
complying with standards. So you'll only see better IE standards support
when customers demand it.

2. IE 7: the next browser will come with the next version of Windows -- in
2005 or 2006 -- and will not work with current versions of Windows. For
more on this, see http://www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/browsers.htm#microsoft
 
C said:
Better IE support of standards: Microsoft's stated policy for years has
been that it is more interested in responding to customers' needs than with
complying with standards. So you'll only see better IE standards support
when customers demand it.
Click to expand...

I think the situation is a tad more complicated than MS would have us
believe, but there's little point in arguing with ciwah about the
*stated* policy of MS.
 
Kevin said:
Just found this little utility over at w3.org. It's interesting to see
that IE6 fails a number of the specification tests. Should this imply
that Microsoft will be putting forth a concerted effort to match the
specs in IE7?
Click to expand...

No. Microsoft will do no such thing unless their dominance on the browser
market is threatened. Hopefully this *can* happen within a few years, see
below, but a safer bet is that the .NET framework will be strengthened on
the clientside, implying a further setback for standards compliance.
Are there any pertinent articles w/ Microsoft people talking about
IE7?
Click to expand...

A number of articles targetting IE7 for 2005 is referenced at
<url:http://www.mozillazine.org/talkback.html?article=3244>. A forthcoming
update to IE6, focusing on lowered standard compliance, was announced this
week on <url:http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/>.
 
Jim Ley wondered:
Could you explain how it's lowered standard compliance?
Click to expand...

That was mostly just a joke to put things into perspective, but a new non-
validating attribute does seem to be a central modification. Quoting from
The OBJECT element for an ActiveX control has a new attribute:
NOEXTERNALDATA. Specify true for this attribute to indicate that the
control does not access remote data and that Internet Explorer should
not prompt the user
Click to expand...

Referring to the soon to be commonplace prompt-boxes warning the user about
active content - be that Shockwave Flash, Internet Explorer XML extras or
plugin-enabled SVG content - following the Eola lawsuit. By some twist of
things I am actually rather enjoyed by this apparent regression in user
experience. I personally regard Macromedias ActionScript product as a
powerful, imaginative, consistant, fun and cost-effective development
platform, but all the more threatining it is to the advance of more
important technologies. Only browsers with a strong native support of
internet standards will remain unaffected by this commotion, underlining
their head-start on things. Perhaps a transitional period of prompt boxes
will focus developers attention away from non-standard frameworks; perhaps
something positive will emerge if and when Microsoft decides to un-corner
themselves from platform-specific Active-X technologies.
 
That was mostly just a joke to put things into perspective, but a new non-
validating attribute does seem to be a central modification.
Click to expand...

new attributes can be trivially made to validate in a HTML by using
the internal subset, or a different doctype. Such behaviour is not
invalid.

Jim.
 
Jim said:
new attributes can be trivially made to validate in a HTML by using
the internal subset, or a different doctype. Such behaviour is not
invalid.
Click to expand...

I'd think it would be more in the spirit of standards for it to be:
<param name="NOEXTERNALDATA" value="true">

or:
<param name="external_data" value="false">
 
Jim Ley wrote:
I'd think it would be more in the spirit of standards for it to be:
<param name="NOEXTERNALDATA" value="true">
Click to expand...

I disagree, the parameters are data to be passed to the object,
they're not metadata about the object. (and it would limit objects
from recieving parameters called NOEXTERNALDATA.)

Jim.
 
comp.infosystems.www.authoring.html, Wired Earp
A forthcoming
update to IE6, focusing on lowered standard compliance, was announced this
week on <url:http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/>.
Click to expand...

It's not there now, only some blather about ActiveX and Java.

--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Cortland County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
HTML 4.01 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/
validator: http://validator.w3.org/
CSS 2 spec: http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/
2.1 changes: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/changes.html
validator: http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/
 
one of infinite monkeys said:
new attributes can be
Click to expand...

There's a huge gulf between "can be" and "will be" - and that's setting aside
possible browser issues with the techniques you suggest.

/me suspects wiredearp's point was rather well-made:-)
 
Wired Earp said:
Jim Ley wondered:

That was mostly just a joke to put things into perspective, but a new non-
validating attribute does seem to be a central modification. Quoting from
<url:http://msdn.microsoft.com/ieupdate/activexchanges.asp#fix_data>
Click to expand...

The W3C is very concerned about the implications of the Eolas patent. I am
sure that, if the ruling in the recent Eolas court case is not reversed,
such a new attribute will be added to the standards.
 
Back
Top