Rules for Comments on the IEBlog


I am glad to see what got lots of feedback and discussion around our posts from yesterday.  I am still digging through all the comments from yesterday and today, but I did notice some profanity.  As people get more engaged with IEBlog, we want to set down some guidelines on how we are going handle comments in general.  Our primary goal is for this to be a place for open discussion about IE, so we don’t want to have lots of overhead and process.

Things we want to see in comments:
Lots of good interesting responses on IE and the posts on IEBlog
Keep it on topic
Keep it respectful
Keep it fun

Things that will get comments edited/deleted:
Offensive or abusive language or behavior
Misrepresentation (i.e., claiming to be somebody you’re not) – if you don’t want to use your real name, that’s fine, as long as your “handle” isn’t offensive, abusive, or misrepresentative
Blog-spam of any kind

We hope these rules will keep the discussion lively and on topic. 

Scott Stearns
Test Manager, IE

Comments (166)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Well, it’s good to see that 3 people have some sort of opinion that they wanted to share here. What is sad that they have nothing better to do than fill this space with useless banter about whose opinion is right and wrong. I do not currently use IE and think it is a terrible browser but I still am willing to give it another chance if it gets better at some point. So to all 3 of you who are just bantering back and forth… please stop. I don’t care and I’m sure that there are only 2 other people that care as much as you do.

  2. Anonymous says:

    LOL… Man I hope everyone on the IE team has a thick skin.

    As I commented yesterday… You’re a brave team… Don’t let all the negative vibes turn you away from blogging.

    Once the dust settles a little, I think this will be a good way for you to communicate with the community…

  3. Anonymous says:

    what a joke

  4. Anonymous says:

    Off course we need better PNG support (Transparency). A better download manager will be useful (with resume functionality and so). Maybe two modes, one legacy IE6.x mode and a new IE7.x mode. Where the new version supports all the standards more correctly and is stricter when there are errors on the page. The IE6.x-mode should disappear in newer versions after IE7.x., and is useful when you try to visit a site who is using wrong ways to get things done. Or just incorrectly written HTML-sites (mostly produced by programs like Microsoft Word or online “This is my website”-sitebuilders), who are working correctly now in IE6.x.

  5. Anonymous says:

    I like IE a lot, especially its javascript support. There are few stuff you can improve. The W3C’s event model is slightly better, like when you attach multiple events the owner is the element itself, rather than the window object.

    Keep up the good work and never mind mac and linux zealots trying to bash you. Please also remember that people like Zeldman (a devoted Mac user) and so on do not represent the real world. I am a designer and programmer myself. Most of those designers are NOT programmers, so keep that in mind. Javascript an DHTML support is extremely important. Active-X is extremely important. Also keep in mind that many of those people are mac users bashing Microsoft anyway. So if you follow them and destroy the nice things, the real world may get pissed off at Microsoft and these people will laugh at you.

    In a blog environment it may be hard to differentiate between real users and those who pretend to be users but yet here to bash Microsoft and try to hurt Microsoft.

  6. Anonymous says:

    I’d rather go back to horse and carriage then drive around in a car that is as unreliable and flawed as IE is.

    Now instead of wasting time on this useless blogthingy, I’d suggest you get back working on those much wanted fixes. It’s either that, or face a slow death followed by an eternity in hell.

  7. Anonymous says:

    I also suggest a quick IP ban or a similar ban to Jesus Christ. These jerks also make it unlikely for real users to come here and participate. I don’t want to come here and deal with these mac or linux zealots. He is not only offending to you, but to other users too.

  8. Anonymous says:

    Um, Alex, you’re making a lot of assumptions here. OK, so alot of people here think IE isn’t the best browser around anymore, are suspicious of this blog (read that IE chat and you’ll see why–no actual answers, what’s the point?), and that makes them Linux/Mac zealots?

    (using Firefox on WINDOWS.)

  9. Anonymous says:

    JP, no, I am also using Firefox. The assumption is 95% of the time true. If you are claiming that Jesus Christ guy is not a troll but actually a windows user using Firefox, then you are probably just another troll. If you insult other people, use abusive language, try to bash Microsoft, you are more likely a mac or linux zealot (that’s really a nice term btw). I don’t know whether you actually use Windows or not. There are enough zealots around to pose as they like just to disrupt others’ work. So stop telling me to be suspicious for the facts, when these zealots are disrupting the positive energy going on.

    On a second note, you claimed that Firefox fixed the security problem within 24 hours. That really shows that you don’t know exactly what’s going on. Mozilla knew the problem since 2002. The bug was filed in 2002. Mozilla developers discussed it and refused to fix it, because they thought they can’t keep track of protocols that should be blacklisted. That’s the logic they came up with then, but when a security mailing list showed the problem, without proper testing or anything, they published the simple fix that simply blacklists the protocol. I use Firefox but I know that I am going to switch to IE when it adds tab browsing.

  10. Anonymous says:

    Greetings to the IE dev team, now can you please tell me why your Internet Explorer browser *always* has some serious security hole or flaw or exploit? Check this url for a refresher in case you’ve lost count http://www.trustworthycomputing.com/

    Can you also tell me where you guys find your "IE programmers" it seems in Redmond they have a shortage of computer literate developers.

    Now I don’t want any excuses I just want to know WHY THE HELL your browser is like SWISS CHEESE or perhaps a Sieve that is patched with chewing gum every week. K?

  11. Anonymous says:

    I have a few suggestions I care about the most but since they have been ignored for many years I am not optimistic about mentioning them again…

    => Tabbed Browsing (highest priority for me)

    => Get rid of severe bug that when Temporary Internet File Directory reaches certain level view source and other things start working (which most people don’t know how to fix)

    => Keep tightening up security — XPSP2 is great but follow it up with XPSP3 with even more security. I still get popunders and Popovers with XPSP2 but don’t get popups. Finish and perfect all levels of PopUp blocking: under, over, etc.

    => The Tools; Options; Security tab and the trusted sites etc. GUI there needs revamp and simplifying. Only geeks can use it, and with the right words and much better management tools non computer types (the bulk of IE users) could protect themselves better.

    => Have an IE "Safe Mode" that once turned on made browsing tighter than all security levels. My computer is used by me, my 4 year old and 6 year old and my son who can’t even read much can download exes and installing them by pressing OK a bunch of times. XPSP2 improves that a lot but when I use it I can make reasonable decisions – but when non geeks (my 6 year old, my 70 year old Mom) browse they should have more protection than i do. I could switch it into "Safe mode" befroe handing keyboard to them and my son would need my help to install things then. And my mom needs a more locked down browser than I do but we often share a computer. My mom could be advised to for example turn on safe mode before browsing and lknow that she was not going to make a wroong choice and install some spyware.exe that tricked her with social engineering.

    The bantering people are being honest and telling the IE bloggers at MS who have been apparently living in a cave and have not apparently done google searches which would reveal all the suggestions made over the years in minutes. It is disingenous to state they need any more feedback. They need to act on past and current feedback faster. HECK I am not even on the team and have practically memorized the 20-30 things that people want that Microsoft has ignored for several years.

    The IE team bloggers should not be asking people for suggestions when they have 30 valid ones that have been sent to them for several years that they are ignoring and never mentioning what theri plans are to address them. Customers who have been ignored for many years will get rude and frustrated and a team that kept them waiting that long should at least have the decency to prepare a list of what they are and are not fixing and when so that people don’t have to look through 300 other places to see the same ignored suggestions.

    For example:

    => we are fixing transparent PNGs in next IE release for WinXP

    => We are not adding SVG support because _____

    => We are adding tabs in next IE release for WinXP

    => We are not adding ____ till IE Longhorn, the infrasturcuture issues are too complicated

    If the IE team would spend even one week reading the feedback they ALREADY GOT and never even replied to and made a nice place where we could look at it — that Wiki would be great if they made it but a bunch of people not on the IE team made it and cared about it but it was made by MS employees too embarassed when they realized there is no central list of IE fixes and suggestions that the IE team ever has revealed or maintained.

    If the IE team seriously responds in a tranparent way to the several years of suggestions made already on an ongoing basis, we will then be able to give them the suggestions that they are not thinking of at all because they have published the issues they know about. If they appologized for ignoring these issues for 3-5 yesrs instead of pretending they have a shortage of suggestions and "nobody told them" we are not so gullible.and will use the languages of frustration and dissapointment which is often harsh to emphasize the point.

    Ignore your wife for 3-5 years and let me know if she will tolerate any suggestion that she must be "polite" and "repectful" when criticizing you and suggesting areas you should improve. If they did not want heat in their blogs, they should have put out the fires in their kitchens years ago …. The commenter’s language of frustration arises from THEM letting IE get so neglected because of ignoring legit feedback, and by atrophy and neglect become so much worse than Firefox. Muzzling the legitmately frustrated is just a lame way to save their ego from being battered too much by honestly frustrated people that THE IE TEAM provoked by inaction. They need to appologize and list all issues and what they think they will do about it. Even if they end up varying their plans, knowing what their intent and projected timeframe is lets us know what we need to state more agressively, and also which matters they still are not aware of that did not make the list because they are human and missed things.

    The Microsot I respected in past put out updates frequently (every few months) and added many things I and others thought of – Excel and Windows and ASP/ASP.net kept getting better and updated often based on customer and website feedback AND COMMON SENSE. The IE Team need to achieve that level of rapid improvement on IE and quit asking us to repeat the obvious to earn our respect again.

  12. Anonymous says:

    I think that most bloggers understand that when users can comment on your website, you either have to take the good with the bad, or set up some kind of automatic filter to remove words you simply cannot abide. There’s a pretty good chance that people will say things you won’t like. You could also just not take comments, but you certainly can’t have it both ways! Can you? Microsoft, characteristically, thinks that it can with it’s new Internet Explorer…

  13. Anonymous says:

    If you want moderated discussion, open a forum and force logins so that you can babysit the discussion. Otherwise there is not much you can do. This blog would defeat its purpose if the developers decided to start banning IPs (provided they are not spamming), editing comments, and playing thought police. Furthermore, those actions would just add to the already overwhelming bad press for IE and Microsoft. I know 20 blog owners who would go out of their way to spread the word about how MS squelched the voices of the very people it asked for input from.

    I agree with a lot of what has been said here including the good, the harsh, and the crude. Personally I don’t think any amount of intelligent debate, yelling, ranting, or cussing is going to change the direction of IE development. This browser has stagnated partially because development halted, partially because of the intentional neglect of standards compliance, and mostly because of security issues. As a former web developer, I understand the pain that all developers go through when they have to create pages for the IE world. This is a drop in the bucket compared to all of the security issues that have surfaced in the few months around IE and all its bells and whistles. Granted, many of those issues are rooted in the OS and IE is inextricable from the OS which is a problem onto itself.

    If Microsoft wants to do something good, they should start a new browser from the ground up. Make it a standalone program, extricable from the OS, and develop it with standards compliance from inception. Be careful to keep security in mind throughout development and make sure it can’t be exploited in the same way IE can. Re-brand it to get rid of some of the bad karma and bad press issues. Make an Open Source fork for the people to knock about and incorporate some of the best features back into the main branch of development (with the permission of the other developers of course). Encourage dissatisfied IE users to switch to it, and if it is good the people will use it.

  14. Anonymous says:

    Why get upset? Just download Firefox from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ — it’s better, and it’s free!

  15. Anonymous says:

    IE is a monstrosity only its mother could love. It is years behind the learning curve and disgusting to develop for. One suspects that certain technologies are incorrectly implemented in IE to fit the greater corporate good instead of benefiting the consumer.

    So what, was that abusive? Off topic? Disrespectful? Offensive? Do I get my post deleted because I’m telling you the truth about how I see your poorly developed junk software?

    ieblog. What a crock. As if you people really cared about your users or what they have to say. If you did, the world ’round wouldn’t be abandoning your overpriced licensing for better alternatives.

  16. Anonymous says:

    Dear Alex,

    Due to your ignorance I will now inform you on a few things that you got wrong:

    1. IE doesn’t have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has ‘JScript’ support… inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards.

    2. JavaScript and DHTML support are not that usefull if you are working on a server side environment, and lets face it its more secure to do so.

    3. Most designers who understand the w3c (X)HTML and CSS standards and can code semantic web sites usually only use ‘JScript’ to fix problems in Internet Explorer, or perhaps format a table (check out some alistapart.com articles).

    4. Just because you see someone as a ‘zealot’ doesn’t mean they don’t have an understanding of the current situation with Internet Explorer. I would bet Zeldman has a better understanding that most users (and hes a mac user, I trust him more for that).

    5. It doesn’t matter if any of us are users, what matters is that we are sick and tired of wasting time developing for IE or downloading security patches that take weeks to download if you have dial-up.

    And you would have those of us (Jesus Christ namely…) banned because they are ‘jerks’ who somehow ‘make it unlikely for real users to come here and participate’. How? Do they have telepathic powers? are they able to warp peoples minds as they see links to come here? Bullshit mate.

    Oh and you know whats worse than a Linux ‘zealot’? A windows zealot who just can’t understand that other people feel unhappy because they have to spend more time developing for a browser that 90% of the population use. The same browser that fails to follow the w3c standards, that hasn’t been updated for the past three years? Grow up.

    See you around, The Wolf.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I can’t say I really appreciate IE either, but I know that the transfer of ideas or complaints about a product can be made without insults and such. I feel that IE is a half-way there sort of product, with a lack of customizablity and support for web standards.

    once thats taken care of, it’s all good in my books.

  18. Anonymous says:

    It is clear that Elise is a mac or linux zealot trying to bash Microsoft, but he/she is also a liar. In blog world, people do edit/delete comments as well as ban ips. Anybody saying otherwise is a clear liar. IE team has every right to ban people who say "suck my dick" or approve such messages like The Wolf.

    Dear Ignorant and Liar The Wolf, let me correct your nonesense claims:

    1) IE does support ECMA standard javascript. Just because you say it doesn’t, doesn’t mean that they don’t. Its ECMA standard support is the best in the browser world. That’s why while other browsers are playing catch up with IE in this complex area, IE didn’t have to do much to improve its support. The only browser that comes slightly close to IE here is Mozilla and the rest are pretty much crappy. Safari will not run majority of dhtml sites. Similarly mozilla also doesn’t support them.

    2) That javascript support and dhtml support is the number one reason why so many sites just don’t work with Mozilla. Mozilla developers couldn’t write the code to support, so instead they decided to do what others do, bash Microsoft. Today I still use IE, primarily for these sites and will switch back to IE as soon as I have my tab browsing.

    3) Alisapart doesn’t mean standards. Standards are there for everybody, just because alisapart tries to use standards to promote itself doesn’t mean that other people don’t use css, xhtml. Only an idiot would say that. We use css and xhtml on small sites like blogs, and they work there quite well, but on larger more serious web applications and sites they are not enough. In other words, alistapart are not for serious real world designers. They are more like for mac bloggers, who like pretty interfaces. It is more like the low end of the web designer world who use macs.

    4) Yeah, looks like Jesus Christ guy has a very good understanding of Internet Explorer. He says "suck my dick" etc… and that really shows how much you and him understand the situation. You really got the issues.

    5) You are sick of Microsoft because you are a sick minded person. We don’t care about your Microsoft bashing. We want Microsoft to spend their development time on real issues, not satisfying some sick minded net thugs or mac zealots just to hurt Microsoft. Go and do your propaganda somewherelse.

    The Wolf, by defending Jesus Christ’s "suck my dick" and other statements you show your real value here. I am definitely satisfied that you yourself admit that you are a jerk yourself who approve such messages, but you will end up being banned too, and you should be. Whether you like macs or not, you can’t say "suck my dick" to others. Period.

    As you just proved previously with your javascript comment, you are not a developer. Probably you are a cheap web designer. I am a developer, I develop real sites and I love IE in every respect. I am thankful to IE team for their superior technology. Zealots only apply to Linux or mac zealots. In windows world there are no such zealots, because everybody is busy with doing real work. You will not see windows users approving "suck my dick" statements. On the mac and linux world you seem to have more people who don’t unerstand the technology and make reasonable conclusions about issues. Oh, I am a Linux user myself and in fact I am developing for Linux mostly. The idiocy has nothing to do with which operating system you use, but as you just show us, if you are one of those idiots you are far more likely to be first a mac user, then a linux zealot. It is just about statistics really. So stop whining and go somewherelse before someone banning you for being a jerk. I don’t think I will see you around though if you continue to approve or say statements like "suck my dick".

  19. Anonymous says:

    ^ "windows users wouldn’t say suck my dick" well I think many many Windows users have said that on obscure java chats actually ;) Honestly I don’t see what’s so bad about Jesus Christ, the commenter. He doesn’t seem to be the typical linux zealot and I’ve seen lots of them..

    "On a second note, you claimed that Firefox fixed the security problem within 24 hours. That really shows that you don’t know exactly what’s going on. Mozilla knew the problem since 2002. The bug was filed in 2002. Mozilla developers discussed it and refused to fix it, because they thought they can’t keep track of protocols that should be blacklisted. "

    There was an exploit published and they fixed it, THAT’S what matters. Yes I’m disappointed they didn’t have the foresight to disable the stuff before but oh well. COmpare this to MS & Download.ject: the *exploit* itself was out for a few months I think while I guess they were thinking "What do we do, offer a patch & break corps., or sit on our hands…". I know they don’t want to break stuff but how many home users use ADOB? Corp users had the choice not to install the patch, and instead be wary that no one shuld be surfing with IE!

    BTW I can’t stand Linux, hate Macs, and used IE UP TO 6.0 <–(there, now do you believe me? No Linux lover would say that ;))

    (BTW Alex I would email you because this comments post has so gone off topic now :/)

  20. Anonymous says:

    Lazycoder weblog &raquo; IE blog and commenting

  21. Anonymous says:

    My god (not that I have one), thats a load of bull.

    1. Scott himself said that IE doesn’t support JavaScript.

    2. Did you even read my last point 2? (I’m sure they could write code to support dhtml, but I hope they don’t so we don’t have to put up with a whole lot of crappy, poorly designed websites).

    3. I never said ALA meant standards, I just said they have some articles showing how some designers use javascript.

    4. I don’t remember JC saying that, and what does he have to do with me not understanding the issue?

    5. Whoa, I’m a sick minded person now? I’m bashing Microsoft sure, but give me one good reason why I shouldn’t be? Is it just be or do you consider anyone who doesn’t agree with you a zealot?

    You think I should be banned for saying rude words? Well, as far as I can tell you are the only person (untill now) to say "suck my dick". Why shouldn’t you be banned?

    I am a developer, but that doesn’t mean I have to use javascript. I use php (oop only) to develop my sites, but thats another thing altogether.

    Oh yeah, please just grow up and post constructive comments instead of 50 line insults.

  22. Anonymous says:

    The Wolf looks like to be Rowan Lewis. He is a Linux user and a GPL nut who hates Microsoft because Microsoft Windows is more popular than his preferred operating system. Is this the guy IE team should take seriously. He doesn’t do anything serious on the web, other than trolling. Alistapart is composed of mac users. Linux zealots and mac zealots are not the real world. They represent less than 5% of the real world users. Online they may do more damage, because usually they represent most of the net thugs (slashdotters), but in real world they are not the real world. Their comments usually give them away, whether they are here to bash Microsoft or they are here to talk about IE. In general they should be banned if their whole purpose is to say things like "suck my dick" or defend such jerks. Let’s ban all the jerks, I am very positive about IE and have ton of ideas and suggestions, but it is almost impossible to get into nice on-topic discussions if people like Jesus_Christ, TheWolf and others are here just to piss of others. I am very upbeat about IE. I think you can easily ban such jerks. They will return to their home, slashdot, alistapart etc…

  23. Anonymous says:

    > IE does support ECMA standard javascript. Just because you say it doesn’t, doesn’t mean that they don’t. Its ECMA standard support is the best in the browser world.

    > As you just proved previously with your javascript comment, you are not a developer. Probably you are a cheap web designer. I am a developer

    I wouldn’t be so hasty to criticise The Wolf for his lack of knowledge regarding Javascript, as it is clear that he knows more than you about the matter.

    As The Wolf attempted to explain to you, Internet Explorer doesn’t support Javascript. It supports JScript, which is an implementation of ECMA-262. Javascript is another implementation of ECMA-262. Internet Explorer doesn’t support Javascript, only JScript.

    So it’s quite clear that The Wolf understands the issues. You, on the other hand, seem to have Javascript, JScript and ECMA-262 confused with each other. They are three separate things.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Yeah I’m Rowan Lewis… but I don’t use Linux (Read the comments: http://forevergeek.com/open_source/a_windows_diehard_confronts_linux.php) :/

    I’m not a GPL nut either, I don’t use The Gimp over Photoshop because its released under the GPL, infact I don’t use The Gimp at all.

    What the hell do you have against mac users? So what if Mac users use ALA, it still offers quality content.

    Oh and btw, I NEVER read slashdot.

    You are complaining that people like me make it hard to use this blog, but damned to hell if I will sit here and take that shit.

    So far you have posted some of the most ill-thought posts on this subject that I have ever seen. Stop attacking people because they don’t agree with you and start debating!

  25. Anonymous says:

    > Let’s ban all the jerks, I am very positive about IE and have ton of ideas and suggestions, but it is almost impossible to get into nice on-topic discussions if people like Jesus_Christ, TheWolf and others are here just to piss of others.

    Alex, the person who is turning this page into a flame-fest is you. You have insulted Linux users, Mac users, Slashdot readers, and everybody associated with alistapart, and said that their comments don’t count and they should be banned. I find your attitude far more offensive than any "suck my dick" comment.

    If you have "tons of ideas and suggestions", then make them. Don’t go around attacking other posters and refrain from name-calling.

  26. Anonymous says:

    The Wolf, you are already caught lying over and over again, I don’t see with what kind of a face you can deny all that.

    Here is Jesus_Christ guy’s comment.

    ""We’ve heard loud and clear that many people want a better connection with the IE Team. We’re happy to do something about it."

    A better connection? Stop with the touchy feely crap. You could be sucking my dick, and that wouldn’t make IE better.

    Get Gates to retract embedding IE into Longhorn, release standalone updates to IE, start developing new features, get more standards compliant, improve security.

    We don’t care about your "connection" to us."

    As you approve his messages, you already mentioned that you support his statements.

    1) Give us the proof that Scott said that exactly to mean that IE doesn’t support Javascript, cause my code works both in Mozilla and IE. Either Mozilla also doesn’t support javascript, cause it works in IE too, or that you are certainly a liar.

    2) You don’t decide which site is crappy or not. All you can do is just rant. You are not an authority for web design, there is no such authority. We, the people, decide what we do with technology and how we use it. Not some Linux Gnu nut or a net thug.

    3) Alistapart are designed for simplicty, they don’t and can’t develop web apps as complex as gmail for example. They are not programmers, they are graphics artists who picked up web design. There is a big difference between the two, that’s why Microsoft came up with XAML to save some us from the torture of DHTML. In general Alistapart is good, but so is many other web sites who talk about css and xhtml. Zeldman in his own book admit that standards is really a propaganda word they used to promote their ideas. It is ok for you to think that they are really the top web designers in the real world, but they are not.

    5) No you are a zealot and a jerk who simply try to disrupt other people’s work. Disagreeing is something else. You are not here to discuss IE. You have absolutely no right to bash Microsoft at all. You are not a licensed windows user, I read it in your own forum, you say you don’t want to pay Microsoft any money.

    Either go to your home, slashdot and post your bashings there, or grow up and learn how to behave. Slashdot needs you. We don’t want to hear your stupid bashings here.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Jim, if you were serious about this blog, you would post something related to IE, rather than supporting "suck my dick" comments. If you don’t find such statements offensive, that’s really your problem. That’s not something we, normal people, do it in our daily lives. I don’t know what kind of a person you are, but certainly that is offensive.

    Also stop pretending that slashdot is a place where we should take seriously. You automatically lose credibility by citing slashdot as a serious news source.

    Also Jim, you seem to be just attacking me rather than making useful comments. I know a lot about javascript, I wrote a book about it, and edited another one. If someone says IE doesn’t support Javascript, I can guarantee that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. The language is ECMA-262 stanard, and because of historic reasons we refer to it as javascript. Microsoft calls it JScript, but claiming that IE doesn’t support ECMA-262 is lying.

    I think, Jim doesn’t get what this blog is about. It is not about your stupid comments, or your bashing Microsoft, it is about moving forward with IE. Grow up Jim and learn some technical stuff, not the slashdot stories. TheWolf, several times I caught up your lies, so I don’t think what you say has any merit anymore. You don’t have to deny that you are not a Gnu nut.

  28. Anonymous says:

    If the idiots hate you, it proves you’re not one of them.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Dudes, seriously, can’t you see it?? We shouldn’t be arguing with Alex, we should be agreeing with him!

    Yes, you heard that right. That way, we will make it impossible for anyone with any clue to consider coming in (since having a clue, they will per definition be critical of IE, and thus quickly ridiculed away by Alex (with some help of us, his faithful minions)). Only clueless people being here means only bad suggestions, which the IE team will happily follow (they after all have the mission to not really _improve_ anything, as that would threaten Microsoft’s OS), causing IE to remain as bad as ever, or perhaps (dare we hope), even get worse.

    The benefit of this is self-evident, as a non-improving IE will cause the vast majority of IE users to switch to Firefox/Mozilla/Opera within the next two years, after which we as web-designers can feel justified in ignoring everyone else (really, as soon as IE drops below the 50% mark – which on several technical sites has already happened – there’s no reason not to display a "you use an outdated browser, please upograde to" message to the remaining users) and only code for competent browsers. Can you imagine the bliss? The 90% time spent working around IE bugs will be gone. We’ll soar right past CSS 2.1 and partake of the goodness of CSS 3! Web Forms 2.0! Never needing to write a target="_blank" anymore, as everyone will use tabbed browsing anyway!

    And of course having dropped support for buggy old IE, the rest of the straggling users will soon find itself without a choice, but will _have_ to upgrade to real browsers. It will be a truly glorious time…

    Therefore, all hail Alex, for he knows truth, and when he says you’re a Mac or Linux zealot, you’d better listen and switch to one of those OSes, for Alex knows all, and he is our god.

    I have spoken. Thus.

  30. Anonymous says:

    The three points before this one are pointless:

    "5) No you are a zealot and a jerk who simply try to disrupt other people’s work. Disagreeing is something else. You are not here to discuss IE. You have absolutely no right to bash Microsoft at all. You are not a licensed windows user, I read it in your own forum, you say you don’t want to pay Microsoft any money."

    My own forum? I don’t have a forum. I am here to discuss IE, but you don’t want to add anything useful for me to discuss. So what if YOU say I have no right to bash Microsoft because of their shoddy browser… if I said you have no right to live does that make it so?

  31. Anonymous says:

    I’m with Wise Guy.

  32. Anonymous says:

    Talk about getting in late: the IEBlog launched last week to little (as far as I can tell) fanfare. So far the topic of discussion (if not the terms of discussion): why does IE suck? Well let me tell you…

  33. Anonymous says:

    The orginal people my reply is for are probably no longer present, but I have such a feeling of wanting to be understood I decide to post.

    First off, I can respect the IE Team for setting up rules for their blog. After all, it is <strong>their</strong> blog. I am glad that they’ve set it up however, at the same time, I am also upset that it is pointless since it’s obvious they are puppets. I have respect for you guys but at the same time I cannot forgive your bosses for letting the world sit somewhere between html and xhtml; actually we’re not even sitting that close to xhtml.

    First of all, I would like to let you all know that I am a so-called "Mac Zealot." I think it’s funny that once you start bashing Microsoft you become a "mac zealot" or a "linux zealot." I also think it’s funny that the term zealot, originally describing a jewish sect, has nearly two thousand years later come to mean the same thing as ‘fanatic.’ What’s funnier is that I started bashing Microsoft way back before I was a mac-user. Every computer I owned before this PowerBook was a PC with Windows of some version on it. I know each and every Windows version inside and out (don’t remember 3.1 so much anymore though). I’m happy to be a Mac Fanatic, however this doesn’t mean I hate everything PC or Windows. Make that distinction now gentlemen. I used to love IE back in the day, the only problem is that now is now and IE is still the exact same browser that it was back in the day. In fact, that’s roughly two years. A lot has changed since then. For one I no longer hate Apple, I love it, but I digress.

    Secondly, Safari is every bit as good as Firefox, and the latest builds are faster with their rendering engine (I have both of those as well as Camino, Opera, and IE5.2 on my mac). One of my favorite things about Safari and Firefox is that they are focussed on progression. They continue ahead while IE struggles with it’s past. I express the same sentiment as many others: I wish IE would die. It had it’s chance and now that everyone is better than it is, there’s no longer a need for it. I wish web developers and programmers, such as myself would stop, as Zeldman recently said, "tricking Internet Explorer into emulating a browser," just as we do to those browsers which are too far back to properly support but you’re Microsoft and everyone uses Microsoft, at least business-wise, so we have a conundrum. Not enough people know about Firefox because the basic person turns on their computer, looks at email and a few websites, and turns off their computer; that’s it.

    Thirdly, I find it <strong>hilarious</strong> that a self-proclaimed web developer compliments IE and talks about how he "understands" that activeX is important. He’s obviously not a web-developer, or at least not a good one, since he’s obviously interested in IE-only programming. Most web-developers, I would make a conjecture, do not even know how to explicitly program activeX. Most web-developers do have one thing in common, we try to make sure everybody can benefit from the sites we create and we <strong>DO NOT</strong> leave anyone out if at all possible! He goes on to make a statement about "Mac Zealots" as if Apple has made no progress toward anything. If you compare the enjoyment I have from my system to when I touched PCs daily you’d definitely switch, but again I stray off-topic which was not my intent.

    Indeed, I can see and say many good things about Microsoft, truth be told. However the biggest thing I cannot say good things about is Internet Explorer. You guys basically handed Netscape their ass back in the day for nothing. At the time netscape might not have been a good browser, I know I much favored IE to it and didn’t code for it at all, however that is no longer the case. Now I much favor Firefox to IE, and don’t let it fool you that it’s "open source" since most of it’s developer team comes from the same team that developer Netscape Navigator. Also, I find open-source software to be of high quality. Those people aren’t making a product to be sold. This can be taken two ways, and it does come in two flavors: 1. They pour their heart and soul into it because it’s like their baby and 2. They make it because it’s needed but since they don’t get paid they only update it as needed, but they still update it! Firefox is of type 1. Also, as is usually the case with open-source developers, you’re provided ways to easily contact them and you’ll usually be responded to personally and whatever gripe you have will usually be addressed as soon as it can possibly be coded as long as it’s a bug of some sort. Open-source software is improved upon so much it’s almost annoying.

    There’s a big hole in many of your arguments about Firefox having security holes. For one thing, it’s written by people who wrote IE’s original codebase, except it has been improved by Mozilla. The open-source community writes the code for Firefox. What operating system do you think those people use? I can almost guarantee it’s a Linux variant. So what does this have to do with anything. Well, most of the people that write viruses or malicious code write it for Windows based computers, hence the fact that Windows has millions of viruses whereas Mac/Linux OSes have less than 100 total. For another thing, even if the developers, who probably are/were crackers at some point in their lives, made a security mistake, most users wouldn’t capitalize on it because they respect the effort.

    I’m sorry, but with such good alternatives out there if you ever want my PCs to switch back to IE you’re going to have to completely outdo Firefox, and that includes design. I can’t stand that IE still looks like Windows 95! It hasn’t changed very much since then except under the hood, and even then not so much! I can’t even fathom the people out there that say that if IE would implement this or that they’d come back from Firefox and the longer you wait the harder it will be for them to return. As of now I see no need for IE in the face of Firefox, but if that’s what MS wants then that’s what it wants. When your browser wastes my time (and I don’t even use it except to test code, hoping that I’ve anticipated all of IE’s pitfalls) it becomes a problem. When 95% of the population uses it regardless of how shitty it is, that’s a problem. When it holds back the way web pages could look if given the chance, it’s everyone’s problem.

    The more and more you sit there and wait for your bosses to decide this or that Mozilla is getting further and further ahead of you. What do you do on a day to day basis? I mean you don’t even sell IE directly so I guess it doesn’t matter how much Mozilla beats you in terms of quality and design but just humor me here. What do you do day to day? What code are you working on? What are you doing to improve? If all you are doing is lounging around until the next bug rolls in, you’re wasting your own time and Microsoft’s money. Why don’t you even bother to attempt the coding? If you have something to show it’ll go a long way in convincing the higher-ups that what you want is valid. Do you even want what we want? You don’t need our suggestions. Download Firefox: http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ and work to achieve that first and then ask us how to make what you produce better. The first step is breaking IE back into a stand-alone browser.

  34. Anonymous says:

    Oh yeah, " The Wolf, you are already caught lying over and over again, I don’t see with what kind of a face you can deny all that. " Where exactly did you read something to justify that?

  35. Anonymous says:

    Also, Alex Almeroth I find it offensive* that you think Windows users are the only "real users" I suggest that you get the same IP Ban that you requested for the guy who has my initials! You’re obviously an idiot. This is not anonymous name calling, this is a person using his real name stating fact. For one, most Windows systems come shipped with Windows installed and with proper restoration software. If you haven’t even installed your own OS, I don’t see how you can be a "real user."

    * how anyone finds something non-personal, by someone they aren’t even talking to, offensive &mdash; like violence, nudity, or cursing &mdash; I’ll never know

  36. Anonymous says:

    Ah and yet another thing, thanks for spamming the reactos forum Alex: http://reactos.pixelcarnage.com/viewtopic.php?pid=37#37

  37. Anonymous says:

    OK, I’m not going to bother with any more of this. You all have made far to many posts to continue this irrelevant discussion with Alex Almeroth or whoever the hell he is. Can you not see? He’s sitting here just to mess with you. He takes what you say and tries to twist it, while sounding like he speaks english like a Romanian mail order bride (and no, that is not an insult to Romania, excepting the fact that I said this creature, Alex, sounds like them).

    I just feel sorry for anyone who is reading any of this and doesn’t actually get the facts. Here are the facts:

    1. Netscape developed Javascript according to the ECMA-262 standard. Javascript can also be called ECMAScript. Javascript or ECMAScript is used by every relevant browser (which basically means any I’ve ever heard of and that’s a lot) except IE.

    2. IE developed JScript, which is almost exactly like Javascript except that it references the DOM differently. It basically has an older version of the DOM. In other words, it’s not current at all.

    3. Javascript books DO NOT say anything about Microsoft implementing Javascript. They usually specifically link Microsoft to JScript after discussions of the Browser Wars.

    4. Alex has played all of your for fools, however he played himself for the biggest one (I’d include myself but my comments were made out of outrage at the first of his comments: an example of how this began, however I’d have stopped after a few posts). It’s easy to get someone’s goat by starting a discussion and acting like a moron who "knows it all." He played himself for the biggest fools, though, because he had to waste plenty of time to reply to you guys, and I know it wasn’t worth it. People that act like him, regardless of faking it or not are just assholes in general. Ignore them and they’ll stop after having wasted their time for nothing.

    Unlike Alex, I’d like you to actually research what I’m talking about. If you’d like to learn more about how correct I am, or if you think I’m not, I urge you to go out and find other sources. Read Zeldman’s "Designing With Web Standards" or anything else you can get your hands on. If it’s credible you’ll find out who’s right. And for the record AListApart is read by pretty much every web designer/programmer worth his/her salt.

    As for Alex, man I wish I had the time you had wasted on such bullshit. If research biologists had that kind of extra time, they’d have defeated cancer and AIDs by now. Seriously, Alex, just drop it. It’s really not funny anymore, and it hasn’t been for a while since I only read a small sampling of the text your ungraciously provided.

  38. Anonymous says:

    @ Wise Guy:

    2 and 3 sound like really bad ideas to me but I have always been against colouring the scroll bars and animated backgrounds ;)

  39. Anonymous says:

    The Wolf, if you are serious about discussing about IE, let’s discuss real issues. Stop saying or repeating lies, like IE doesn’t support Javascript and stop playing with the words, like Microsoft calls it JScript whereas we generally refer to it Javascript. You clearly try to confuse people about issues. Your goal seem to spread the FUD and lie over and over again. Wise Guy, Jim, Jesus_Christ and every other offending people have the same theme and goal here, instead of sticking with the topic they all want to tell us how much they hate Microsoft. They promote other browsers, which is nonesense. I think it will help IE team to know that, there are enough number of people who don’t take Wise Guy etc.. seriously and sick of such people. We want to have a better browser from Microsoft, period. I think Microsoft should adopt Slashdot’s tactics. They do ban ip numbers when they don’t like ip numbers. Also a rating system along with strong moderation will help people to stay on the topic and eliminate Jim, The Wolf, Wise Guy and so on. This way, more people who want to discuss real issues will come forward, and people either end up growing up or just stay with Slashdot and continue to be irrelevant.

    Channel 9 is also a good place to discuss. I think more or less every topic is covered there.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Alexs IP: 128.111.200.162 @ FSH200162.resnet.ucsb.edu

    If any one wants to harm him, don’t let me stop you.

  41. Anonymous says:

    "I like the fact that you are here providing some insight into the development of IE."-Jerry Mills aka Spider

    I’d like that fact too, if it were a fact. Take a close look here, has the IE team provided any information on what is going on in the development of IE, no they haven’t. One of the few things I’ve seen that had any discussion of the future of IE, was all about XAML. I could care less about XAML. It will only be supported by IE on Longhorn, meaning if you develop to it you lock out a currently small, but none the less important set of possible customers. Developing with standards that are supported across platforms doesn’t put you in that situation.

    "Personally, I’m content with using a browser that I can depend on to patch the problems as they are found."-Jerry Mills aka Spider

    Unfortunately, IE isn’t that browser. See the Channel 9 wiki at

    http://channel9.msdn.com/wiki/default.aspx/Channel9.InternetExplorerSecurity

    Here’s an IE bug that’s gone unpatched since June

    http://secunia.com/advisories/11793/

    …and here’s another set…

    http://62.131.86.111/analysis.htm

    "I am a designer and programmer myself. Most of those designers are NOT programmers, so keep that in mind. Javascript an DHTML support is extremely important. Active-X is extremely important." – Alex Almeroth

    Yes, you may be a designer/programmer, you are the kind of short sighted designer MS loves. The kind that is perfectly happy to use a bunch of non-standard, proprietary features that lock out any sort of cross platform support for your products. Also please get it straight, IE doesn’t support JavaScript at all, it supports JScript. What is more important, and what IE doesn’t support well is W3C DOM beyond v1, or any of the many standards real insightful developers are dieing to use, but can’t due to MS’s crappy browser. Also I don’t think you’ve tried other browsers recently. Its been some time I’ve seen any site not work with Firefox, except where they have browser sniffing to explicitly deny alternate browsers. Maybe you coded some of those Alex?

    And finally, stop telling people to get lost. They have as much right to be here. They’re are just pissed off cause MS has been ignoring all of IEs many deficiencies for so long, and it looks like they plan to continue to.

  42. Anonymous says:

    …whoops.

    They have as much right to be here, as you.

  43. Anonymous says:

    So you would have any comments related to IE problems removed and their posters banned? Good thinking, that way MS will never know why people don’t like their product.

    Right now the only offensive person here is you Alex.

    You said I lied about a few things yet you never said anything to prove me wrong.

  44. Anonymous says:

    > Jim, if you were serious about this blog, you would post something related to IE

    You mean like the numerous comments I made in one of the previous entries?

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/21/190747.aspx#190979

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/21/190747.aspx#191122

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/21/190747.aspx#191166

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/21/190747.aspx#191539

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/21/190747.aspx#191563

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/21/190747.aspx#191605

    > rather than supporting "suck my dick" comments.

    I don’t support "suck my dick" comments. I said I found yours more offensive. If you read the comments I’ve made here previously, one of them already asks people to not be so abusive towards the host.

    > Also stop pretending that slashdot is a place where we should take seriously. You automatically lose credibility by citing slashdot as a serious news source.

    You are delusional. I mentioned that you are attacking lots of people, including Slashdot readers. I made no claims as to the credibility of the news you get there. You were the one that brought up Slashdot.

    > Also Jim, you seem to be just attacking me rather than making useful comments.

    I’ve made a number of comments I think are useful. The only comments I have made relating to individuals were to defend The Wolf’s post as being technically accurate, after you wrongly accused him of not knowing what he was talking about.

    > I know a lot about javascript, I wrote a book about it, and edited another one.

    ISBN? You don’t show up on Amazon.

    > If someone says IE doesn’t support Javascript, I can guarantee that he doesn’t know what he is talking about. The language is ECMA-262 stanard, and because of historic reasons we refer to it as javascript.

    No, the _specification_ is ECMA-262. Javascript is an implementation of that specification. JScript is another one. Qscript is another one. Javascript is not ECMA-262. It is an implementation of it.

    > Microsoft calls it JScript, but claiming that IE doesn’t support ECMA-262 is lying.

    Can you actually point out where anybody has claimed that? People have said that it doesn’t support _Javascript_. It certainly supports JScript, which is an implementation of ECMA-262.

    > I think, Jim doesn’t get what this blog is about. It is not about your stupid comments, or your bashing Microsoft, it is about moving forward with IE. Grow up Jim and learn some technical stuff, not the slashdot stories. TheWolf, several times I caught up your lies, so I don’t think what you say has any merit anymore. You don’t have to deny that you are not a Gnu nut.

    You can’t tell somebody to grow up and then start calling other people names. I certainly know my technical stuff; it is you who seems to be deficient in this respect, as two separate people have had to correct you on your Javascript/JScript/ECMA confusion already.

  45. Anonymous says:

    "You don’t have to deny that you are not a Gnu nut."

    No I don’t have to deny that I’m not a GNU nut… because I’m not.

    Has anyone been banned? I hope Alex goes next. Do you think we can ignore him from now on?

  46. Anonymous says:

    Rules shld be followed for comments in any blog

  47. Anonymous says:

    I Hate It, your nick is pretty telling to us about your intent here.

    "Yes, you may be a designer/programmer, you are the kind of short sighted designer MS loves."

    What makes you long sighted? You don’t solve business problems, you don’t care about productivity, you don’t care abou scalability, implementing browsers. You are just ranting from your computer, thinking that you are the top expert in web design, because you saw couple of cool tricks in alistapart.

    "The kind that is perfectly happy to use a bunch of non-standard, proprietary features that lock out any sort of cross platform support for your products."

    You probably don’t realize this, but hundrends of thousands of engineers work daily to solve problems. We solve problems. If a problem is hard to solve, like the web, if the standards bodies do not do a good work about solving these problems, we willl use whatever means it is necessary to increase productivity. In your whole life you haven’t contributed anything to the mozilla project, didn’t implement anything serious, yet you think you can rant all you want because you become a serious person by reading a cool trick you learned from Alistapart? When you learn how to become a developer, how to solve complex problems, then give us lessons what we should or we should not do.

    "Also please get it straight, IE doesn’t support JavaScript at all, it supports JScript."

    Clearly you have no idea what these names mean. Anybody that says IE doesn’t support JavaScript is a liar. When we refer to Javascript we don’t refer to the Netscape’s implementation anymore, it is the general term we use to refer to the ECMA standard and yes you are a big liar when you say IE doesn’t support that standard.

    "What is more important, and what IE doesn’t support well is W3C DOM beyond v1, or any of the many standards real insightful developers are dieing to use, but can’t due to MS’s crappy browser."

    Who is your insightful developer, Zeldman? Zeldman is a graphics designer, he is not a developer. In general people are sick of Microsoft bashers with all the lies they are coming up with. Go to your home slashdot, or learn to behave. We don’t need to start to discuss IE issues from your stupid lies.

    "Also I don’t think you’ve tried other browsers recently."

    I use Firefox right now. Obviously you have no clue on what you are talking about at all.

    "Its been some time I’ve seen any site not work with Firefox, except where they have browser sniffing to explicitly deny alternate browsers. Maybe you coded some of those Alex?"

    I know Mozilla and W3C technologies more than you do. My sites work perfect on Mozilla. I develop some of the top of the line DHTML web apps for Mozilla. You can’t even imagine the pain I went through just to make sure everything works in Mozilla, even though it is nowhere near IE in its javascript support. As you see, there are some jerks claiming to be standards complaint by putting a simple page, and there are some developers who know what they are talking about. IE is designed for later, because it is used in enterprise apps a lot. Productivity is extremely important in companies. Why should we respect a slashdotter who has no idea how things work at all and rant so many people day and night. I think a loser term is a better term here.

    "And finally, stop telling people to get lost."

    You will get lost whether you like it or not if you don’t stick with IE.

    "They have as much right to be here. "

    No, this site is hosted on Microsoft’s servers. Microsoft has the right to decide who speak who do not. That’s has been the case in every blog on earth. Like it or not, either go and pay for the servers and post your bashing there, or stop acting like you own the servers here.

    "They’re are just pissed off cause MS has been ignoring all of IEs many deficiencies for so long, and it looks like they plan to continue to."

    No, I think they are quite upbeat about IE. They own 90% of the browser market. On many fronts IE is far ahead of other browsers. The only browser that can challenge is mozilla, but it suffers from open source ignorance. They didn’t fix the security problem for 2 years.

  48. Anonymous says:

    > Like it or not, either go and pay for the servers and post your bashing there, or stop acting like you own the servers here.

    You are the one acting as if you own the servers, telling people to leave, saying that they will be banned, etc. If you want people to act civilly, stop attacking them.

    > The only browser that can challenge is mozilla, but it suffers from open source ignorance. They didn’t fix the security problem for 2 years.

    Correction: it wasn’t a security problem for two years. It was implemented as a blacklist, and, at the time, that was sufficient. They didn’t make the best decision to implement it as a blacklist, but that’s what they did, and it came back to bite them when Microsoft added new protocol handlers – and at *that* point it became a security issue. Internet Explorer was also affected by this issue, and it took a long longer for Microsoft to respond to the problem.

    You’re not exactly lying, but you aren’t telling the whole truth, are you?

  49. Anonymous says:

    Alex, please post your bullshit elsewere.

  50. Anonymous says:

    You know, if you have published a book you would usually expect your name to be somewhere on the net… but ‘Alex Almeroth’ turns up nowhere.

    Today I have spend 3 hours working out a new box model hack for IE.

    Alex, you can develop for the web and use standards, and infact you would be more productive if you don’t use technologies like dhtml and you just used server side scripting to serve pages with forms. And lets face it nice pages with forms look a lot better than most dhtml heavy websites, and they work better too.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Jim, stop trying to confuse people.

    "No, the _specification_ is ECMA-262. Javascript is an implementation of that specification. JScript is another one. Qscript is another one. Javascript is not ECMA-262. It is an implementation of it."

    You say:

    – ECMA 262 is a standard. Which I agree.

    – Javascript is the implementation of this stanard and the name given to that implementation by Netscape.

    – JScript is the name given to the implementation of the standard by Microsoft.

    These are the facts I agree with. There are more facts of course.

    – People use the "Javascript" in general to mean the ECMA 262, whether the specific implementation is really javascript or not. That’s what people refer to it everywhere. When you buy a book on javascript, it also talks about jscript but always use the term javascript to mean the both. It briefly mentions about the naming conventions, but they clearly name their books as javascript and they don’t differentiate between the two if it is not absolutely necessary. You are a liar about this issue though, or you don’t know what you are talking about.

    - If Javascript is implementation, does it make sense to say that Microsoft doesn’t support Javascript? This is like saying that IE doesn’t support Mozilla or Safari. Mozilla doesn’t support Safari etc… Clearly you are BS is clear here. There is a stanard, and you admit that JScript or the Microsoft’s javascript is an implementation of this standard yet you want Microsoft to support Javascript. You are not consistent in your claims and logic.

    Jim, you intentionally lie and try to confuse people about pure facts. But the fact remains. Anybody doing any real work on javascript wouldn’t say that "Microsoft doesn’t support javascript and standards".

    Also

    >> Microsoft calls it JScript, but claiming that IE doesn’t support ECMA-262 is lying.

    Here is what you said

    >Can you actually point out where anybody has claimed that? People have said that it doesn’t support _Javascript_. It certainly supports JScript, which is an implementation of ECMA-262.

    and here is the proof that you are lying about this too.

    The Wolf said:

    "1. IE doesn’t have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has ‘JScript’ support… inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards. "

    Now, he says that "inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards."

    Again, why are you lying Jim? It is not that you don’t know the difference, but you seem to be so keen on bashing Microsoft even if that means lying about facts.

    My book is not published yet.

    "You can’t tell somebody to grow up and then start calling other people names. "

    I don’t call names if you mean "liar". I point it out and prove why I say that.

    "I certainly know my technical stuff; it is you who seems to be deficient in this respect, as two separate people have had to correct you on your Javascript/JScript/ECMA confusion already."

    Hehe, you didn’t correct anything as I just proved. If you claim that all the javascript books are actually covering the Netscape’s implementation Javascript, and not JScipt because their name is Javascript, you are a liar. The fact that you are a liar is not about calling you a name, it is pretty obvious. I urge anyone to go and pick up a javascript book and see what they say about this blatant attempt by Jim and his friends to confuse you about the situation. Again, is it better to trust such liars, or just to stick with people who are honest and direct about their comments? Jim, you are not a match to me in this issue. All you did is repeat the obvious facts just to put credibility to a lie. I don’t see how being a liar will help your cause, whatever it is.

  52. Anonymous says:

    "No. The Wolf’s main point was that Javascript and JScript are different."

    Again, you are a liar. You first concede that The Wolf accused IE for not being standard complaint there, then you lie again. You are a BIG liar, not just a liar.

    "I missed his second point, that doesn’t make me a liar, it makes me mistaken."

    No, it makes you more than a liar actually. Because you intentionally deny the obvious that the main point was to accuse IE of not supporting standards.

    "Why would I attempt to lie about something that is disproven by the page up key?"

    Because you are from Slashdot? That’s what slashdotters do!

    "It makes no sense for me to do that."

    You have sense?

    "Please explain what my other "intentional mistakes" are before continuing to accuse me of lying."

    I did, you just don’t get it.

    "The Javascript book you quote differentiates between Javascript and JScript in the same manner as everybody here but you."

    Again, you make not only any sense, but you intentionally lie about the contents of the books. I clearly showed you what the JavaScript books says. They say that IE is not one of the non-JavaScript browsers. Furthermore they say IE supports JavaScript 1.2 from IE 4. That’s the exact line they use. They only differentiate between JavaScript and JScript by name only, and you are the only liar here who claim that they are completely different and that it doesn’t support standards. If you have paid attentions, only people who come to bash Microsoft support you. Not one single normal people approved what you said.

    "Of course a published author on the topic has more authority than me. I specifically said that ECMA, Netscape and Microsoft were the authorities. I didn’t claim I was."

    Then maybe you should better shut up and listen to that authority? Because I quoted the book saying IE supporting JavaScript 1.2. We all know the names are different only, and if you are claiming that JavaScript and JScript are different other than name, then you are not only a liar, you have no business here whatsoever.

    "You still haven’t acknowledged that The Wolf was correct in differentiating between Javascript and Javascript."

    Differentiating between "Javascript" and "Javascript". Only an idiot would say that.

    "The book you quote differentiates between them, Microsoft differentiates between them:"

    I quoted the book, the book and more books clearly state that IE supports JavaScript 1.2 since IE 4. Why do you lie about that?

    "Even you differentiated between them at one point. "

    Differentiating between them as a name is different than admitting that they are different. You have lied over and over again about the fact that they are in fact the same thing. That’s why JavaScript books do not say JavaScript and JScript.

    "But you haven’t admitted that The Wolf was correct in differentiating between them."

    No, you have lied and then finally admitted that you are incorrect, but still talk just to talk.

    "So I still don’t know what I am talking about? For saying that Javascript and JScript are different? Even though you are saying it too now?"

    IE and Internet Explorer are also different, but in this context only an idiot would say that they are different. Do you see your problem here? I don’t think so. Get away from computer and read some books before making comments.

    "I haven’t conceded any pertinent points about Javascript."

    Yes you did, several times.

    "I conceded that I was wrong in saying that nobody said Internet Explorer didn’t implement ECMA-262."

    Of course, so why don’t you just quit? The purpose of this blog is not to make the point that there are more letters in Javascript than there are in JSCript. You can discuss that in your slashdot. But obviously this blog is not the place to make that stupid point.

    "I conceded that I couldn’t prove when Microsoft introduced the shell: protocol handler. Neither of those facts are relevent in the context you use them in."

    Well, most of your comments are totally useless than. Back it up like I do and then maybe you can convince other people. If you don’t then it becomes harder for you to get any credibility.

    "I didn’t bash you as a Microsoft zealot. I was highlighting the fact that you are behaving in exactly the way you decry other for."

    Your whole point is that officially Javascript has more letters than JScript. You have nothing to say about IE here. That’s quite obvious, yet you seem to be keen to prove another point here that you are not to discuss technical issues here related with IE. What do you want from Microsoft now? Make the name JScript longer? That’s slashdot talk and that’s my point. You can’t win an argument and lose it over and over again.

    Maybe you need to learn how to behave and discuss technical issues, rather than insisting that Javascript has more letters than JScript. That’s really your problem. I don’t know how to fix it for you, but don’t worry you will have lots of online friends , there are so many net thugs that will love you especially on slashdot. Submit a story to Slashdot that says "Microsoft doesn’t support JavaScript" and explain why, people would praise you with your new discovery.

  53. Anonymous says:

    Another lie from Jim to confuse people.

    "Correction: it wasn’t a security problem for two years. It was implemented as a blacklist, and, at the time, that was sufficient. They didn’t make the best decision to implement it as a blacklist, but that’s what they did, and it came back to bite them when Microsoft added new protocol handlers – and at *that* point it became a security issue. Internet Explorer was also affected by this issue, and it took a long longer for Microsoft to respond to the problem.

    You’re not exactly lying, but you aren’t telling the whole truth, are you? "

    XP has been released in 2001. The problem is reported to Mozilla in 2002. Since then Microsoft didn’t magically entered into people’s desktop to register another protocol, and thus the proof that Jim has lied once again. This is the 3rd time you were caught up with a lie.

    Also read the topic, the topic clearly says if you say offending stuff you will be banned. You are exactly lying here. Maybe you learned that it is not so easy to lie and get away with it. You can do that on Slashdot, but that’s because people there like to hear lies. I think people should know how irresponsible mozilla developers really are. The bug report in 2002 is marked as not-fixed the last time I checked it out, and Mozilla developers argued actually fixing such problems is not their duty. In other words, according to mozilla developers there is nothing wrong to let third party sites to run anything they want on your own computer.

  54. Anonymous says:

    journal &raquo; Even Internet Explorer Needs Love&raquo;
    jinabolton

  55. Anonymous says:

    Alex, you don’t have a clue do you?

    "The Wolf said:

    "1. IE doesn’t have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has ‘JScript’ support… inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards. "

    Now, he says that "inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards."

    Again, why are you lying Jim? It is not that you don’t know the difference, but you seem to be so keen on bashing Microsoft even if that means lying about facts."

    JScript is not JavaScript, it’s microsofts alternative, while some of the code can be used under both not all of it can. Microsofts solution doesn’t follow the standards whereas JavaScript does.

    "Hehe, you didn’t correct anything as I just proved. If you claim that all the javascript books are actually covering the Netscape’s implementation Javascript, and not JScipt because their name is Javascript, you are a liar. The fact that you are a liar is not about calling you a name, it is pretty obvious. I urge anyone to go and pick up a javascript book and see what they say about this blatant attempt by Jim and his friends to confuse you about the situation. Again, is it better to trust such liars, or just to stick with people who are honest and direct about their comments? Jim, you are not a match to me in this issue. All you did is repeat the obvious facts just to put credibility to a lie. I don’t see how being a liar will help your cause, whatever it is."

    Apart from the fact that neither of us have told any lies… I don’t see how being an ahol helps your ’cause’ Alex.

    "Also read the topic, the topic clearly says if you say offending stuff you will be banned. You are exactly lying here. Maybe you learned that it is not so easy to lie and get away with it. You can do that on Slashdot, but that’s because people there like to hear lies. I think people should know how irresponsible mozilla developers really are. The bug report in 2002 is marked as not-fixed the last time I checked it out, and Mozilla developers argued actually fixing such problems is not their duty."

    You have not been banned yet so I don’t think they are moderating it as well as they should.

    "In other words, according to mozilla developers there is nothing wrong to let third party sites to run anything they want on your own computer"

    Funny, I thought that was an Internet Explorer motto.

  56. Anonymous says:

    > People use the "Javascript" in general to mean the ECMA 262, whether the specific implementation is really javascript or not. That’s what people refer to it everywhere.

    Well quite obviously that isn’t true, as now three people have tried to correct you on the issue. Plenty of people differentiate between implementations, as this page makes perfectly clear. Microsoft themselves do so.

    > Now, he says that "inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards."

    I didn’t see that comment before, so I concede that point.

    > If you claim that all the javascript books are actually covering the Netscape’s implementation Javascript, and not JScipt because their name is Javascript, you are a liar.

    You seem awfully keen to put words in my mouth. Since they are both implementations of the ECMA-262 specification, books talking about Javascript will also be broadly applicable to other ECMA-262 implementations such as JScript and QtScript. As any technical publisher will tell you, "Javascript" is much more marketable than "ECMA-262". It doesn’t matter if they include content on JScript as well – just think how many "HTML" books have information on scripting and stylesheets.

    You posted this earlier:

    > There are enough zealots around to pose as they like just to disrupt others’ work. So stop telling me to be suspicious for the facts, when these zealots are disrupting the positive energy going on.

    I only started responding to your comments because you unjustly attacked somebody for not knowing what they were talking about. Since then, you have actually done a 180 degree turn and agree that The Wolf was correct in saying that Javascript and JScript are different implementations of ECMA-262, and yet you haven’t retracted your accusation that he is a liar for differentiating between them.

    If anybody here is "disrupting the positive energy", it is the person slinging insults to practically everybody mentioned on this page apart from Microsoft. Namely, you.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Oh and btw Alex, is this what you consider a developer?

    "Someone with a complete disregard for the standards and the productivity gain from following the standards who writes for one platform ignoring the other viable platforms and front end solutions."

  58. Anonymous says:

    I won’t be responding to you again Alex, since I don’t think it’s productive. But since you responded directly to me. I might as well defend myself.

    "What makes you long sighted? You don’t solve business problems, you don’t care about productivity, you don’t care abou scalability, implementing browsers. You are just ranting from your computer, thinking that you are the top expert in web design, because you saw couple of cool tricks in alistapart."

    I’m long sighted, cause I use standards compliant code that will be supported by browsers long into the future. Even if/when IE is long forgotten. Rather than encouraging the use of proprietary features that will be here today and gone tommorow.

    I’m not sure what a browser has to do with scalability, that’s a server side issue in my mind, and not something to discuss here.

    And I do care about productivity. I care about the hours I waste fishing around after IE bugs cause MS seems unwilling to advertize them, or do anything about them.

    "In your whole life you haven’t contributed anything to the mozilla project…"

    Actually I have. I’ve submittted a number of bug reports to their bugzilla system, and they were investigated and addressed or plans put in place to address them quickly. Something MS seems unwilling to do with IE.

    "…didn’t implement anything serious, yet you think you can rant all you want because you become a serious person by reading a cool trick you learned from Alistapart?"

    I’ve submitted code to a few Open Source projects that I would consider serious. I also have a architect positon at a Fortune 500 company, and solve real buisness problems every day.

    Also I feel AListApart is only good about 50% or the time. Many of its articles are poorly thought out in the end, although those issues often get resolved within their comment system. Moreover, I’m not sure what you have against them, since you are the one who keeps bringing that site up.

    "Who is your insightful developer, Zeldman?"

    He’s one of many. Again, I’m not sure what you have against him, since you keep bringing him up.

    "works in Mozilla, even though it is nowhere near IE in its javascript support"

    Here’s why I’m not replying to you again. You don’t listen.

    JavaScript is Netscape/Mozilla’s implementation of ECMAScript you can see the standard they’ve published for it here…

    http://www.mozilla.org/js/language/

    …IE doesn’t support it. IE does support JScript upto v5.6, which was published with IE6 and I consider as outdated as IE is now.

    "…there are some developers who know what they are talking about. IE is designed for later, because it is used in enterprise apps a lot."

    And man do I hate those apps. There what ends up locking companies in MS’s trunk. Are you able to give any specific example of something that can only be implemented using IEs magic proprietary features, that couldn’t have been developed in a standards compliant, cross-platform compatible way?

    "My sites work perfect on Mozilla."

    Glad to hear it, perhaps you are not as short sighted as I thought.

    "Why should we respect a slashdotter who has no idea how things work at all and rant so many people day and night. I think a loser term is a better term here."

    I’m not sure what you have against Slashdot either, and there is certainly no reason to resort to name calling.

    "Microsoft has the right to decide who speak who do not."

    That’s right MS has that right, not you or are you a MS employee?

    "No, I think they are quite upbeat about IE. They own 90% of the browser market."

    Sure, but what about the mobile phone market, embedded devices, and all the alternate computer platforms. When you factor all that in IEs share becomes much less, probably no better than 60% though I’m completely making that value up. Moreover IEs market share is declining and will likely continue to for the next X years till Longhorn is released, since MS has no plans of updating it signifigantly till then. And please don’t call the security patches/popup blocker of SP2 signifigant.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Oh and I chose my alias "I Hate It" purely to counter the silly "I Love This Browser!" post. Though I think there’s been enough discussion about that in that post’s comments.

  60. Anonymous says:

    > XP has been released in 2001. The problem is reported to Mozilla in 2002. Since then Microsoft didn’t magically entered into people’s desktop to register another protocol

    Actually, Microsoft have released a number of updates since then. But I can’t seem to find the right terms to track down when shell: was introduced. I’m happy to concede this point, as I said, I think Mozilla’s black-list solution (that they implemented two years ago) was a poor decision to begin with.

    However, that still doesn’t address why you bring up Mozilla’s security fault but conveniently gloss over the fact that Internet Explorer was also vulnerable and wasn’t fixed as quickly.

    > Also read the topic, the topic clearly says if you say offending stuff you will be banned. You are exactly lying here. Maybe you learned that it is not so easy to lie and get away with it. You can do that on Slashdot, but that’s because people there like to hear lies.

    Why the obsession with Slashdot? Have the people there done something to offend you so deeply that you’ll rant and rave about them given any soap box? Slashdot is of no relevence here.

    >I think people should know how irresponsible mozilla developers really are. The bug report in 2002 is marked as not-fixed the last time I checked it out, and Mozilla developers argued actually fixing such problems is not their duty. In other words, according to mozilla developers there is nothing wrong to let third party sites to run anything they want on your own computer.

    Really? Is that so? This is Mozilla’s page about this particular vulnerability:

    http://www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html

    Who’s lying now?

  61. Anonymous says:

    Alex, I said this before:

    If you cannot address these issues maturely, then I see no point in responding to you.

    Now you have once more set about calling me a liar for saying things I did not say, completely mischaracterising my arguments, whilst ignoring the existing objections I have to the truthfulness of your statements.

    Calling me names, insulting me, ignoring what I have to say, and not conceding on points where you are clearly in the wrong is not what I would call addressing these issues maturely.

    If you would like to adjust your attitude and try again, feel free. But there’s no real point in me continuing this with your current attitude, as anything I say will go in one ear and out the other, won’t it?

  62. Anonymous says:

    Someone who has inserted his brain into his ass, I don’t know your problem but remove your small brain right from your ass. It is unhealthy for you, however if you dare to show your remaining intelligence let us know and we can easily shut you up just like Jim and others ended up shutting up. You can always go to Slashdot to express your hate though. That’s the designated area for idiots to talk. Here you will be treated just like you said, "someone who has inserted his brain into his ass".

  63. Anonymous says:

    This is quite interesting blog.

  64. Anonymous says:

    One other thing Alex.

    "My book is not published yet."

    If thats the case you might want to be a bit more tight lipped. I don’t think your current comments will be helping your sales any.

  65. Anonymous says:

    I think any blog should have the reasonable expectation that the comments be polite, and the power to delete comments that do not follow the rules. That’s what makes a blog different than other mediums. Disagreement is fine; swearing and insults are not. That’s all that they are asking for. Notice that it doesn’t say not to criticize Internet Explorer, but to be respectful. I’m not really sure what they mean by keep it fun, however. This should be serious discussion.

    I’m very much a Firefox advocate. I use Linux and love open source. I’ve often wished that IE would disappear from the face of the earth. That said, if the developers are offering a chance, however slim, to communicate fairly directly with them, I’m not so spiteful as to try to sabotage it for everyone. While the business people might have insiduous plans for IE, I really doubt that the programmers do.

    As for JavaScript versus JScript, I’m not sure why Microsoft should be forced to follow someone else’s implementation of a standard when theirs is compliant as well.

  66. Anonymous says:

    Jim,

    you are really an amusing. You first claim that Javascript books do not know what they are talking about because they name their books after Javascript but they cover Microsoft’s implementation too.

    Let’s see what kind of a liar you are and how you try to confuse people with different name issues.

    Just go to amazon, http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/1565923928/ref=sib_dp_pt/104-7981379-3423117#reader-page and read the first page "Introduction to Javascript". The book is Javascript Definitive Guide. It says "The general-purpose core of the language has been embeded in the Netscape Navigator, Internet Explorer and other browsers". This book is about javascript, not netscape’s implementation of the ecma standard. Every book out there is like that. Just check out the list of books from this list http://javascript.internet.com/books/ and see whether those books refer to IE’s implementation as Javascript or something else. Again, just one more proof that you are a liar. What Microsoft employee meant is the fact that officially, Jscript is what Microsoft calls Javascript, and in general people don’t refer to Javascript as Netscape’s implementation. Right now you are denying the fact that when people talk about javascript, they don’t refer to Netscape’s implementation, they refer to general programming language supported in almost all browsers one way or another. However, I enjoy seeing such Microsoft bashers trying to bash Microsoft in such technical issues, because technicality is something where Microsoft bashers are not good enough. So again, I just proved that the javascript books themselves mention that javascript is the language supported in almost all browsers. Konfabulator’s javascript is not Netscape’s javascript, yet we refer to it as javascript. So stop lying on this issue.

    "I didn’t see that comment before, so I concede that point. "

    You probably didn’t see so many things. It is sad that we have to deal with ignorant Microsoft bashers. It is not really that you bash Microsoft, but it is mostly you don’t know what you are talking about.

    "books talking about Javascript will also be broadly applicable to other ECMA-262 implementations such as JScript and QtScript."

    Look, I understand you are not good at javascript, but at least respect people who do know what they are talking about. Your technical detail doesn’t interest people, that’s why people don’t talk about different implementations of ecma-262 everytime they talk about javascript. For example, the wolf doesn’t have any idea what he is talking about when he says Microsoft doesn’t support Javascript (standards). You also didn’t get it. You messed it up so badly that it is not clear exactly what you are talking about, at the end you ended up conceding that you didn’t see that comment, because you were conflicting with yourself all the time. You wanted to defend The Wolf, because he is your fellow Microsoft basher, but if you were serious about discussing seriously, you would acknowledge that IE does support the standards quite well. At the end you sort of did, but then you though you can still attack Microsoft for using a different name and that we should really use Javascript for the Netscape’s implementation of the language. However, the real world doesn’t do that. This is one important issue, Microsoft bashers have nothing to do with real world. The real world uses javascript to mean the language, the standard, wheras you are interested in more on bashing Microsoft. Good luck to you.

    "I only started responding to your comments because you unjustly attacked somebody for not knowing what they were talking about."

    You ended up conceding that you don’t know either. Remember all the javascript programmers vs you and your 2 other Microsoft bashers. I don’t see why you think you are relevant here.

    "Since then, you have actually done a 180 degree turn and agree that The Wolf was correct in saying that Javascript and JScript are different implementations of ECMA-262, and yet you haven’t retracted your accusation that he is a liar for differentiating between them"

    Hehe. You are the one who conceded not me. I have never said that Javascript historically is not Netscape’s implementation of the ECMA-262 standard that we refer to Javascript. In fact you also admitted that actually people use the term Javascript to mean the language itself, not ECMA-262 and they also refer to the JScript with the same name. Also you admitted and conceded that you didn’t read what The Wolf said first. You completely ridiculed yourself here. Frankly I got a good laugh here.

    "If anybody here is "disrupting the positive energy", it is the person slinging insults to practically everybody mentioned on this page apart from Microsoft. Namely, you. "

    You are the one who supported Jesus_Christ’s offensive comments, not me. You are the one who ended up conceding when challenged with hard core evidence. But I am glad we had this conversation, people would definitely know the difference between someone who claim that javascript is used strictly for Netscape’s implementation and the person who knows for a fact that today we refer to any implementation of ECMA-262 as javascript, whether it is from Netscape or not. That’s the difference between slashdot and the real world. It is confusing to many people, but it is there. 4 net thugs do not represent the real world Jim. Just don’t think that because you are so forward in your bashing Microsoft, you have a case. You represent Slashdot, not IE developers, not IE users. Anyway you ended up conceding to the facts sooner or later and that’s a good step, but not enough since you suggest that javascript book authors are using the term javascript just to market their books.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Jim,

    as I pointed out earlier and as you admitted, you have to concede fully without any condition that IE supports Javascript completely. Your claim that JavaScript and JScript are different is being refuted by JavaScript books. They are only different in name only, they are implementations of the same language and both are commonly referred to as Javascript language, no matter at which implementation you run. For example, while you claim that Javascript and JScript are different, you shamelessly didn’t acknowledge the fact that we use the word javascript to refer to implementations in other browsers too, like Safari, Opera and so on. If you had some dignity you would answer that question, but you don’t because you only attack Microsoft.

    Once you become mature and knowledgable enough feel free to discuss real issues. I enjoy discussing technical issues, but really not with a slashdot type.

    You have to know when to concede fully and admit that IE does support Javascript, period. You should also apologize for intentionally misrepresenting what is being said and retract your false claims that the JavaScript books talk about just Netscape’s implementation and that IE’s implementation is different. At least people will know what you are all about, rather than taking you seriously.

  68. Anonymous says:

    I would be worried about the poor content in the book first before you worry about the effects your comments have.

  69. Anonymous says:

    Alex, you sound like a friking psycho….

  70. Anonymous says:

    "As for JavaScript versus JScript, I’m not sure why Microsoft should be forced to follow someone else’s implementation of a standard when theirs is compliant as well."

    Agreed. I think many folks are interested in better support/compliance for later DOM standards rather than changes in JScript or support for the JavaScript standard. Although being able to use a cross-browser scripting language would be nice.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Alex, thats some of the best bullshit I have ever read.

    You are always saying others are telling the lies when you appear to be. Go kill yourself and do us all a favor.

    (I normaly wouldn’t say anything like that but he really has no clue about anything we have said.)

  72. Anonymous says:

    "Agreed. I think many folks are interested in better support/compliance for later DOM standards rather than changes in JScript or support for the JavaScript standard. Although being able to use a cross-browser scripting language would be nice."

    It would be better if they did follow the standards closer for exactly that reason :)

  73. Anonymous says:

    > You first claim that Javascript books do not know what they are talking about because they name their books after Javascript but they cover Microsoft’s implementation too.

    I never said that. Please point out where you think I did.

    > Look, I understand you are not good at javascript, but at least respect people who do know what they are talking about. Your technical detail doesn’t interest people, that’s why people don’t talk about different implementations of ecma-262 everytime they talk about javascript.

    Huh? The fact that I am correct is irrelevent because it is a technical detail that most people aren’t interested in?

    > if you were serious about discussing seriously, you would acknowledge that IE does support the standards quite well.

    It supports the ECMA-262 specification quite well. Once more, this doesn’t mean it supports other ECMA-262 implementations. It is actually possible for it to support other ECMA-262 implementations, but since there isn’t any need, it does not.

    > but then you though you can still attack Microsoft for using a different name and that we should really use Javascript for the Netscape’s implementation of the language.

    I never said that either. Please point out where you think I did.

    >> "I only started responding to your comments because you unjustly attacked somebody for not knowing what they were talking about."

    > You ended up conceding that you don’t know either.

    I conceded that I didn’t see The Wolf claim that Internet Explorer didn’t support ECMA-262. I conceded that I couldn’t prove when the shell: protocol handler was introduced. I certainly didn’t concede the initial point, which was that Javascript != JScript.

    >> "Since then, you have actually done a 180 degree turn and agree that The Wolf was correct in saying that Javascript and JScript are different implementations of ECMA-262, and yet you haven’t retracted your accusation that he is a liar for differentiating between them"

    > Hehe. You are the one who conceded not me.

    Really?

    You: I like IE a lot, especially its javascript support.

    The Wolf: IE doesn’t have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has ‘JScript’ support.

    You: As you just proved previously with your javascript comment, you are not a developer. Probably you are a cheap web designer. I am a developer

    [Later]

    You:

    - ECMA 262 is a standard. Which I agree.

    - Javascript is the implementation of this stanard and the name given to that implementation by Netscape.

    - JScript is the name given to the implementation of the standard by Microsoft.

    Quite clearly, you attack The Wolf and then later go on to state the same thing as he did when he was correcting you.

    > You are the one who supported Jesus_Christ’s offensive comments, not me.

    That is the second time you have accused me of that. Back it up. What I actually said was: I don’t support "suck my dick" comments. I said I found yours more offensive. That is the exact opposite of what you are accusing me of. I expect you to concede that you are wrong and that I am not supporting that offensive comment.

    > Anyway you ended up conceding to the facts sooner or later

    You are implying that I am agreeing with your general points. I am not.

    Also, I didn’t spot this before:

    > I don’t call names if you mean "liar".

    I was referring to you calling people "nut", "zealot", "loser", etc.

    Oh, and quit it with the Slashdot weirdness. What is up with that? Nobody is bringing Slashdot into the argument but you.

  74. Anonymous says:

    > Your claim that JavaScript and JScript are different is being refuted by JavaScript books.

    And supported by Microsoft:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/com/htm/ctrans_0hdg.asp

    If they are not different, then why has Microsoft written an article entitled "Translating to JavaScript from JScript"?

    I’m still waiting for you to stop putting words in my mouth. You are repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments. What is the point in talking to you if you are going to ignore what I say and attack me for things I haven’t said?

    I’m still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact you have stated a number of untrue things about me.

  75. Anonymous says:

    >Lots of good interesting responses on IE and the posts on IEBlog

    You want "good" responses about IE?

    You want "interesting" responses about IE?

    It seems to me that you just want us to make IE sound good rather than us telling you the truth. Which do you want? Do you want the truth or do you want us to just lie to you and tell you that IE is a wonderful product that deserves further development?

    The truth is that Microsoft has a habit of producing bad software – probably due to being closed sourced and the limited minds can’t produce anything else. It "looks" pretty on the outside, but, that’s as far as the beauty goes.

    Linux is a wonderful product, which is winning the OS war, by the way, despite what you want to believe, because practically the entire world is working on it in some way – it’s open source. The source code for Microsoft products is kept secret and hidden, thus, severly limiting the amount of people who can work on it and, therefore, limiting its quality.

    My suggestions is thus. Open ALL the source code for Microsoft products, thereby allowing more folks to improve it. Or keep it closed and continue to wane until such time as Microsoft products are no longer wanted by the public at all.

    Microsoft Corp. is going to lose the revenue generated by it’s Microsoft Windows OS’s. Either by opening the source code to the public, or by the public demand for the products dying out. Revenue generated by MS Windows OS’s is going to be lost, one way or another.

  76. Anonymous says:

    "Actually, Microsoft have released a number of updates since then. But I can’t seem to find the right terms to track down when shell: was introduced. I’m happy to concede this point, as I said, I think Mozilla’s black-list solution (that they implemented two years ago) was a poor decision to begin with."

    Well, I am not suprised that you ended up conceding with this too.

    "However, that still doesn’t address why you bring up Mozilla’s security fault but conveniently gloss over the fact that Internet Explorer was also vulnerable and wasn’t fixed as quickly."

    Explorer is being used by millions of people, hundrends of thousands of programs, add-ons etc… Mozilla breaks apps easily by its fixes, it happened to me. Mozilla’s problem is that their developers are arrogant, instead of fixing the security problem, they refused. That’s dangerous and people should know that IE is in fact more secure than Mozilla, not because IE has less number of problems, but because we know that Microsoft is more serious than Mozilla developers on security. When a security is found, Mozilla developers didn’t test the fix at all. They just released it without looking at how it is going to affect people. Sure, it is great for PR, but that’s exactly why people shouldn’t put their faith in mozilla.

    "Why the obsession with Slashdot? Have the people there done something to offend you so deeply that you’ll rant and rave about them given any soap box? Slashdot is of no relevence here."

    Obsession? Heh! Slashdotter term is just an easy way of referring to an anti-Microsoft jerk who has no idea about what he is talking about or doesn’t matter for him. It is simply to hurt Microsoft, not about helping consumers, users or anything like that. The Wolf is a good example. The Wise Guy’s sarcastic suggestions are also another set of examples. But I am suprised that you don’t ask why The Wolf lied about Javascript (in your own statements ECMA-262 standard) support in IE. You are talking as if supporting Slashdot is the norm, and anybody who questions credibility of the Slashdot should be questioned himself. Again, that’s your problem, but I don’t need another concession from you.

    "Really? Is that so? This is Mozilla’s page about this particular vulnerability:

    http://www.mozilla.org/security/shell.html

    Who’s lying now? "

    Wow, so you refer to Mozilla’s security page about the issue to prove that I am lying. Well done Jimmy boy, you are a genius. Here is the mozilla’s bug in 2002, http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=167475 Whos is lying now? Wait I know.

    "I never said that. Please point out where you think I did."

    Well you said that before but conceded later I am correct. I said Javascript refer to the ECMA-262 language today, that’s how we use it, you said I don’t know what I am talking about. That’s how javascript books use the term, then you said that’s because they want to market their books.

    "Huh? The fact that I am correct is irrelevent because it is a technical detail that most people aren’t interested in?"

    No you are not correct at all. Every javascript book, including me knows this fact and explain it somewhere in the pages, but never brings it back. You conceded enough number of times today to be marked as irrelevant from the technical perspective.

    "It supports the ECMA-262 specification quite well. Once more, this doesn’t mean it supports other ECMA-262 implementations. It is actually possible for it to support other ECMA-262 implementations, but since there isn’t any need, it does not. "

    The Wolf said it doesn’t. You defended him, and now you conflict with him. I don’t know what you are talking about. What’s your point now that you accept I am correct? Why do you continue to accuse Javascript book authors?

    "Quite clearly, you attack The Wolf and then later go on to state the same thing as he did when he was correcting you. "

    Really, are you smoking or what? You just said IE supports the javascript quite well, except your crappy term use, you agree with me, and then say that Wolf is correcting me? Really go and read some books. Even though you did know something you made yourself as irrelevant as The Wolf.

    "I expect you to concede that you are wrong and that I am not supporting that offensive comment. "

    When you find "suck my dick" comment from proving that somebody is lying, then he is sort of saying that the comment is actually appropriate.

    "You are implying that I am agreeing with your general points. I am not."

    That’s ok. That’s a typical slashdotter behavior. The point has always been about disagreeing and lying about facts, distorting and so on. I am not suprised at all.

    "Oh, and quit it with the Slashdot weirdness."

    Why are you so much obsessed with Slashdot? Why is that bother you a lot? I refer to anti-Microsoft guys as slashdotters, because that’s the site that enforces the common myths, all sorts of wrong news, and you seem to defend them no matter what even though you disagree with them, you agree with them at the end.

    Anyway, I think I am pretty much done with you. After so many concessions, you ended up conflicting with yourself at the end, not clear on what you are saying.

  77. Anonymous says:

    And I said I wouldn’t respond to you any more but to…

    "…read the first page "Introduction to Javascript""

    Actually read the cover. When it says "Covers Javascript 1.2" they are specifically talking about the Netscape/Mozilla standard. And if you continue to read beyond page 1 into section 1.2 you see they spend some time discussing that different browsers have different implementations of the language, and that "The name JavaScript is owned by Netscape", while "Microsoft’s implementation is officially known as JScript".

    So it’s fairly clear that book doesn’t support your points at all.

  78. Anonymous says:

    "I Hate It", your nick is pretty much giving you away.

    "Actually read the cover. When it says "Covers Javascript 1.2" they are specifically talking about the Netscape/Mozilla standard. And if you continue to read beyond page 1 into section 1.2 you see they spend some time discussing that different browsers have different implementations of the language, and that "The name JavaScript is owned by Netscape", while "Microsoft’s implementation is officially known as JScript".

    So it’s fairly clear that book doesn’t support your points at all."

    I can prove right here that you are a liar. Here is what the book says about javascript 1.2:

    Right after "The name JavaScript is owned by Netscape", while "Microsoft’s implementation is officially known as JScript". it continues and says "The versions of JScript are more or less compatible the equivalent versions of Javascript, although JScript skipped a version and went directly from JavaScript 1.0 compataibility to JavaScript 1.2 compatibility"

    The book clearly defends my view. The book says that they are the same. They talk about that difference only in Versions of Javascript section and that’s where they have to explain you where does the names come from. They don’t use the term Javascript as if it only refers to Netscape’s implementation.

    Here is how the book defines the Javascript "Javascript is a lightweight interpreted programming language with object-oriented capabilities." The book doesn’t say that Javascript is Netscape’s own name, until the Javascript versions, and nowhere in the book it says it is specifically talking about Netscape’s implementation, since Netscape doesn’t exist anymore as a browser anyway. So you are actually lying, as you did so far. I recommend people to ignore such liars.

    Now another lie. In the book, they list the javascript from two browsers. In a table it lists javascript versions supported by various browsers.

    Browser Version | Netscap Navigator | Microsoft IE

    ———————————————————

    2| Javascript 1.0 |

    3| Javascript 1.1 | JavaScript 1.0

    4| Javascript 1.2 | Javascript 1.2

    | not fully complaint | Fully complaint

    | with ECMA-262 | with ECMA-262

    ———————————————————-

    In other words, IE supported the standards before Netscape did. It also doesn’t say JScript there, it says JavaScript 1.0 and JavaScript 1.2. Anyway, enough with dealing with liars. However, I do want people to notice that when you see one of these slashdot type of anti-Microsoft bashers you shouldn’t trust them at all. They are flat out lying about facts, even in the book case, they are lying, because it is far more easier for these people to lie about facts rather than do something, be positive.

  79. Anonymous says:

    Just another quire note from the book: The book has a chapter named "Compatability Techniques" and section 19.3 named "Compatability with non-JavaScript browsers". Guess what. The book is not talking about IE. Anyway, don’t think that I am taking Jim, I Hate It etc… seriously. I am just trying to point out that there are some online vandals, some kids, some grown up losers, etc… ready to lie about facts just to confuse you and hurt Microsoft. Dismiss such claims instantly. Almost 95% of slashdotters have no clue at all. Just learn your stuff from books, instead of online net thugs. They are always going to give you wrong information, and there will be always enough of them to give you the impression that they are in fact telling the truth and as I just proved they will always lie, no matter what.

  80. Anonymous says:

    Jim stop being a liar and tell us what Microsoft says about compatability. The article says

    "JScript is largely compatible with JavaScript. However, JScript includes some objects not currently supported by JavaScript"

    JScript is a superset of JavaScript meaning that, if you write for JavaScript it will work in JScript too. Once again, you flat out lie about facts.

    I am still waiting you to apologize for lying and misrepresenting facts intentionally. Clearly JavaScript books disagree with you that JScript is not compatible with JavaScript. This is not slashot, even though many from there come in and support you, you can’t win this argument, every javascript book disagrees with you. Find one single book that says JScript is not compatible with JavaScript. One of the best books on this topic, JavaScript Definitive Guide, clearly says that IE supports JavaScript 1.2 fully. Period, I gave you the page number, you can go to Amazon and read it yourself. You lie again and again, just apologize and you may gain some respect.

  81. Anonymous says:

    STOP WITH THE SLASHDOT SHIT PLEASE!

  82. Anonymous says:

    > You are talking as if supporting Slashdot is the norm

    No I am not. Please, stop lying about what I say.

    > Wow, so you refer to Mozilla’s security page about the issue to prove that I am lying.

    You said: "In other words, according to mozilla developers there is nothing wrong to let third party sites to run anything they want on your own computer." You also implied that the security hole wasn’t fixed.

    I then pointed out a page showing that they took it very seriously and fixed it. That is completely at odds with your statement.

    >> "I never said that. Please point out where you think I did."

    > Well you said that before but conceded later I am correct. I said Javascript refer to the ECMA-262 language today, that’s how we use it, you said I don’t know what I am talking about. That’s how javascript books use the term, then you said that’s because they want to market their books.

    Sorry no, like somebody else pointed out, books with Javascript in the title generally talk about the different implementations. To use the example I gave before, books with "HTML" in the title talk about scripting and stylesheets, and how they differ from HTML. You will also find that an "XHTML" book will also talk about the differences with HTML and virtually everything that applies to XHTML will apply to HTML as well.

    >> "Huh? The fact that I am correct is irrelevent because it is a technical detail that most people aren’t interested in?"

    > No you are not correct at all. Every javascript book, including me knows this fact and explain it somewhere in the pages, but never brings it back.

    So let me get your argument straight: the facts I am presenting, that Javascript and JScript are different implementations of the same specification, are correct. Every Javascript book, including yours, knows this fact (despite the fact you got it wrong to begin with above). And yet I am somehow not correct? Even though you admit the facts I am presenting, that Javascript and JScript are different, are true? I am still incorrect? I don’t get your logic.

    > You conceded enough number of times today to be marked as irrelevant from the technical perspective.

    I conceded that I didn’t spot a comment somebody made, and I conceded that I couldn’t prove when a protocol handler was released to the public. How does that make my opinions on Javascript/JScript/ECMA-262 invalid?

    > The Wolf said it doesn’t. You defended him, and now you conflict with him.

    I defended his clarification that Javascript and JScript are different when you attacked him for saying so. You now, apparently, agree with him on this fact. Can you please concede that The Wolf was correct in thinking that Javascript and JScript are two different things, and that you shouldn’t have flamed him for thinking so?

    I didn’t defend his claim that Internet Explorer didn’t support ECMA-262, in fact I claimed the exact opposite above. Once more, stop lying about what I am saying.

    > You just said IE supports the javascript quite well

    I didn’t say that either. Please stop lying about me. I said that it supports ECMA-262 quite well. It does – with JScript. I never said that it supports Javascript, I never said it supports QtScript, and I never said it supports some other random ECMA-262 implementation that might be released in the future.

    >> "I expect you to concede that you are wrong and that I am not supporting that offensive comment. "

    >When you find "suck my dick" comment from proving that somebody is lying, then he is sort of saying that the comment is actually appropriate.

    Please restate that, your English is failing you here. Are you conceding that you are wrong and that I am not supporting that comment?

    > Why are you so much obsessed with Slashdot?

    You are the one constantly bringing Slashdot up, I am the one constantly telling you that Slashdot is irrelevent to the conversation. It’s quite obvious you are the one with the unhealthy obsession.

    > I refer to anti-Microsoft guys as slashdotters, because that’s the site that enforces the common myths, all sorts of wrong news, and you seem to defend them no matter what even though you disagree with them, you agree with them at the end.

    Once more, I haven’t posted anything about Slashdot here except to note that it is irrelevent. Please stop lying about what I am saying.

    > "The versions of JScript are more or less compatible the equivalent versions of Javascript, although JScript skipped a version and went directly from JavaScript 1.0 compataibility to JavaScript 1.2 compatibility"

    > The book clearly defends my view. The book says that they are the same.

    No, it says they are compatible. Different CD players are all compatible; they can all play the same CDs. But that doesn’t mean they are the same.

    "vandals", "kids", "losers", "thugs"… you call people names and then talk about how others should grow up?

  83. Anonymous says:

    > I am still waiting you to apologize for lying and misrepresenting facts intentionally.

    At least some of the things you claim I am lying about have never been said by me. Why should I apologise for them?

    > Clearly JavaScript books disagree with you that JScript is not compatible with JavaScript.

    This is a prime example. I never said that JScript is not compatible with Javascript. If you disagree, feel free to quote me. No paraphrasing, no reading things into what I am saying that aren’t there, just a simple quote. My comments are right here on the page for you to copy and paste. It shouldn’t be too hard to quote one of these supposed lies, should it?

    It seems to me that your constant accusations of lying are merely projection. I have provided sixteen clear cases where you have said something that isn’t true, and you have avoided the issues each time. When you have brought up something where I have been mistaken, I have openly conceded both times. I think it’s clear to everybody who is being honest and who is being childish.

    So, as I say, there is absolutely no point in me saying anything further to you – you’ll just make something up and call me a liar again.

    Unless you participate constructively in some other debate, I don’t expect to respond to you again. I’ll just leave you with one last thing to chew on:

    Javascript and JScript are different. Microsoft say so. This argument started because you flamed somebody for correcting you on this issue. If you are unwilling to accept corrections about technical issues relating to Javascript, what does this say about the quality of your book that you claim to have written on the subject?

  84. Anonymous says:

    Sjeez, this site doesn’t even work right in Opera :P

    Now I REALLY trust the M$ IE-team

  85. Anonymous says:

    JP: I understand your pain but if you don’t like slashdot shit then don’t eat it and spread it here. Take your slashdot shit to slashdot.

  86. Anonymous says:

    Jim, as I proved numerous times, you are intentionally lying, knowingly and blatantly you try to distort things.

    First the JavaScript Definitive Guide use the term JavaScript 1.2 for IE’s implementation and says that it is ECMA-262 fully complaint . It only explains the detail on the javascript versions the difference between the JScript and JavaScript. In the non-JavaScript browsers it doesn’t talk about IE at all. You ended up concedig a lot of times.

    Here is what initially The Wolf said

    ". IE doesn’t have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has ‘JScript’ support… inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the __standards__. "

    He mentions the words JScript and JavaScript, but what he says is not that they are different terms, he says IE is not supporting standards. As I just proved above, The Javascript Definitive Guie, section 1.2.1 Client Side JavaScript, says that IE from version 4 is fully complaint with the standards whereas Netscape in version 4 is not fully complaint at all. Clearly The Wolf is lying. So I said :

    "1) IE does support ECMA standard javascript. Just because you say it doesn’t, doesn’t mean that they don’t. Its ECMA standard support is the best in the browser world."

    The Wolf couldn’t find anything to say so he said

    "1. Scott himself said that IE doesn’t support JavaScript."

    Then you came in and said

    "I wouldn’t be so hasty to criticise The Wolf for his lack of knowledge regarding Javascript, as it is clear that he knows more than you about the matter. "

    Now remember The Wolf claims that Microsoft doesn’t support standards and it renamed them differently as Jscript not to support standards. I think idiocy has to have a limit. I just proved from the O’reilly book that IE does support standards fully. Furthermore, anybody who is telling you that you should use ther Javascript term just to refer to Netscape’s implementation is just another ignorant Slashdotter who doesn’t know what he is talking about. I proved that also from the book and books actually.

    I said

    "Microsoft calls it JScript, but claiming that IE doesn’t support ECMA-262 is lying."

    Then Jim said:

    "Can you actually point out where anybody has claimed that? People have said that it doesn’t support _Javascript_. It certainly supports JScript, which is an implementation of ECMA-262. "

    I pointed you to The Wolf’s own words

    "> Now, he says that "inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards."

    You ended up conceding there:

    "I didn’t see that comment before, so I concede that point."

    Again, there has to be a limit how much jerk you can be. I can understand your ignorance about these technical issues. It is very normal not to know everything, but it is another thing just flat out lie. Jim, I will only take you seriously if you apologize and start to learn first and comment later in a positive way, instead of simply bash Microsoft.

  87. Anonymous says:

    Jim: "So, as I say, there is absolutely no point in me saying anything further to you – you’ll just make something up and call me a liar again. "

    You can’t say anything more because Microsoft, Javascript books all disagree with your claims. This issue came up because you claimed that Microsoft doesn’t support JavaScript because it named it as JScript. As I said again, just carry your slashdot shit to Slashdot, don’t chew it here.

    Here is the Jim’s argument about JavaScript support in IE:

    "1. IE doesn’t have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has ‘JScript’ support… inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don’t have to (and never will) follow the standards. "

    You supported this claim fully and claimed that The Wolf is right. Once I proved that you are spreading a Slashdot shit, you conceded and admitted that you are incorrect, in other words you conceded that you are a liar. Then you lied once again about shell protocol and had to concede to that too.

    Jim, good luck convincing IE developers to support the JavaScript, because they are already the best. You can continue to chew the same Slasdhot shit over and over again, but you have zero chance of being effective at all. You will simply end up wasting your time here talking to other slashdotters. Oh well, that’s what you net thugs do over the net. I haven’t seen any net thug affecting anything in the real world so far. You are as relevant as Jesus_Christ guy to us, period. I am just glad to prove your nonesense so people don’t spend time over your nonesense claims.

  88. Anonymous says:

    "JP: I understand your pain but if you don’t like slashdot shit then don’t eat it and spread it here. Take your slashdot shit to slashdot. "

    Already tried to clarify this myself and I asked you to clarify this ^^ and it doesn’t make anymore sense the second time around I read it.

    Anyway I think you may have set some sort of record for mentioning Slashdot the most times where no one else has. :)

  89. Anonymous says:

    Err..Alex, I think you are both basically saying the same thing. JScript is Javascript with a few cherries thrown on top. Jim himself said he didn’t support all of what Wolf said and specifically withdrew that point!! You’re saying he agreed with something he specifically said he doesn’t. Yes, I’m sure Jim can agree with one point of Wolf’s and not agree with another, like most people.

    "Jim, good luck convincing IE developers to support the JavaScript, because they are already the best. You can continue to chew the same Slasdhot shit over and over again, but you have zero chance of being effective at all. You will simply end up wasting your time here talking to other slashdotters. Oh well, that’s what you net thugs do over the net. I haven’t seen any net thug affecting anything in the real world so far. You are as relevant as Jesus_Christ guy to us, period. I am just glad to prove your nonesense so people don’t spend time over your nonesense claims. "

    And where does this even come from??

    BTW this whole thread has been damn educational on standards vs. implementations, for me. Now for the language itself ;) Get at it guys, let the curly brackets flllly!!

  90. Anonymous says:

    I guess I would just love to get a solid answer from Microsoft as to why they limit their implementation of W3C standards. Microsoft could easily support all of the W3C’s recommendations. They certainly have the resources to do so. It’s merely a question of incentive.

    If Microsoft were to implement full W3C standards compliance in Internet Explorer, IE would not be set apart from other browsers. What would entice a user to use it over other browsers?

    By only supporting a limited set of W3C standards, Microsoft can leverage its market dominance. The vast majority of users already have IE on their desktop. They’ll use it because they have no reason not to. Do they care about standards support? Do they care about relative/absolute positioning, CSS2 standards, XHTML 1.0 Strict compliance, etc.? No. Of course not. They care about checking their Hotmail accounts, getting the latest NFL score, and reading CNN headlines. If IE passes these tests, then why would any reasonable user switch? Better yet, web developers, as a result of the incessant browser wars, have gotten lazy. Rightly so. What reasonable web development manager would allow his/her team to spend massive amounts of time coding, recoding, and testing designs for 5% of the market when they can cut that time in half and satisfuy 95%? So, developers take shortcuts. They design a site that is tested and works in IE and MAY work in other browser. They had a job to do and they completed it to 95% satisifaction in a short amount of time. What manager would not be happy with that? The benefit of all this to Microsoft is that there are hordes of sites out there that are designed and tested specifically for IE, and they don’t work correctly in any other browser. They may not break completely, but just enough to be annoying. Any reasonable user will see this as a problem with the alternative browser and, depending on your perspective, they would be correct. They may try, say, Firefox, and end up viewing their favorite site and it’s not rendered "correctly". Why would they keep using it when it doesn’t do what they want?

    It seems to me that Microsoft has made an extremely successful business decision. It would take little to no effort on their part to implement W3C’s recommendations. Thus, the only reasonable explanation for IE’s lack of compliance is that Microsoft chooses not to comply. By choosing non-compliance, they maintain their good relations with 95% of the market, while only pissing off a few web developers (myself included).

    I personally like standards. That’s my decision. I choose to design sites in a way that works on all browsers. That’s my decision. The reason I do so is that I’m keenly aware of my user base. I log visits and know what browsers and OS’s my users are using. If 95% of MY users were using IE, I wouldn’t bother.

    At any rate, all of this is mere speculation. It’s sort of a browser war conspiracy theory, but it makes sense to me. I can’t imagine Microsoft failing to comply due to lack of resources or intelligence. Microsoft makes brilliant business decisions for which I respect them immensely, and I believe that IE’s non-compliance with W3C standards is but one example of this brilliance.

  91. Anonymous says:

    My top 3 desired improvements are:

    * Tabbed browsing: Once you try it, you’ll never go back. I would LOVE for IE to implement this one.

    * Improved CSS support. If MS wants to ignore W3C standards, fine. But at LEAST publish your own standards so developers can stop wasting time figuring out how MS implemented each node.

    * Transparent PNGs. Graphical goodness.

  92. Anonymous says:

    Before you make new functions to the browser make it conform with Standards (JS, CSS, W3C) (KOMPLETELY PLEASE).

    And don´t forget the security again. And do somethin´ making the people can trust in IE.

  93. Anonymous says:

    From my point of view MS could do with IE what they want. Make a perfect browser or an unusable one. Support standards, or don’t support them. Have lots of bugs in it or make it really secure – as long as I’m not forced to use it.

    What I really dislike is the integration of the IE into windows. It’s almost impossible to remove it, and due to its integration into windows lots of other programs depend on it, using it as ActiveX component.

    The fact that IE is always installed lets almost everyone use it, and that makes security holes even worse, so most windows users are vulnerable when a new IE exploit is found.

    Some say MS should not include their own browser with windows. Why not. Let them include what they want. But it should be fully optional.

  94. Anonymous says:

    > Jim, as I proved numerous times, you are intentionally lying, knowingly and blatantly you try to distort things.

    Please point out where I have done so. Missing the tail end of somebody’s comment is hardly a crime, especially when I admit it.

    The Wolf was clearly pointing out the difference between Javascript and JScript when he initially responded to you.

    You flamed him for it.

    I defended him on that point.

    The Wolf also claimed that Internet Explorer didn’t support ECMA-262.

    I missed that, and erroneously stated that nobody had claimed such a thing.

    When you pointed out my mistake, I retracted that statement.

    It is not O’Reilly that determines what ECMA-262, Javascript and JScript are, but ECMA, Netscape and Microsoft, respectively.

    Having said that, the book you are quoting explicitly states that Netscape’s implementation is Javascript and Microsoft’s implementation is JScript.

    Where am I lying? Where am I being a jerk? What do I have to apologise for? It seems to me that you have insulted quite a few different groups of people here today, and you are still going around calling people names. I feel the need to quote you again:

    > If you insult other people, use abusive language, try to bash Microsoft, you are more likely a mac or linux zealot (that’s really a nice term btw).

    You insult other people, use abusive language, and try and bash anybody who is not a fan of Microsoft. Does that make you a Microsoft zealot?

    I would still like you to retract your accusation that I support "suck your dick" comments, and note that The Wolf’s initial point that Javascript and JScript are not the same thing was truthful and that he should not have been flamed for it.

    In your own words, "grow up and learn how to behave".

  95. Anonymous says:

    People, people, now really…

    Alex is obviously right here. Jim or The Wolf or whoever LIED about javascript. I didn’t follow all the arguments, but Alex is quoting Jim as proof of the lies, so it’s obvious that he’s right.

    Also, of course IE is the best with javascript. Hell, MS invented the language from scratch, right?, so obviously their implementation is the only right and complete one. If only those stupid Netscape people hadn’t tried stealing IE’s javascript code with their crappy browser back in the early days of the internet, we now would be living in a much better future.

    And as for Firefox… Really, how good could it be? It’s like what? 4 megabyte? When I upgraded to IE 6 many, many years ago, it was something like 80 megabyte! Now a size like that gives confidence that the browser will do everything I ever want it to do.

  96. Anonymous says:

    Jim, no one but me knew what I meant by my first point about JavaScript != JScript. So let me explain it again:

    Ok, there are two standards (methods if you like), JavaScript the Netscape method and JScript the Microsoft method. Now as far as I know Netscape released their method first (correct me if I’m wrong). Now what I meant was that Microsoft didn’t support the Netscape standard, hence why you (sometimes) have to code two sets of code to deal with the two methods. I would like to see this changed, it might not be Microsoft that needs to change, it might be Mozilla that needs to include some of the extra things in JScript.

    Hope I cleared that up! :/

  97. Anonymous says:

    Jim:

    "I missed that, and erroneously stated that nobody had claimed such a thing."

    I rest my case even though you deny your other intentional mistakes.

    Clearly Javascript book authors have more authority than you on this issue. You are not the first slashdotter who doesn’t know what he is talking about. When challenged every one of them concedes like you.

    "You insult other people, use abusive language, and try and bash anybody who is not a fan of Microsoft. Does that make you a Microsoft zealot? "

    No, as you admitted, you lied several times, and that’s what is important here. Being a fan of Microsoft is not an issue at all, since I am not a Microsoft developer, not even a Windows developer. I develop mostly for Linux and on Linux. You are ready to bash Microsoft no matter what, and that’s just wrong. You can’t claim that Microsoft developers here are stupid, doesn’t know what they are talking about, you can’t disrespect them and at the same time demand them to be tolerant against you. Probably they will be tolerant because either they are really nice guys, or that that’s their policy, but I can point out that you are a liar so that we can have a more positive discussion. Because I don’t owe anything to microsoft nor do I owe anything to you. I am independent, your bashing me as a Microsoft zealot has zero effect on me, because I develop for Linux. I can list many more personal thoughts against Microsoft maybe, but this is not the place to discuss your stupid anti-Microsoft bashings. You think that you have some natural right to bash Microsoft and confuse other people intentionally.

    At the end I am happy to prove that IE is great with Javascript. Your other absurd claims about the use of the Javascript term is totally irrelevant. Anybody who buys a Javascript book will get it anyway. The important thing now is that we don’t have to deal with the Javascript support. We can move forward.

  98. Anonymous says:

    Oh woopee look how off topic we are :D

    BTW Alex I suspect you use & develop for Windows & are using your Linux development crown as a decoy! After all you continually bash Slashdotters and everyone knows 95% of Linux users are hippie-lovin, groupthinking Slashdotters!

    (who says MS doesn’t need its own personal Rottweiler?)

    *wipes mouth and munches on a Beowulf cluster of chocolate cherries.

  99. Anonymous says:

    Hehehe, The Wolf thanks a lot. You just cleared out how stupid Jim, you, Wise Guy, I Hate It are. Thanks a lot for the laugh. Really.

    "Ok, there are two standards (methods if you like), JavaScript the Netscape method and JScript the Microsoft method. Now as far as I know Netscape released their method first (correct me if I’m wrong). Now what I meant was that Microsoft didn’t support the Netscape standard, hence why you (sometimes) have to code two sets of code to deal with the two methods. I would like to see this changed, it might not be Microsoft that needs to change, it might be Mozilla that needs to include some of the extra things in JScript. "

    You screwed up Jim so badly. :)) Thanks again. You just made him shut up. You possibly couldn’t make that more clear. :))

    Anyway, I knew you were ignorant, but I didn’t expect this much ignorance.

    Anyway, maybe you can learn something out of this. There is one standard, and it is called ECMA-262. IE fully supports it. Today, we commonly refer to ECMA-262 as Javascript, the original name used by Netscape. Starting from IE 4, IE fully implemented this language but called it JScript because Javascript name belonged to Netscape. Netscape in version 4 couldn’t fully implement it, but years later Mozilla fully implemented it. So in fact IE is the first browser to fully support standards. Anyway, JScript includes extra features, but if you write for javascript, you won’t have any problem. Period. Those extra features are there mostly because javascript is also used on the server side. Yes, the language is not tied to browsers, you can use javascript in so many areas. There are command line javascript interpreters, I have worked in one of them actually. I haven’t seen anybody using JScript on the client side, hundrends of dhtml sites, even the ones for IE, use Javascript, not JScript’s extensions. So it is really not a problem at all.

    Now, related to your ignorance. The difference doesn’t come from JScript vs Javascript, it comes from the fact that some APIs, some behavior are different for the browsers. For example, IE is extremely good at DHTML, whereas Firefox barely matches IE. In some cases it is better, in some cases it is worse, but they introduce different function names, techniques that has nothing to do with the language Javascript.

    Regarding the real issue with your innocent request that something has to change, let me teach you what needs to be done. First of all, solving the problem of making mozilla and microsoft compatible will not solve the problem for opera. For me it doesn’t matter, but let’s be fair to everybody. Today, most people will support these two browsers, they are not going to deal with opera most of the cases anyway. Mozilla has some kick-ass features and Mozilla is quite competitive in this area. The problem is lack of standards. W3C is never interested in addressing these issues. What happened is that so many javascript apis come from IE’s implementation and become de-facto standards over the years because IE was way ahead of Netscape for a very long time. Mozilla finally completed its browser and supported many of them, thus I almost always support Mozilla. Many people can now support mozilla because mozilla supports some of these apis and techniques, there are slightly different but in general you can do pretty much anything in both browsers, except some few important things that you can only do in IE, and some very few not-so-important things that you can only do in Mozilla. The real problem is the lack of standards in this area. W3C doesn’t define enough number of events, apis, so browsers came up with their own way of doing things. Since IE was the leader, mozilla followed them, mozilla developers are not that stupid. Only Mozilla was able to catch up with IE here, Opera is just a piece of crap. What happened though is that, because W3C refused to address web application developers’ concerns in a timely manner, and still doesn’t do anything about it, Mozilla and Opera started WHAT group to tackle XAML from Microsoft, though they just like other stupid slashdotters miscalculated what XAML is all about. You use XAML to develop applications, not necessarily web applications. This What group, which is Mozilla and Opera will implement their own stuff before any other browser maker and then will submit them to W3C, but without Microsoft’s support they have zero chance. They are simply playing to Slashdot crowd. Nothing is serious going there now. Safari implements something and submits it to this group, but why should Opera spend their resources on Safari’s Dashboard stuff and try to implement it in all of its platforms. For very very long years nothing will come from this group of course, once it comes, it will not have much effect. Mozilla had XUL for years, they couldn’t convince people to use it in meaningful ways, and now they want to write a totally new thing and implement it in the coming years? First promote XUL to a certain level instead of reinventing everything again. Also they need a language like Java, Javascript just doesn’t cut it. There is Javascript 2.0 that might help, but it is not implemented fully, it is still a toy. They also have to come up with something like visual studio.

    Anyway, I am out of here for now. It was just so funny that I was discussing with really ignorant kids. I lost my passion. It is very hard to fight with a 5 year old kid. The Wolf thanks a lot again. I hope you really learned something along the way, whether you are an ignorant kid or not I really wish you learnt something.

  100. Anonymous says:

    Yet again another post by Alex the Clueless stating how little he knows. If he actually read what I said he would note that I didn’t even say anything about JavaScript and JScript not being ECMA-262 compliant.

    And he should also note that the w3c does write standards that would make the web a better place if dolts like him actually followed them instead of using standards only supported by one company on one platform.

  101. Anonymous says:

    JP, It is quite natural for you to think that slashdot represents linux users or open source. Slashot represents idiots mostly really. It has been good once long time ago but then they added Apple section and since then they become anti-Linux and anti-Open source actually.

    I am developing a kernel extension to Linux for the intrusion detection system we are working on and we also work on clusters. It is quite different than you of course, since you seem to use what we develop, rather than contribute anything. That happens with the average slashdotter, most of the slashdotters are not contributors. They are more like parasites, mac users posing as linux users etc… On Slashdot when Linux vs Apple comes up Apple always wins. When Apple uses DMCA, sues anybody to shut down sites Apple always wins. Slashdot is not about open source or Linux.

    You have been acting like a sick minded Slashdotter for a while, and admitted that you don’t know much about HTML or Javascript at all. You freaking psychos always want to believe in what you want to hear. Part of the problem is we have a problem on the net. We ended up with mac users posing as Linux users on the net and with idiots claiming that Linux developers are not linux users at all. For example, on slashdot you see many idiots who bash developers like Miguel De Icaza who gave to open source more than mac users or linux users like you. Online it is very hard to differentiate between freaking psychos, and people who know exactly what they are talking about and have dignity to show some respect for other developers. When you see someone ranting like a slashdotter, yourself, the best thing to do is run away. Such slashdotters usually think that they are contributing and supporting open source by simply using Linux. It is really nice to see yourself amitting to be a slashdotter. It is like saying you have a certificate proving that you are a net thug. We know you don’t know much about html other than closing tags, but I wonder how much really you know about Linux or Unix since you think Slashdot represents open source. It is sad that open source is associated with idiots.

  102. Anonymous says:

    Ask any sane person to read this mess and they’ll all come to the same conclusion – Alex is unwilling to concede or even comment on clear points.

  103. Anonymous says:

    I demand they stop reading! They need the time to develop the poor, malfunctioning Internet Explorer Browser.

    Well, if they read all of this, they’ll never come up with a better browser.

    Joerg

  104. Anonymous says:

    1 – you can’t have "good, interesting responses on IE" because the world is SICK of IE :-P

    On this blog-if you REALLY want to serve your CUSTOMERS (NOT, NOT, NOT called "USERS") – you should be more interested in finding truth (whether it’s pretty and shiny or ugly and unvarnished), not support…you’re the multi-Billion-dollar company…YOU are supposed to be supporting US

    2 – how to keep "on topic"? there are so many, many problems with IE, and even more with Microsoft’s attitude concerning its CUSTOMERS

    3 – how to keep "respectful"? reading through even a handful of posts here should give you a pretty fair feeling for who it is that feels they haven’t been shown respect: once again, it’s your CUSTOMERS

    4 – how to keep it "fun"? that’s part of Microsoft’s problem: all of you at MS are busy having "fun" at your CUSTOMERS’ expense…forget "fun" – we want ACTION…your words are truly meaningless without action and, so far, Microsoft and "fun" are two words that haven’t often been put together except by Microsoft employees – using it here is just a bit too cutesy – nobody posting here cares about "fun", but they do care passionately about making the world a better place, why not really listen for a change?

    Don’t get me wrong…I have always LIKED IE…yes, I have, and I’ll probably get stoned for saying so publicly. HOWEVER (despite the fact that this blog is probably better than no contact at all and in itself represents an improvement in customer service over the past), there are just SO MANY PROBLEMS WITH IE, that I have switched to Firefox and will only use IE once CERT tells me that it’s once again "safe to go in the water".

    LASTLY – don’t edit or delete posts; that’s just what everyone in the world would accuse MS of doing. I REPEAT: look for the truth AS SEEN BY YOUR CUSTOMERS! (Macromedia listened to its developer CUSTOMERS, and Studio MX 2004’s integration of CSS and other "must-have" STANDARDS-DRIVEN technologies has earned Macromedia not only the loyalty of its already-strong CUSTOMER base, but has actually made people’s lives better and easier…and that’s good business)

    Nobody cares about your likes/dislikes, hobbies, personal relationships, etc., if you can’t help them take care of theirs, and MS has done a MIGHTY poor job of that, on all fronts. This may be Microsoft’s LAST CHANCE to win back some formerly-loyal CUSTOMERS such as myself: good luck…you’ll need it.

  105. Anonymous says:

    The people over at Microsoft have created a blog to…

  106. Anonymous says:

    Hmm..I was trying to make a joke, do you understand that? I read Slashdot but I do not agree with everything they say (nor do I even post! God how what a scum sucker!), MUCH LIKE ANY MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET. It is entertainment & news rolled into one. Entertainment Tonight! I hope you understand this: reader of website/messageboard/newspaper does not equal supporter of everything they write!! What would the pundits do if this were true?

    "That happens with the average slashdotter, most of the slashdotters are not contributors. They are more like parasites, mac users posing as linux users etc."

    And I am a user of software and therefore I am the average parasite? What do you develop for?? You have a serious victim complex.

    How ever do food connesseurs live with themselves, obviously everyone who can make Macoroni & Cheese should be partnered with a master chef! Simple reason for no contrib.: I’m just not a programmer!!

    BTW I’m not sure why you mentionned Miguel I Kaza, since i’m not even the subject of that rant. Unless, I represent Slashdot editors, readers, and posters? Do you represent Microsoft, MS bloggers and MS pundits the world over?

  107. Anonymous says:

    "We know you don’t know much about html other than closing tags, but I wonder how much really you know about Linux or Unix since you think Slashdot represents open source. It is sad that open source is associated with idiots."

    Open source = slashdot??

    Where did I say that???

  108. Anonymous says:

    "Anyway, I am out of here for now. It was just so funny that I was discussing with really ignorant kids. I lost my passion. It is very hard to fight with a 5 year old kid. The Wolf thanks a lot again. I hope you really learned something along the way, whether you are an ignorant kid or not I really wish you learnt something.?

    We learned nothing from you. Looking thoguh your posts you failed yo provide a single insightful comment. Thank you for going away.

    And good luck with your book, I think you’ll need it.

  109. Anonymous says:

    What ridiculous thread! Maybe I am not a very bright web developer (I am definitely not a designer), maybe I don’t use Windows, but I have some mailing lists, and I know very well that what these wise person from the nursery school do: flame war. Flame is their Holy Grail. No one can argue them. The only solution is to ignore.

    BTW in some cases Slashdot does the Right Thing: meta moderation. Commenters moderate commenters.

  110. Anonymous says:

    May I remind that CSS, HTML etc are NO standards, highly de facto standards. Only a few organizations can define standards, the W3C is not one of them. The W3C releases "recommendations", no standards and therefore it’s not obligatory to do a full and/or correct implementation of any recommendation. It also would be sheer undoable to fully implement all of these recommendations and honestly I don’t think there is a browser which does.

  111. Anonymous says:

    Ugh! What a load of BS!

    Guess I’ll quietly use Firefox instead of trying to advise the IE team via this blog… :)

    IE s*cks!

  112. Anonymous says:

    Hey, look, this place is Troll Central. No wonder the IE team is silent. They can’t get a word in edge-wise with all the "I’m right, you’re wrong, my religion, not yours" whining. You people do <em>not</em> represent the professional users/developers who use these products to conduct business and have the most at stake here.

    I use Firefox on Windows (I love XP, actually), have never installed Linux, and never had a Mac. Couldn’t care less about them. But I still think IE is a horrid product, and I only use it for compatibility testing.

  113. Anonymous says:

    "I read Slashdot but I do not agree with everything they say (nor do I even post! God how what a scum sucker!), MUCH LIKE ANY MESSAGE BOARD ON THE INTERNET. It is entertainment & news rolled into one. Entertainment Tonight!"

    I also read slashdot, but being a slashdotter really means being part of the overall idociy there.

    "I hope you understand this: reader of website/messageboard/newspaper does not equal supporter of everything they write!! What would the pundits do if this were true?"

    I didn’t say every reader/writer on Slashdot is an idiot. Majority of them are however. The main problem with slashdot is its policies are reinforcing idiocy. You will be left out if you are not an idiot. Collectively there are more idiots, and editors clearly know that and target them. People become more idiot just to get more karma. Remember people warning that they have enough karma to burn when they say something positive about Microsoft. Also many of the myths and news on slashdot are regarded by those idiots as facts. For example using a name issue, one of them claimed that Microsoft doesn’t support standards because it named its javascript as jscript. That’s where we are now.

    "And I am a user of software and therefore I am the average parasite? What do you develop for?? You have a serious victim complex."

    No, I am making the point that most of the people talking about some important issues are not developers themselves and it is way easy for them to request everything for free, bash Microsoft and so on. I didn’t lie to you so far, and certainly I am a Linux developer. It is somewhat ironic but I am more interested in facts, rather than politics.

    "BTW I’m not sure why you mentionned Miguel I Kaza, since i’m not even the subject of that rant."

    Because mac users posing as linux users and some linux users themselves bash this guy for implementing .net on linux. It is a very good example to show exactly what being a slashdotter means. It has nothing to do with open source, standards etc… It is really bunch of losers, idiots thinking that they know everything.

    "Unless, I represent Slashdot editors, readers, and posters?"

    You yourself tried to jab at me various times. I don’t have an issue with you, don’t know what’s your problem is.

    "Do you represent Microsoft, MS bloggers and MS pundits the world over?"

    I certainly not. I feel more close to Linux than to Microsoft, but I also feel extremely far away from Apple. For me the real issue is to really show people that slashdot is not the norm. People read lots of online content, like alistapart etc… and they don’t question what they read. In fact readers of alistapart are so far away from what Zeldman envisioned that they are completely stupid in their view of standards. Zeldman himself is an intelligent reasonable guy. But his many followers are extremely stupid. Alistapart, slashdot become some sort of religious cults, where only very low end people passionately care about.

    Let’s keep on the topic. I really do want to change IE in a positive way. So let’s discuss some real stuff. Channel 9 is a great place to make specific requests. So far Channel 9 seems to be more effective.

  114. Anonymous says:

    The Wolf and I Hate It, I love you guys. Especially when The Wolf and Jim spoke technically I just loved them. I have never been wrong about the technical capacity of net thugs bashing Microsoft. That’s why net thugs should stay as sarcastic jerks (i.e. I Hate It), because when they open their mouth they just make an ass out of themselves. The Wolf, you are absolutely amazing. You literally screwed Jim around and made him the fool of this thread. Of course you reinforced that you were a fool. I Hate It was an idiot from the begining, nothing changed there. But I really loved your comments. I Hate It, good luck in your life, I am sure by reading slashdot you will be a big success story in the future, just keep up your idiocy. Slashdotters need you. But, again I hope you net thugs learn something even though you are nothing as much as browsers are concerned, if you come here at least learn what does javascript programming is all about. Read at least one javascript book. Being an idiot like I Hate It will only make you just another slashdot loser. I see some hope in The Wolf and Jim though. They might at least grasp the real problems, especially Jim is more promising. But The Wolf thanks again for your last technical comment, it was one of the funniest comments I have ever read.

  115. Anonymous says:

    "Hey, look, this place is Troll Central. No wonder the IE team is silent. They can’t get a word in edge-wise with all the "I’m right, you’re wrong, my religion, not yours" whining. You people do <em>not</em> represent the professional users/developers who use these products to conduct business and have the most at stake here. "

    Oh here I go off topic again so flame me (you have the right ;)) but I don’t think the discussion was anything like a religious debate. It was just a dicussion that began out of…well..I don’t know where actually..lol.

    And ot be positive- maybe this is on topic- the OP is laying out the rules, we’re discussing em! ;)

    Plus if MS wants a private blog they could make it accessible only to MSDN subscribers…

  116. Anonymous says:

    Well Alex, Channel9 does let the users create the threads. 3 blog posts by MS so far w/ over 300 comments=lots of off topic.

    BTW I’m wondering if you post on C9. I have a suspicion of which user you would match if you do ;)

  117. Anonymous says:

    The IE team have started a blog. In itself, this is quite something. Perhaps the least respected people in browser development have opened themselves up to (quite unjustified) torrents of abuse. In a sense I feel sorry for these guys….

  118. Anonymous says:

    Wow I’m a Mac/Linux zealot because I am not bowing down before the gods of IE development. Even though I used (and supported IE) for years and made no mention of what I use. Oh well no loss. You know what they say about assumptions and there are a lot of them going on here from all angles while the point of the conversation seems to have flown out the window.

    Sure people edit blogs and ban IPs when they are getting trolled or the problem posts are disrupting the conversation. Editing a blog’s comments to doctor the conversation, however, is really not acceptible. If the IE team edited this conversation, half of the posts would be gone and it would defeat the purpose of having a blog in the first place. That was the point. If you want clean happy conversation, force registration. It’s that simple.

    Just because someone speaks about about the resistance to standards compliance in IE development over the years doesn’t mean they are a Mac/Linux/Opera/etc zealot. It just means they’re informed about the reality of IE development and have moved on to other browsers because of it. There are a lot of Windows users here who have moved to other browsers and they’ve been branded as "Microsoft Bashers" because they voiced an opinion. It’s unfortunate. Those are the people MS should be listening to the most yet their opinions will get overshadowed by a couple of attention seekers. Oh well.

  119. Anonymous says:

    all I have to say is 1 thing: Alex, you are an idiot, and I hope you get hit by a moving vehicle, preferably one with 18 wheels, while on a highway.

  120. Anonymous says:

    microsoft should be braught downj with a 20 ton bulldozer and linus pissing on billgates head now go back to ur cubicals

  121. Anonymous says:

    Tristor, that’s out of line.

    Alex,

    >>"I missed that, and erroneously stated that nobody had claimed such a thing."

    >I rest my case even though you deny your other intentional mistakes.

    No. The Wolf’s main point was that Javascript and JScript are different. I missed his second point, that doesn’t make me a liar, it makes me mistaken. Why would I attempt to lie about something that is disproven by the page up key? It makes no sense for me to do that.

    Please explain what my other "intentional mistakes" are before continuing to accuse me of lying.

    > Clearly Javascript book authors have more authority than you on this issue.

    The Javascript book you quote differentiates between Javascript and JScript in the same manner as everybody here but you.

    Of course a published author on the topic has more authority than me. I specifically said that ECMA, Netscape and Microsoft were the authorities. I didn’t claim I was.

    You still haven’t acknowledged that The Wolf was correct in differentiating between Javascript and Javascript. The book you quote differentiates between them, Microsoft differentiates between them:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/com/htm/ctrans_0hdg.asp

    Even you differentiated between them at one point. But you haven’t admitted that The Wolf was correct in differentiating between them.

    > You are not the first slashdotter who doesn’t know what he is talking about.

    So I still don’t know what I am talking about? For saying that Javascript and JScript are different? Even though you are saying it too now?

    > When challenged every one of them concedes like you.

    I haven’t conceded any pertinent points about Javascript. I conceded that I was wrong in saying that nobody said Internet Explorer didn’t implement ECMA-262. I conceded that I couldn’t prove when Microsoft introduced the shell: protocol handler. Neither of those facts are relevent in the context you use them in.

    > You can’t claim that Microsoft developers here are stupid, doesn’t know what they are talking about, you can’t disrespect them and at the same time demand them to be tolerant against you.

    Show where I have done any of that. I’ve claimed the exact opposite in fact. Back up your accusations,

    > I am independent, your bashing me as a Microsoft zealot has zero effect on me

    I didn’t bash you as a Microsoft zealot. I was highlighting the fact that you are behaving in exactly the way you decry other for.

    If I am to be called a liar, please explain the following:

    1. You claimed The Wolf is a Linux user. That is false. Retract this claim.

    2. You have accused me of supporting "suck my dick" comments several times. That is false and I have even said the exact opposite. Retract this claim.

    3. You claimed that I am pretending "Slashdot is a place we should take seriously". I have not made any such statement. Retract this claim.

    4. You claimed that I cited Slashdot as a serious news source. I have not done so. Retract this claim.

    5. You said that I claimed Internet Explorer doesn’t support ECMA-262. I have not done so, in fact I have stated the exact opposite. Retract this claim.

    6. You said that instead of staying on-topic, I wanted to tell everyone how much I hate Microsoft. I have made a number of on-topic comments and have not posted that I hate Microsoft. Retract this claim.

    7. You stated that I Hate It doesn’t solve business problems, doesn’t care about productivity, scalability or implementing browsers. You accused him of this without even knowing who he was. Retract this claim.

    8. You claimed you don’t call people names, yet you are continually calling people names. Please admit you call people names.

    9. You claimed that Mozilla developers think there is nothing wrong with letting third-party sites run anything they want on your computer. This is false, as I pointed out, they fixed the security hole you are talking about. Retract this claim.

    10. You claimed I am attacking Microsoft for using a different name than Javascript. I have not done so. Retract this claim.

    11. You said "You are talking as if supporting Slashdot is the norm, and anybody who questions credibility of the Slashdot should be questioned himself." I have not said this. Retract this claim.

    12. You say that I defend Slashdot "no matter what". At no point have I defended Slashdot. Retract this claim.

    13. You claimed that the book you mention says that Javascript and JScript are the same, but the quote says that they are compatible. Amend your original statement to say "compatible" instead of "the same".

    14. You claimed I have admitted to lying several times. I have not. Retract this claim.

    15. You claimed that I am "ready to bash Microsoft, no matter what". That is false. Retract this claim.

    16. You claimed that I think I have some natural right to bash Microsoft and confuse other people intentionally. I have said no such thing. Retract this claim.

    Now you are constantly accusing me of being a liar, but I have retracted two claims when I was wrong to make them. I have deliberately picked these sixteen examples as it seems to me that they are completely black and white examples of you saying something that isn’t true. I, therefore, expect you to either retract all of these claims or explain why they are true. Until you do so, you have no business calling me a liar because I missed somebody’s comment and couldn’t find a particular release date.

    You also posted: "Also Jim, you seem to be just attacking me rather than making useful comments." However, when I posted a request for comments on the X-Internet-Explorer… HTTP header, you attacked me instead of making useful comments. Please explain this contradiction.

    If you cannot address these issues maturely, then I see no point in responding to you.

    PS: Are you "Keskos" from Channel 9?

  122. Anonymous says:

    Hi Guys,

    Don’t you have work,off Bill pay this hit

  123. Anonymous says:

    The IE team started a blog on MSDN. It touched off a firestorm of comments from trolls that make slashdotters…

  124. Anonymous says:

    Maybe they really tried to help you…

  125. Anonymous says:

    standards need to be maintained.

  126. Anonymous says:

    I agree. This needs to be a productive place.

    If visitors want to shout, cuss and get angry – got to the spam newsgroups and try to get off SPEWS or something.

    The existance of an IE team blog proves that if enough of us developers that care shout loud enough, MS will start to listen.

    Scott, what ever happens, just ignore or delete the ‘strident’ comments. Stay the course.

  127. Anonymous says:

    excuse me, but what exactly is fun about IE not respecting standards and being the worst thing that EVER happened to the world wide web?

  128. Anonymous says:

    "The existance of an IE team blog proves that if enough of us developers that care shout loud enough, MS will start to listen."

    No, it proves that Microsoft is using blogs as distractions and PR, but still not listening. Releasing a standalone update for IE that addresses just half of the problems of the last 3 years would prove they are listening.

    The point being a blog is an amorphous piece of nothing: the posts are tmeporal, the comments come anywhere from the web, there is no reliability or veracity to anything on a blog…. Microsoft wants to pretend otherwise. Control the flow of information on this blog. Why? It’s not a blog then. It is an edited news posting. Not a blog.

    And, Jesus Christ, they haven’t even said or posted anything yet, haven’t posed any intersting questions…. What else is there to do BUT to tell them to get off their asses!!!

  129. Anonymous says:

    Please don’t implement tabbed browsing. I like the current trend of people moving away from IE due to its lack of this feature (and security holes, obviously). So if you implement tabbed browsing, I’m afriad I might spend more time in IE and I don’t want to see that happen to others.

  130. Anonymous says:

    Yeah, isn’t it funny that you guys have started a blog to cover the development of a new standards-compliant browser, yet cannot actually make the blog validate ( http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//blogs.msdn.com/ie )

  131. Anonymous says:

    i’ve just checked this page – 13 font tags and 3 tables, all of which are deprecated elements in HTML 4.01. in fact, this pages don’t even validate as HTML 4.0 transitional :)))

  132. Anonymous says:

    "What else is there to do BUT to tell them to get off their asses!!! "

    Maybe we should call you ‘Maud’dib’.

    As for PR, you bet. They need really good PR right now – especially in the IE world. Will it change anything – that we’ll have to see.

    Saying IE sucks, while a valid opinion – doesn’t help make IE better.

  133. Anonymous says:

    "these pages", my bad.

    anyway, our beloved IE development team, you’re only making fools of yourselves on this blog. it’s clear you’re at fault, people (and especially web developers) hate your so-called browser, and you’re just throwing sand in our eyes. you’re perfectly aware what people think of IE and what needs to be done to improve it, and this "OMG LOL WE <3 U DEVELOPRZ K BY" blog which tries to show that you actually listen doesn’t fool anyone, except maybe your bosses.

    "either put out or shut up", if i remember the saying correctly.

  134. Anonymous says:

    True, ‘not important’. Double-entendre.

  135. Anonymous says:

    "Saying IE sucks, while a valid opinion – doesn’t help make IE better."

    Nor does saying: we love IE, we want to make it better, wait 4 months for SP2 or 3 years for Longhorn.

    So… just responding in kind.

    And, I actually think it does help. They are perfectly aware of the complaints. Apparently, Microsoft developers just listen to dudes screaming, jumping up and down, with sweat pouring off them… So that’s what I’m doing.

    If they expect a bunch of civil ass kissing on this blog, then they don’t want a blog, they don’t want honesty. They want us to do PR for them. Well, sometimes PR is bad… It hasn’t gotten close to the point where the PR is as bas as IE is so… Let the editing begin!

  136. Anonymous says:

    Well JC, I would like to see a release soon. At least a 6.5 with PNG transparency, better CSS 2.0 support, and Dom/JavaScript support and most of the non-xp dependant security enhancements. And backwards compatable to atleast 98/ME/2000. I just don’t think it will happen. Shouting about that won’t help, and that’s a decision probably from above the IE team. But I would very much like for that to happen.

    If they put their time/money anywhere it should be into the render while continuing to lock down the browser. HOPEFULLY, they followed their on security guidence and maybe – maybe, IE security can turn the corner.

  137. Anonymous says:

    I agree with the many posters that already have posted and will be posting in future. You can not hope to recieve a posts from happy users because there are no such left.

    Even the dumbest ones understand that IE is dead and as a deadly body – dangerous. With all respect – it is still more or less good product, but its development was droped two years ago. And in internet what is two years of silence?

    Kill those spammers and abusers who use the F word but leave the critics intact. If you have dared to speak up then do it like a man. If this is just a PR show then better close it while it is not spread out to the world or it will make even worse like it is now.

  138. Anonymous says:

    Nameless – I think you got it just about right. If they want to avoid critics they are delusional.

    I’ve been hyper critical at times – I practically abused the IE team on Scoble’s blog and other places. I might have even called them ‘girly-men’. But this blog is a MAJOR STEP FORWARD – and since they are willing to talk I am willing to back off, mainly for my own sake. As a former teacher, I appeciate a step forward, even if it’s a small one. That’s the right thig to do.

  139. Anonymous says:

    "I just don’t think it will happen. Shouting about that won’t help, and that’s a decision probably from above the IE team. But I would very much like for that to happen. "

    No kidding, they already said it won’t. That’s the problem. And I also know that no one on the IE team can make a decision. So what’s the point?

    The SP2 fixes are useless to Win2000 and earlier users. Longhorn is at least 2 years away. They’ve abandoned standalone versions of IE. They’ve abandoned IE for the Mac. They have stated that they need input (although the problems have been rehashed a million times) but they won’t be getting to new features for many months and they have no idea if or when it will result in a new product.

    Don’t you see any hypocrisy in this blog? They can certainly expect me to be posting, insulting them, going off topic, being abusive, being disrespectful, and not having fun. They’ve been doing the same to me for quite some time. You get respect only upon earning it.

  140. Anonymous says:

    … and one more thing. Remember that the most active posters are unhappy guys. If you are happy with something you would definetly not care about all this and keep silent but if you are not then you shout as loud as you can to be heard. And most of unhappy guys who got hurt the most are webdevelopers and those who are worried about security problems, so they have the facts and they know how to fight for their rights – they have done it many times while fighting in other blogs and forums. In other words – the user army is well trained and dagnerous, so you’ll need guts to stand up and read all this dirt.

    And sorry for my bad english. :)

  141. Anonymous says:

    To help keep flaming do a minimum, heres a Bookmarklet to dissapear any comment by Alex.

    javascript:(function(){var l=document.getElementsByTagName(‘a’);for (var x=l.length-1;x–;){if (l[x].innerHTML.indexOf(‘Almeroth’)!=-1) l[x].parentNode.parentNode.style.display=’none’}})();

  142. Anonymous says:

    To make IE better:

    -Follow web standards; namely CSS 2.1, HTML 4.01, XHTML 1.0, DOM 1.0, 2.0 and 3.0 if you have time.

    -Put in transparent PNG support.

    We web developers can handle the rest. Honestly. The limitations of IE which is 95% of the market right now is holding the entire medium of the modern webpage.

    The ENTIRE medium is held back:

    There is so much graphical goodness a designer could do if he had good positioning in IE. Not to mention competitors but, Mozilla is doing a pretty good job of it right now. Opera is next in line and then probably Safari.

    The ENTIRE medium is slowed down:

    By choosing a way outside of the standards bodies, my time, my valuable time as a web designer is mostly squandared in browser testing. I estimate at least half and sometimes up to 80% of my time in development is spent just testing, re-testing and chasing meaningless layout bugs. By making a standards compliant browser, IE could cut development time but, 30-40% easily.

    Now, how do we fix it?

    This blog is nice and all but, Microsoft is a giant company among giant companies. IE is the way it is today not because there aren’t enough developers or enough resources. Microsoft has more than enough of both and can hire some at any time.

    IE is the way it today because Microsoft decided to halt development of their browser. Microsoft is probably starting back up the development process because of the competition from Gecko-based browsers like Firefox.

    I would be willing to believe Microsoft when it puts someone of serious power on the blog. Someone who sits in the boardroom when they decide something with the magnatude of whether they are going to continue active development of a product as big as IE is. When that happens then, I won’t accuse them of spin.

    There you have it. Simple and as consise as I can make it. An opinion and a game plan.

  143. Anonymous says:

    I hate to be offensive, but I don’t know how to say it any other way: I wish Internet Explorer would die.

  144. Anonymous says:

    "No kidding, they already said it won’t. That’s the problem. And I also know that no one on the IE team can make a decision. So what’s the point?"

    To encourage them to make the longhorn browser ‘kick a**’.

    I cannot argue the facts with you – your correct in as far as must of us know. Dropping IE on the Mac is totally understandable. Safari and Firefox will most likely do very well there.

    "The SP2 fixes are useless to Win2000 and earlier users." The security fixes that leverage WinXp API’s are – fixing things such as buffer over runs are not useless. I bet sorting it all out is a mess.

    "They have stated that they need input (although the problems have been rehashed a million times) but they won’t be getting to new features for many months and they have no idea if or when it will result in a new product."

    How we all respond from this point forward is important. Note to IETeam: we need a concise road map, and we needed it yesterday.

    "You get respect only upon earning it."

    "Don’t you see any hypocrisy in this blog?"

    Not yet.

    "They can certainly expect me to be posting, insulting them, going off topic, being abusive, being disrespectful, and not having fun. "

    This would be a waste of YOUR time.

    "They’ve been doing the same to me for quite some time."

    It’s not a personal conspiracy. These are business decisions.

  145. Anonymous says:

    Maybe I’m in the minority here, but not everyone following this blog is a developer. I’m just an interested technical support person that supports 10,000 users in an enterprise that rely heavily on IE and activeX. I like the fact that you are here providing some insight into the development of IE. Personally, I’m content with using a browser that I can depend on to patch the problems as they are found. Some day the folks that abandon IE strictly for security reasons will get hit with something (if they have not already) that will not get discovered or patched in a timely manner. IMHO some of the "security experts" have over reacted in their recommendations. They have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the vulnerabilities in the alternative browsers that are sure to be discovered when attention is focused on them. While I’m here, let me put my plug in for tab browsing and group favorites for IE. I’d love that. Thanks…

  146. Anonymous says:

    "To encourage them to make the longhorn browser ‘kick a**’. "

    I don’t care about Longhorn. I care about today. I care about standalone browsers, not some mess welded into the OS.

    "Dropping IE on the Mac is totally understandable."

    Baloney. They claimed it was because Apple had deeper access into the OS than others. That was their reason. There are several browsers which are using the same APIs and SDKs that Apple uses.

    Also, this is a bigger issue. We are pointing out that the web is stagnant because people code to IE. Now this creates a very real and serious pressure on the Mac community. If MS wants the web to only work in IE and for pages to only be coded in FrontPage, they better damn well provide an option for other major platforms.

    "The security fixes that leverage WinXp API’s are "

    How does that help Win2000 or earlier users?

    "How we all respond from this point forward is important. Note to IETeam: we need a concise road map, and we needed it yesterday."

    Yes, and? You think me saying: "Okay, I’m a schmuck… I’ll believe you and wait 3 years and pay for Longhorn even though these should have been fixed last year for free… In the meantime I’ll be a good little boy and just throw nonsensical compliments and good cheer your way" is going to help? Be more helpful than being angry? I don’t think so.

    As for proceeding forward: Jeff and others have already stated they can’t and won’t provide a roadmap. How’s that for a response and moving forward positively?

    "Not yet."

    That’s because NO ONE has said ANYTHING yet. And that’s my poi9nt. The purpose of this blog is to smooth things over, but there is no indication of any commensurate activity on their part. THey’ve gotten feedback…. Stop blogging and start coding.

    "This would be a waste of YOUR time. "

    No. I find my protests have been affective. My goal is to make the IE team to look like complete fools… If I’m loud enough, others will hear and agree. Besides, I find this quite amusing. Amusing myself is always worthwhile.

    "It’s not a personal conspiracy. These are business decisions. "

    Who said I thought it was a personal conspiracy? Does it need to be a personal conspiracy for the effects upon me to be real? Are you claiming that IE’s problems haven’t affected you both personally and in your business? All I am doing is speaking for myself, thank you.

    And, besides, you are illustrating a poitn we both agree on. No matter what the personal intentions of these good-natured personable IE team members, they can’t do dick. All of the important decisions are being made without them.

  147. Anonymous says:

    Listen up I Hate It, is that standards compliant code according to W3C regulation 232 section 5, & does it work across all browsers, Mosaics, and Lynx?

    *swats fly with measuring stick* Need to take out garbage……….. ;)

  148. Anonymous says:

    Hey, Lynne, just consider ourselves a little Tag Team…

    You can be Good Cop, and I’ll be Bad Cop.

    Our goals are the same; our methods different.

  149. Anonymous says:

    Decency should be maintained …Its a quite interesting blog..u get lots of information.. gud work..

  150. Anonymous says:

    "No. I find my protests have been affective."

    I agree.

    "My goal is to make the IE team to look like complete fools… If I’m loud enough, others will hear and agree. Besides, I find this quite amusing. Amusing myself is always worthwhile."

    I disagree.

    "Are you claiming that IE’s problems haven’t affected you both personally and in your business?"

    They haven’t affected me personally, and not much my business. Things were far more difficult before ASP.net and Firefox.

    "All I am doing is speaking for myself, thank you."

    True. You should remember this then JC.

    "Everything is Permissble … but not everything is benifical … [or] construcive".

    How we say what we say is of equal importance.

    We agree on the facts and the desired outcome. We disagreee on process.

    Take care, and don’t let this all get the best of you. You do care about IE – you wouldn’t be here if you didn’t.

    NOTE TO IETeam: take the next step, do what is right – and make an interum release between SP2 and longhorn. If not – why not?

  151. Anonymous says:

    True Story: In order to get a little modern with their development, the Microsoft Internet Explorer Development Team has opened their own team blog. In one of the most entertaining MSIE related blog posts I&#8217;ve seen in quite a long…

  152. Anonymous says:

    "Amusing myself is always worthwhile."

    ‘I disagree.’

    What ARE you? A robot?

    ;-)

  153. Anonymous says:

    Maybe I’m in the minority here, but not everyone following this blog is a developer. I’m just an interested technical support person that supports 10,000 users in an enterprise that rely heavily on IE and activeX. I like the fact that you are here providing some insight into the development of IE. Personally, I’m content with using a browser that I can depend on to patch the problems as they are found. Some day the folks that abandon IE strictly for security reasons will get hit with something (if they have not already) that will not get discovered or patched in a timely manner. IMHO some of the "security experts" have over reacted in their recommendations. They have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the vulnerabilities in the alternative browsers that are sure to be discovered when attention is focused on them. "

    FF’s patch for the alst vuln was released in less than 24 hrs, also lots of people have acknowledged they use alt. broswers for features over security. I would drop FF in a second if IE would copy it and just speed it up. I believe MS products have a high queality to them compared to open source.

    "While I’m here, let me put my plug in for tab browsing and group favorites for IE. I’d love that. Thanks…"

    Better way would be NO group favorites, just bookmark them in a fodler and middle click or open in new tab. This is Mozilla vs Firefox and FF has won. Reduce interface complexity.

  154. Weddings says:

    I am glad to see what got lots of feedback and discussion around our posts from yesterday. I am still digging through all the comments from yesterday and today, but I did notice some profanity. As people get more engaged with IEBlog, we want to set dow