“Internet Explorer 10 is available worldwide in 95 languages for download today. We will begin auto updating Windows 7 customers to IE10 in the weeks ahead, starting today with customers running the IE10 Release Preview. With this final release, IE10 brings the same leading standards support, with improved performance, security, privacy, reliability that consumers enjoy on Windows 8, to Windows 7 customers.”
That’s cool. IE10 is a good browser. Now, IE users will be able to see this site ( http://sewingandembroiderywarehouse.com/embtrb.htm ) in all it’s broken glory, since prior versions of IE render it like it was meant to look.
Which makes me wonder: Part of the HTML spec is that browsers do their best to render broken HTML. That site has broken HTML, but IE 7-9 render it correctly. Are they better at rendering bad HTML?
Removal of IE comments as well.
It renders the same in IE10 on Windows 8 as in Chrome on Windows 8 (meaning badly). However, when I press the compatibility view in IE10 it renders “perfectly”
Conclusion: Both are standard compliant, but IE10 is better at rendering bad code then Chrome
I can’t make a comparison with older IE’s, but why would I want to use an older IE anyway?
This is not true.
Different browsers render different broken HTML in different ways.
You can find broken HTML which renders better in Chrome, Firefox or Opera than IE too.
Also have a look at my other comment:
http://www.osnews.com/permalink?553804
When you open the source code of the page it says Frontpage, not sure if that was actually used, if so my guess is that Frontpage created a page which is broken, but broken in a way that still displays correctly in IE.
Edited 2013-02-27 12:26 UTC
the last frontpage-release was 2003
i’d say the site is as standards-complient as it was possible back then
which means there were no standards
Before there were standards, good web developers made sure that the sites worked on both browsers (Netscape & IE), by hook or by crook. If you used frontpage, you had to use extra caution to do it correctly.
No, you are mistaken.
Broken HTML is rendered differently by different browser (versions).
But HTML5 does specify how HTML5 should be parsed and how broken HTML5 should be handled.
So if someone changes the ‘doctype’ in that page to a HTML5-doctype then all HTML5 browsers should render it the same.
The advantage of that is that if someone makes mistakes creating a HTML5-page and only checks it with one browser and likes what he/she seems then the result will be the same in all HTML5-browsers.
Nobody is ever going to change the doctype in that page and that was the point in that post. This is not about how browsers handle new broken HTML5 code, it is about how browsers handle ANCIENT broken code.
For that IE has a compatibility view that works very nice and that makes IE a great browser for viewing broken code
My point was: different broken code will render differently in different browsers and versions.
This means this broken page renders fine in IE, other broken pages render fine in Chrome or Firefox.
And for new pages (HTML5) this should not be a problem anymore. Till will look the same in HTML5-browsers now as they will look the same in HTML-browsers in 10 or even 20 years.
This is also the same the person making the page will see it now when creating the HTML5-page.
Edited 2013-02-27 14:36 UTC
No, the point is that all modern browsers are rendering that page with broken code badly, but that IE has a compatibility view that allows it to be viewed “as it was tested to work in the past”. This compatibility view is the reason that IE is better at running broken code.
And if you think that HTML5 will still be there 10 to 20 years from now you should look back at HTML 10 to 20 years ago and see how well that is still working.
IE’s compatibility mode is for viewing sites designed around IE5, IE5.5 & IE6 quirks. Therefore IE is only better at running broken code that was written specifically for it.
Which is 99% of all broken code according to 100% accurate guessing
On the other hand, that website provides awesome emo band names if you scroll down far enough:
“Damaged Hook”
“Missed Stitches”
“Wrong Needle”
“Bobbin Hook”
“Too Tight Or Too Loose”
3 points:
+ finally a browser that’s usable without tabs
+/- no adblock+ yet (but it’s in the works)
– how the hell do you turn off that fucking font-antialiasing?!?
Edited 2013-02-27 16:13 UTC
Also Ghostery doesn’t work.
You can’t it is part of the rendering framework.
doesn’t reflect well in the engine
at least in failfox you can deactivate the hardware-accelerated renderer to get rid of it
but in ie even that doesn’t help…
I found it quite odd to look at the rendering in IE9, but I have since got used to it.
Why they did away with ClearType in IE bothers the hell out of me. It ruins an otherwise excellent browser.
I thought it was just a limited version of cleartype? They removed the color rendering in favor of simpler black and white?
Nope the rendering is done differently and is due to a set of reasons in this MSDN article.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh237264%28v=vs.85%…
I don’t know why the other browsers don’t do similar things. But IE is specific to Windows.
Has anyone else had issues with Google Chrome since installing IE 10? Since I’ve installed it, many times it won’t bring up google.com or gmail. Other browsers continue to work fine.