Overwhelming Response


Thanks for the overwhelming amount of feedback and discussion.  After work yesterday, I spent some of my time reading through the comments to my post (instead of reading the 9/11 Commission report).  It looks the comments have grown some since I pulled this together last night. 

 

Here is my basic breakdown of what I am seeing in the response to my post.  I list them in no particular order; most are improvement requests while some are data points.  I have to say my favorite is the comparison of IE to Courtney Love.  I love a good analogy. 

  • Tabbed browsing

  • Better Standards support (improved CSS, Transparent PNG support, XHTML, etc)

  • IEv6x is the Courtney Love browser in a world of Kirsten Dunst browsers

  • Better pop-up blocking

  • People want people to download Mozilla Firefox

  • Release an IE7/down-level release

  • Fix the security problems

  • Better performance

  • Faster update turnaround

  • Integrating browsing into any OS is a bad idea

  • Developer tools are goodness for web devs

  • A Windows Service Pack is not the same size as a Mozilla Firefox or Opera install

  • Did I mention standards support already?

  • I shouldn’t take this personally, people have been waiting for a while to vent on somebody

  • People want to understand the roadmap for IE

Thanks again for all the comments, I also get the general sense that people want more “content”.  We are just getting started, so look for more of that coming up.   

Scott

 

Comments (219)

  1. Anonymous says:

    it’s nice to see you’re actually reading this stuff, but what would make more people more content is the following:

    – tabbed browsing: when?

    – fully compliant (*FULLY* compliant) to HTML 4.01/CSS 2.1: when?

    – making this blog properly validate on w3, hopefully in HTML 4.01 strict so you yourselves can see how much trouble web developers go through trying to fix IE’s quirks: when?

  2. Anonymous says:

    Oh, and one thing you forgot to list that has been mentioned in a few places is a MS hosted bug tracking system.

  3. Anonymous says:

    That’s a pretty accurate summary as far as I am concerned. As far as the Courtney Love comment, I think the important thing to take away from that is that lots of developers are eager to get on with the "next cool tech", and it’s Internet Explorer that is percieved as slowing us all down.

    A detailed roadmap would be nice, but I think everybody is interested in one question most of all – is there any chance of a new version of Internet Explorer before Longhorn? Is it completely out of the question, is it likely, or are you guys still making your minds up?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Oh yeah, a bugzilla would be nice, even if it’s just a standard place to list workarounds.

  5. Anonymous says:

    "People want people to download Mozilla Firefox "

    THIS made me laugh!! 😉 (I think the tone called for humour but I’m not sure!)

  6. Anonymous says:

    According to the IEBlog (Weblog of people who make IE):"IEv6x is the Courtney Love browser in a world of Kirsten Dunst browsers"Basically this was one of many un-/useful comments the blog has received since it started. I agree though, Courtney…

  7. Anonymous says:

    "- fully compliant (*FULLY* compliant) to HTML 4.01/CSS 2.1: when? "

    You do understand that:

    1) it’s not possible to be fully compliant with both those standard simultaneously (they contradict each other)

    2) those standards do not fully specify how a web browser must render HTML and CSS (the specifications have gaps)

  8. Anonymous says:

    ok, so HTML 4.01 and CSS2.1 contradict each other, but what about XHTML 1.1 and CSS 2.1?

  9. Anonymous says:

    Looks you understand users/possible users.

    4999 employees left… 😉

  10. Anonymous says:

    Please, a date for IE7? 2007 may be? (Longhorn shipping year)

  11. Anonymous says:

    I’ll be content with standard CSS2 support, without having to pull my hair out finding hacks for stuff, if nothing else the standard box model would rock.

    Tabbed browsing is a cool feature but I think standards compliance is far more important.

    Oh yeah, and security fixes, but that is such a nebulous requirement that it might take forever to fix it.

    I switched to Firefox due to my fear of Download.Ject, but I’d move back to IE if it supported standards and was a little more secure.

  12. Anonymous says:

    Joining in the WHATWG / Web Forms 2 effort would be cool. If Microsoft really wants to show that it’s a ‘kinder, gentler company’ that can play nice with others, joining the group that every other browser maker is using to extend the standards would be nice.

  13. Anonymous says:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive/2004/07/02/172106.aspx#191357

    Sorry if you already seen this one, but I wanted to make sure it was seen on the IE Blog, this has been a terrible bug or maybe a feature since IE 4 but please fix it. It has been in there way to long. If it is a feature please give me a way to turn this off, it has plagued me since IE 4.

  14. Anonymous says:

    HTML 4.01 and CSS contradict each other?

    I’d like to see specific, detailed examples of how and where they contradict each other … considering that their basic raisons d’être are different — HTML is structural, CSS is presentational.

    NOTE: presentation suggestions in the standards don’t count — because they’re suggestions.

  15. Anonymous says:

    Oh and a side note or though, a quick way to turn off SMIL on a site would be nice with the advent of Pop up blocking SMIL overlaying and expanding of adds is begining to become just as Anoying as POP Ups. I can already see it becoming the new Pop up annoyance.

  16. Anonymous says:

    A mute switch would be the greatest feature ever added to a browser. A volume slider would be even better.

  17. Anonymous says:

    It has been said before, but one can’t say it enough: setup some sort of bug tracking system! Like this you’ll always have a todo list while you don’t even have to bother maintaining the damn thing… :) Besides, then no one will complain again about you guys not listening to the webdevelopment community!

  18. Anonymous says:

    This blog seems to approach the issue with a good sense of humor, and that can only be a good think.

    I look forward to any innovations that come from this interaction.

  19. Anonymous says:

    A mute switch for a browser is one of greatest ideas i heard this year.

    I personally hate those flash-based websites which i need to surf through will on the phone (my pc is my phone).

    Please make independend controls for each window. If combined with tabbed browsing, independend controls for each tab are neat.

  20. Anonymous says:

    I want IE to stop downloading things like .cab files when I am on a site, I really, really hate that.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Please, please, don’t fix any of the bugs in the CSS parser before you fix the CSS rendering bugs.

  22. Anonymous says:

    I love Firefox, not only because of the tabs, themes, security (well -sense- of security anyway ;p) and standards compliance, but also because of the great extentions and the way they can tweak and add small details or add totally new browser features, like a chatclient or mousegestures or an RSS reader

    A simular system for IE would be great, the only thing IE seems to be able to do at the moment is adding spyware and toolbars..

    anyway, the best of luck with your new IE version!

  23. Anonymous says:

    A "Never Trust this company" check box, there is an "always" but not the other way around.

    OH! And make an option to actually delete your temp files when closing! TweakUI says it’ll do it but it never works! Firefox does this beautifully.

    The pop-up blocker by Analog-X http://www.analogx.com is a nice tool that would integrate well into IE and could be used to prevent some trickey pop-ups.

  24. Anonymous says:

    Hey JonR… XPSP2 has two of these features ("never trust" and pop up blocker).

  25. Anonymous says:

    If you can get an improved IE before Longhorn that would be awesome. That’s what I want.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Nice to see you taking the comments with an open mind and a sense of humor. I’d put my 2 cents in about IE, but it’s already been said a number of times.

    It would be nice to hear the devs’ wishlists of what they’d like to see added/changed in IE if they had the freedom to do whatever they wanted.

    -b

  27. Anonymous says:

    The easiest way to show that you care about people asking for "Standards" might be to make _this_ page validate:

    http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.msdn.com%2Fie%2F

  28. Anonymous says:

    I have two suggestions for the IE dev team.

    1. Every member of the dev team should be *forced* to use Opera or Firefox (their choice) for a month. They can (and should) go back to IE afterwards, but during this one month period, no cheating.

    2. During this time, every member of the dev team should assigned a project: reimplement a reasonably complex layout using valid CSS2 and valid HTML 4.01 Strict or XHTML 1.1. This page, microsoft.com, it doesn’t matter. Get the code valid and displaying properly in Firefox/Opera. Then look at it in IE6.

    Basically, at this point you’ve got to eat the *other guy’s* dogfood for a while in order to really grok what needs to be fixed.

  29. Anonymous says:

    I vehemently HATE tabbed browsing. Please for the love of all things good, if you do add tabbed browsing to IE, allow us to take it out.

    Thanks.

    Sushant

  30. Anonymous says:

    Wow, MS Developer asking users what they think and what they want. And it looks that they think about it.

    Unbelievable :O

    I think most important things (Tabbed B., Tansparent pngs, popup block, etc.)are mentioned in the list above!

    One fine thing in Firefox is that i could integrate many additional extensions and, of course, themes.

  31. Anonymous says:

    I would like to doubly and triply and quadruply emphasize what Steve said when he said "Please, please, don’t fix any of the bugs in the CSS parser before you fix the CSS rendering bugs."

    Wise words indeed. Web developers are depending on the bugs in the CSS parsing to work around the bugs & quirks in the CSS rendering.

    I wish you the best of luck in dragging the IE6 codebase into the 21st century.

  32. Anonymous says:

    There’s another 108 (and growing) features you could add to that list here http://update.mozilla.org/extensions/?application=firefox

    Think the place to begin would be porting the "Firesomething" extension to IE – "IESomething": You start it and the title bar shows a random name like "Word", "Windows Explorer", "Network Neighbourhood", "Active Desktop", "Notepad" and so on. Amused users are happy users.

    Without this essential feature, IE’s market share will collapse within three weeks.

  33. Anonymous says:

    A programmable api (like firefox) so that 3rd party developers can create extensions and skin packages (though I admit I’m not a fan of skins, they seem popular).

  34. Anonymous says:

    I’ve got to ask what I hope is a moderately constructive question.

    What reasons do you have for continuing development of IE over joining the Mozilla project? What can you possibly gain from releasing you own browser when you could take advantage of all the work that has been ongoing over the past couple of years. Apart from lock-in.

    I am convinced that you could get *some* of your ideas accepted on merit after discussion with other Mozilla members, and you know – maybe some people with experience outside of IE not accepting all of your ideas for the browser could actually be a good thing?

    Considering how little (i.e. no) money you make directly off IE I am surprised Microsoft is still considering putting in more effort – no offense and I am not suggesting that Microsoft disband the team, far from it but you know .. benefit-effort-cost and all that :)

  35. Anonymous says:

    I suddenly have hope for this blog.

    However, I must disagree with this huge amount of requests for tabbed browsing. The people here are advanced surfers, but most computer users of moderate skill that I know barely opens new windows, and when they do, they certainly don’t manage enough of them to warrant tabbed browsing. I think Explorer should focus on being a simple and sleek browser for the beginner and intermiedate user, and allow Firefox (or IE interfaces such as myIE2) and the like to tend to the advanced audience.

    Oh, yeah, and I second (fourtheenth?) the suggestion about a bug tracker. That would be nice.

  36. Anonymous says:

    No need to request NO TABBED BROWSING.

    Every browser with tabbed browsing allows single window/tabbed navigating and multiple tab navigating. People making this complaint have probably never used a tabbed browser.

  37. Anonymous says:

    this blog of your is great. You guys put some real personality across and I greatly appreciate it. To many corporate blogs don’t have as much personality. I think even google’s blog doesn’t have as much personality as yours does. Keep it up!

  38. Anonymous says:

    I believe this blog will affect the outcome of Internet Explorers’ outlook completely…

    oh and did i remember to say, 100% no faults Standards compliants.

    No MS "special" css tricks. Just CSS in its entirety not ur CSS in the way you want it to be.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Any chance of syndicating this feed with just the legit articles and not the comments? I’d like to hear about what the IE team has to say, but I refuse to wade through over 300 comments of garbage from the Microsoft bashers. If I want to know about how wonderful Mozilla or Firefox is, I’ll subscribe to a feed about them. These guys are ruining this blog right from the start.

  40. Anonymous says:

    Mouse gestures! I use them in Firefox all the time now when I’m at home, and miss them in IE when I’m at work.

  41. Anonymous says:

    "If I want to know about how wonderful Mozilla or Firefox is, I’ll subscribe to a feed about them. These guys are ruining this blog right from the start."

    Praise is cheap, the only way to find out what your browser needs is by looking at critisism

    Which -will- include rants about the supposed superiority of Firefox/Opera/whatever, because maybe, just maybe, those browsers -are- superior in certain areas

    and the IE developers might actually learn something and use it to their advantage.

  42. Anonymous says:

    "Praise is cheap, the only way to find out what your browser needs is by looking at critisism

    Which -will- include rants about the supposed superiority of Firefox/Opera/whatever, because maybe, just maybe, those browsers -are- superior in certain areas

    and the IE developers might actually learn something and use it to their advantage. "

    That’s your opinion and I posted mine. It was intended as a request to see if those of us that didn’t come here for that could be spared the idocy of the posts. I’m not an RSS expert, but I would think a feed could be constructed that would spare us the syndication of the comments. Most of what I have been browsing through is NOT constructive. If that is not possible, I’ll simply unsubscribe the feed. It’s a shame though, I was looking forward to hear what the IE team has to say, not all of this other crap.

  43. Anonymous says:

    I applaud the effort that you guys are doing to improve IE. Especially with so many adversely negative comments. However, I must say that I am no longer an IE user. Let me specifically state why and what it would take for me to return to give you a fair chance to attract me back.

    It was mainly two things that made me switch: 1) web browsing history and 2) ad blocking. For the first issue, Internet Options –> Delete Files does not delete all stored files that IE creates. Particularly bad are the many index.dat files that are always open by a process. This is where to find a few of them (not all):

    Documents and Settings<UserName>Cookies

    Documents and Settings<UserNameLocal SettingsTempCookies

    Documents and Settings<UserName>Local SettingsTemporary Internet FilesContent.IE5

    Documents and Settings<UserName> Local SettingsTempTemporary Internet FilesContent.IE5

    Documents and Settings<UserName> Local SettingsHistoryHistory.IE5

    I do not want my typed Urls stored in the registry

    (SoftwareMicrosoftInternet ExplorerTypedURLs).

    Please do not store my recently opened Html (stored on disk) documents in the Recent Documents directory (the path that ::SHGetSpecialFolderPath(NULL, szPath, CSIDL_RECENT, FALSE) returns to szPath). This is an issue with Windows, but something that perhaps the IE team could work with the Windows team on.

    Often temp files are not cleared out and I must manually take care of them my self.

    Last year I wrote a program to automatically clear much of the above tastes (and other tasks more specific to Windows). It works, but I got tired of needing to run it to clear my history 10-15 times a day… To some (probably many) these are not important issues, but they are crucial to me.

    The other issue is filtering Html prior to displaying it. There is an extension for Firefox called Adblock. I can filter stuff like ad.doubleclick.net, /ads/, *valueclick*, *googlesyndication*, *banners.*, *fastclick*, etc. out prior to loading. I have incredibly reduced the amount of advertisements from the webpages that I view, often to zero. I don’t think I could go back to a browser that did not have a similar feature or extension.

    I will gladly give IE another chance when 1) I can delete _all_ of the history that IE leaves behind, and 2) when I can filter incoming Html for specific strings in Urls.

    Best of luck.

  44. Anonymous says:

    One thing that I find really refreshing about MSDN blogs is the really genuine innocence of Microsoft employees – I almost feel like welcoming them to the real world. I guess what makes it weird is to read Steve Ballmer or various VPs explain features of MS software by saying, "We asked our customers what they wanted and this is it," but then the actual MS developers are totally surprised at the feedback.

    Its just kind of amazing that a lot of these complaints have been circulating for years. Organizations have sprung up specifically to influence Microsoft to support web standards and help create a better IE. Its very clear that large numbers of users and developers are dissatisifed with many of IE’s problems.

    Of course, all that has changed. The new Microsoft loves us, listens to us, reads us bed-time stories, which is awesome and cool. Very impressive!

    But one question remains: If MS employees are saying, "Well, *now* we’re listening," is that a tacit admission of what has been suspected all along, that in the past at least, MS has ignored its customers? And since this is a very recent effort by Microsoft, is it reasonable to conclude that there’s still a great deal of instituitional inertia that does not favor customer feedback? I guess time will tell…

    I know you IE people have been taking a whole lot of shit and I would hate to be in your position, but you’ve got to face up to the facts. Everyone predicted that, as soon as MS won the browser wars, innovation and improvements would cease and sadly that’s exactly what happened. People have every reason to be pissed off.

    Let us not have any of that nonsense again.

  45. Anonymous says:

    > Most of what I have been browsing through is NOT

    > constructive.

    Jerry, yes, there are many comments that are not really constructive, but the majority is about standard compliance and this is (IMHO) very constructive.

    –Thomas

  46. Anonymous says:

    1. Copying features (tabbed etc.) is not going to cut it (don’t need a clone of (firefox…). But there is some(lot of?) catching up to do (standards, security))

    2. think and deliver next generation

    3. Support Win2000, WinNT, Win98… (we paid $s too)

    4. Need it now. and not in 2005 with Longhorn

  47. Anonymous says:

    + fine grain control over cookie management (if I set my IE cookie handling o HIGH, Hotmail does not work! You can surely fix that)

  48. Anonymous says:

    Scott,

    You forgot some BIG ones on that list!

    1. Make all changes available for Windows 2000 also.

    2. Make all changes available for Windows 2000 also.

    3. Make all changes available for Windows 2000 also.

    4. Make all changes available for Windows 2000 also.

    5. Make all changes available for Windows 2000 also.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Comments continue to be added to the discussion of your previous post. You may want to read through the new ones, as some are constructive comments with worthwhile information. If you guys get serious about fixing the problems in IE, you can still win back a lot of the people you’re now losing. Obviously, the fanboy crowd is a lost cause, but you never really had them to begin with. Their numbers are dwarfed by those who will use whichever product best fits their needs. Right now, I think it’s tough to contend that’s the case for just about anyone.

  50. Anonymous says:

    Add application/xhtml+xml to the registry, I know you can do it and it would stop people (standards geeks admittedly) moaning about XHTML 1.0 being parsed as tag soup ([HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINESOFTWAREMicrosoftWindowsCurrentVersionInternet SettingsAccepted Documents] people)

    Disclaimer: registry hacking is bad for your health!

    Oh yeah, if you could make attribute seletors in CSS2 work properly please.

  51. Anonymous says:

    Here’s one thing that doesn’t seem to have been mentioned. Make loading ActiveX objects transparent. Or something.

    What I’m really saying is save me from having to write the following:

    if(window.ActiveXObject) {

    var oXMLHTTP = new ActiveXObject("Microsoft.XMLHTTP");

    } else {

    var oXMLHTTP = new XMLHttpRequest();

    }

    Just let me write the latter, which is more cross browser compatible.

  52. Anonymous says:

    Developers need a quick and polished ‘standards based’ browser.

    Who needs such snott when there are such great alternatives.

    Why have I wasted so much time here?

    ….microsoft marketing wins again…

  53. Anonymous says:

    Making the IE team use Opera or Firefox and then have to go back to IE is a brilliant idea! Be sure to make them pay some bills and buy some products online.

    Initially I moved to Firefox and Thunderbird to avoid all the security holes and to help wean myself off windows-centric applications so the move to Linux would be easier (and it was).

    When I first tried Firefox, I wondered what the big deal was about, okay so it’s smaller and faster, it’s just rendering web pages isn’t it? but the more you use it, and the more you try out the various extensions (seen the Web Developer extension?), the more impressive it becomes, and the crappier IE looks. Pretty sad that it’s a v6 vs pre-v1 product and the pre-v1 wins hands down.

    Except for the security patches, MS should give up on IE (everyone else has) and suck the brains of the Firefox developers, and then start on IE.NET using a similar design approach: a small fast standards based browser which is extensible and customisable.

  54. Anonymous says:

    You’ve forget one point: "Upgrading an entire OS to use a simply pached Browser is a bad idea."

  55. Anonymous says:

    In addition to what’s listed (FAQ? <g> ):

    1) Have an HTML safe mode

    For better or worse (I’d say worse):

    – you are using HTML as "generic rich text"

    – email "messages"

    – readmes and .chm help system

    – CD-ROM Autorun "front doors"

    – active desktop and "view as web page"

    HTML has these basic risks:

    – active content by design (scripts, ActiveX etc.)

    – active content through code defects (holes)

    – links with misleading pseudo-URL text on top

    – other, e.g. IFrame, zone leaks, cookies, remote pull-downs

    Forcing plain text in OE isn’t enough – ppl disable it as too "tight".

    Instead, you want a system-wide HTML mode that:

    – suppresses all active content

    – does not pull down remote material

    – repeats links explicitly after the overlying text

    – only the explicit link is clickable

    And duh, don’t process scripts in cookies, no matter what zone.

    2) Expect paradoxical zone settings

    For example, expect folks to set "My Computer" zone as

    tight as Restricted – so take any reverse zone leakage

    (e.g. reaching local HD via LAN shares) seriously.

    3) Show zone and allow on-the-fly lockdown

    Take Windows Explorer’s "view" drop-down as an example

    of how this UI might work; let the user drop into a higher

    (or lower?) zone on the fly, perhaps with an option to "always

    process this URL in this zone" (add URL to zone)

    You may do (3) differently, i.e. choosing from user-defined

    templates that are unrelated to zones, e.g. the built-in High,

    Medium and Low plus user-defined.

    4) Be careful what you make scriptable

    I know the temptation; what you let the user do interactively,

    sysadmins want to automate – and the next thing every web

    site and malware is automating the same thing. So what starts

    as meaningful user control degenerates to mere "Simon Says"

    inconvenience for web sites and malware.

    5) Wean web developers off the right to program PCs

    Web sites, unsolicied mail "messages" and "documents"

    should never have been granted even the slightest ability to

    program visitor’s PCs. After that blunder, it’s crazy to have

    expected things not to have gone wrong. As MS’s own advice

    says, "if the bad guy can run code…"

    So we need these "content providers" to give up the rights

    they are currently enjoying. Start by setting a safer standard

    we can live with (aspire to zero client-side programming) and

    offer that as a "safer site" logo thing. Web sites that comply

    can display the "safer site" logo that links to a blurb on why

    un-logo’d sites should be treated with caution, etc.

  56. Anonymous says:

    On tabbed browsing:

    Yes, it’s a must-have; MDI was a good idea, and still is.

    But you need both "open in a new window" and "open in

    a new tab", i.e. not force one or the other.

    Dial-up users hate waiting for the same page to load, so

    after a Google, they flick open links in new windows. But

    what if you run three different Google searches at once,

    or visit a site that does the usual spoonful of content and

    "next…", or an MS /kb that has "more…" links?

    A combo of new windows and tabs lets you group related

    pages together on an ad-hoc basis, i.e. you might kick

    a search’s links as tabs in the same window except for a

    monster page that starts in a window of its own with its

    links as tabs in that window.

    The most pathetic thing was MS Office losing MDI to stay

    dumbed-down to IE’s limitations. Never again, please.

  57. Anonymous says:

    Smaller duhfault IE web cache, PLEASE!!

    WTF is the point of a 500M web cache?

    * Any connection fast enough to populate that

    within a few days doesn’t need caching for speed.

    * Any connection slow enough to need caching will

    take days to populate even a 50M cache.

    As it is, every user account has its own bloated cache that

    collects thousands of small files that take weeks to purge

    themselves off the system. Hullo, defrag.

    Not IE territory, but also crucial: Need to preset settings in

    the template from which new accounts are created – else

    ability to spawn new accounts becomes a support nightmare.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Tabbed browsing is something I sorely miss in IE. It makes life so much easier. Ever have your whole CS, Ultra-Edit (tabbed coding :P), five Windows Explorer-windows, iTunes (less RAM-usage than WMP!) and maybe some Messenger-windows in your taskbar? I have. Every day. And then, tabbed browsing saves lives if you have about 15 sites opened.

    The Web Developer Toolbar really is my favourite extension, especially editing CSS on the fly is fun and handy.

  59. Anonymous says:

    How about an easier way to whitelist activex controls? There’s an "administrator approved only" option in security settings, but for the life of me I can’t figure out how to make a control "approved".

    Additionally, the whitelist should be configurable by regular (non-admin) users, with the ability to override it in group policy.

  60. Anonymous says:

    Can I add another feature not mentioned here: same level as webstandards behaviour as Mozilla and Opera and Safari? I guess it has not been mentioned yet :-)

    And if a rule in the CSS specs are a bit ambigoues, it would be nice if a future release/update of IE would behave exactly as Mozilla, Opera and Safari on that spec. Before every webcoder gets bald from pulling their hair out.

    You as a company have won the browser war, no need to do tings differently anymore.

    And if you want to add another ton of features on top of it, be my guest. Some of them might drip over to other browsers.

  61. Anonymous says:

    More…

    * Make IE 100% compliant to W3C Standards

    * Tabs, pleeeeeeeease, tabs!

    * Remove support for VBScript (is very anoying)

    * Support Mozilla-like javascript features

    * Something like Mozilla’s XUL

  62. Anonymous says:

    * Tabs tabs tabs tabs. Newbies would have a much easier time dealing with multiple browser windows with tabs. Win XP’s taskbar group is similar, but can be confusing. Make the behavior configurable easily.

    * Make VBScript support disabled by default;

    * Lock the durn thing down! Let users enable features only as-needed and give sufficient warnings when they enable something that is a security risk

    * Performance Updates. There is an endless stream of Security Updates describing how IE is potentially going to hand out free copies of my credit cards and allow anyone to take control of my life, er, computer. Instead of making us all wait til 2007 for Longhorn’s IE, start issuing Performance Updates to IE 6.

    * Standards support.

    * Standards support, especially for CSS 2.

    * Standards support. Why on earth is a rag-tag band of rebels able to make browsers that make IE look old and slow? Word is getting out among the general populace too – e.g. many non-tech acquaintances of mine are switching to Mozilla. And the browser is a gateway drug, you know. Next thing, they’ll convince their bosses to use OpenOffice…

    Lastly, it was pointed out earlier that your blog does not validate with the doctype specified – HTML 4.0 transitional – a standard that is years old. Can developers be expected to be credulous about where you stand with regard to web standards when your primary communication venue doesn’t even validate to a minimum standard? This blog is great, but the code it produces is as much part of the message as the postings’ content.

    On a positive note, it’s great to have this venue for communication!

  63. Anonymous says:

    TABS Please TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABS!!!!!!

  64. Anonymous says:

    " It’s a shame though, I was looking forward to hear what the IE team has to say, not all of this other crap. "

    I think we both agree actually…

    the IE team -needs- the input from Firefox users to know why they switched and what features they liked (nothing wrong with ‘borrowing’ some features ;p )

    the crap posts like "omg IE suxx0r — F1r3F0X=13373r!!1" are another thing though.

    this -is- a blog and your posts go directly to a real living person working for Microsoft who happens to be in the new IE team.

    Why would you spam this guy’s blog? what the hell did -he- do to you?

    there haven’t that a lot of those kind of posts yet, though.

    well that’s the way I look at it anyway =)

  65. Anonymous says:

    right. let’s retry that sentence:

    there haven’t BEEN a lot of those kind of posts yet, though.

    o_X

  66. Anonymous says:

    (Nearly) all of the Above and: Just use the VS.NET UI for IE!

    It is really nice to customize and it allows tabbed Browsing. But when the UI is in "tabbed mode", all Popups are opened in maximum Size; if you switch to "mdi mode", you can not enjoy the tabs…

    It would be nice to have multiple, flexible-positionable Sidebars (like tool-Windows), ability to place Toolbars everywhere (bottom, left, top, right) and (for the n00bs of us): skinning, but with the ability to disable (because I hate skins…)

  67. Anonymous says:

    Just a small suggestion… I am not sure about the people with normal eyesight, but I have to wear thick glasses to see stuff and for me fixed fonts set by web-designers that are better described as web-disasters are royal pain in the ass to cope with.

    The improvement is as easy as that – please move "ignore font size’ settings somewhere to the front end, to the menus I suppose – the way it is done in other browsers…. font sizing setup available in "View" menu doesn’t resize the fonts with fixed size set at the moment, and inefficient approach used in "ignore font sizes" option ignores all the font sizes completely instead of ignoring fixed ones, and only fixed ones, rendering normal sites unreadable or not comfortable to read… getting to the dialog boxes depth to switch this option every 5 minutes is a PITA :(

  68. Anonymous says:

    Before you develop new version of IE (I thing it’s impossible to preserve backward compatibility and complience standards), People will land on Mars.

    I really don’t understand why are you spending time to develop something new when you easily could implement Gecko engine, or buy Opera engine.

    I thing IE is dead, most people know this, you cannot do browser that correctly show page coded for IE6, you have to make totally new browser. And you know, the develop of new broser engine take 5 years at minimum.

  69. Anonymous says:

    built-in SVG supprot would be cool – I’d be happy if at least SVG Tiny will be implemented – soon it will be common feature of new cell phones so why not do it in "normal" PC browsers?

  70. Anonymous says:

    Oh Please for the Love of GOD put in Distrust this Wbesite (zone) option for certificates. If you say no you are prompted a bazillion times to install the damn thing then most people get tired of clicking No and they click yes. This will prevent at least 80% of spyware/adware from being installed on systems.

  71. Anonymous says:

    Welcome to the fishbowl, guys.

    Let the games begin. 😉



    Ben Goodger

    Lead Engineer, Mozilla Firefox

  72. Anonymous says:

    so you have "inventarised" in a nice short list.

    but can you make a post now in which you adress which issues you’ll take up and which issues you won’t take up?

    it is not very clear, nor any improvement in "the openness of the IE team" if you just ‘mirror’ what people say and then continue working without really adressing some issues and taking a stance.

    Jan.

  73. Anonymous says:

    Overwhelming Response So Microsoft is slowly getting the picture. It seems that now they have a blog for Internet Explorer. They are starting to acknowledge that "Yes", people do think its a bad idea to integrate things into the OS. "Yes" please release a version 7. There were a lot more, but why am I pointing out these points? Well, mainly because Microsoft has said that from their "so-called" research, that people in general want the opposite, or in the best interests of consumers. An integrated browser, no standalone browser, ie no IE7 for previous and current release of Windows….

  74. Anonymous says:

    Good. You have got the idea. Now all you have to do is implement all that stuff as well as set up a road map for including support for standards yet to be recommended when they are recommended such as XHTML 2.0 and CSS3 (and not half a decade+ later) and I’ll be happy.

    And also cut IE out of Windows so others Windows Pre-Longhorn can have the yet-to-arrive-good IE. Or make another product like "Windows Explorer" (well….maybe something else as that is taken) like you did with "Windows Messenger" and "MSN Messenger" so avoid the lawyers :P.

    Anyway, good to hear you finally have to idea. Go get ’em, Microsoft.

  75. Anonymous says:

    "No need to request NO TABBED BROWSING. "

    —Acutally I want stress it again so Tabbed browsing is not made into a standard.

    I hate, I say again, I HATE tabbed browsing. I want to see multiple pages simultaneously withouth having to tab through. If IE even installs with tabs and even if it has an option to take it off, I will stop using IE and write my own.

    No Tabs Not Tabs No Tabs. PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE.

    "Every browser with tabbed browsing allows single window/tabbed navigating and multiple tab navigating. People making this complaint have probably never used a tabbed browser. "

    —-I have use Firefox but I dont like the UI or the options UI. If I can’t find an option within 10 seconds, I will not use the product. Intuitive UI is very important.

    ALSO, how about an option of disabling New Window() or Dialog Box() (something to the effect).

    Thanks guys.

  76. Anonymous says:

    Oh I forgot to mention.

    Sometimes I get asked to install Macromedia AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. How about a DONT ASK ME FOREVER option in the dialog boxes.

  77. Anonymous says:

    Another thing. I could at max have 62 open IE windows before it crashed. My machine is 2.7Ghz, 1 GB Ram, Win Xp Pro. Can u make it work for up to 150 on the same specs?

    What about Blog support for IE. Sometimes I put blogs onto my Favourites list and then have to go back and manage them every week when the list becomes too big. I would like to see a type of favorite where I can bookmark a blog for up to a week. Then after that, the blog will be removed from the list.

    Also how about adding custom notes to pages. When IE sees a page that has a note attached to it, it will display that note. That way I can keep track of the many web site notes I make. Save me from writing them down using notepad.

    Thanks.

  78. Anonymous says:

    Hi there,

    Of all the suggestions above, I couldn’t find the following (maybe I just don’t know how to do it correctly) – can you make IE remember the View->Text Size setting. That’s 3 clicks every time I start the browser I’d be about to save.

    Cheer,

    James.

  79. Anonymous says:

    A lot of the stuff above is vvery important, and I think someone said something similar in the middle there, but I’m going to rephrase it.

    Microsoft Internet Explorer is the default browser for Windows. Mrs. Average doesn’t want tabbed browsing and a squillion skins to keep her eyes glazed… What she wants is a browser that she can handle to search for knitting patterns and collectable porcelain dolls. If Professor Power User wants to use his browser with auto-organising tabs, an RSS feed reader, and an office assistant, why can’t he just download the relevant extension, and have it install. I know this is kind of in the ‘exploitable’ realm, but surely the R&D team can come up with some intuitive way around this? The default browser should be simple, fast, easy, and secure. Leave the fancy tools to those who know what they’re doing.

    The other issues of standards support, and security are both also extreeemely essential, as I’m sure you’ve already understood. The only thing stopping me going deeply into this are the few hundred posts up there that say the same thing.

    Now, I’m no avid Microsoft fan, but I just had to put in my two cents. I know my mother would confused to the point of having question marks sprouting her ears if she had to re-learn her browsing habits. That in mind, something fresh is always a good thing. 😉

  80. Anonymous says:

    Now the Internet Explorer team is resurrected, I wonder what will happen with the product. The latest version — IE6 — hasn’t been updated for a while and is only patched for security reasons. I think Microsoft came to realise…

  81. Anonymous says:

    > Sometimes I get asked to install Macromedia AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN. How about a DONT ASK ME FOREVER option in the dialog boxes.

    If you are using Microsoft Windows XP, install service pack 2 when it comes out. Instead of a popup window asking you to install a plugin, a toolbar appears at the top. That’s a lot easier to ignore.

  82. Anonymous says:

    This blog is great, and I want to see more from the MS developers.

    It irritates me when people criticise IE in (most) other techy blogs. I’ve even seem some blogs which encourage people to design for Mozilla, Opera etc and disregard IE. What a ridiculous attitude! These people have lost the meaning of the web.

    The internet used to be a techy playground for geeks but it is so much more than that now. The w3c, in my opinion, has had it’s day. We’ve been waiting for CSS3 for ages.. and it appears the w3c has just become a glorified online discussion board for self-proclaimed ‘internet experts.’ Mozilla and their ilk are guilty of rendering bugs and also proprietary CSS (see http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4753). The hypocrisy is dreadful.

    Microsoft released innovations like htc behaviours years ago – a model that uses the CSS DOM to propogate javascript behaviour through a website. That was, and still is, way ahead of its time. Also the powerful filter classes (IE4+, 1997) should have become the defacto standard. But no, Mozilla, Opera etc have to have their own way. "MozOpacity" — what a joke! I say, the w3c should be enforcing the standards that MS have made de-facto over their many years of hard work and research into internet technology

  83. Anonymous says:

    [Snickers at all of the so-called arguments against tabbed browsing] [rolls eyes]

    Perhaps an IE "Developer Edition" is a good idea (that wasn’t an invite to charge for it– keep it free guys), featuring a Javascript console, and other advanced features for developers.

    A feature I’d like to see is the ability to synchonize Favorites with third party browsers via an option in the Internet Options panel. I do a lot of opening and closing of Mozilla, Opera and IE, I use Mozilla as my primary browser, so having my favorites available on all three would be an immensely convienient feature. More importantly is the ability to synchronize with Gecko rather than Opera. And since the Gecko bookmarks are stored in a plain HTML file, it wouldn’t be an incredibly difficult feature to add.

    The ability to mangage and access Favorites from either or would be fantastic. Of course I’m not suggesting to change the way it already handles Favorites, but a feature in addition to or instead of. Also, if such a feature is added, it would be nice if it is more than just importing, I stress the ability to synchronize, both access and management would be ideal.

  84. Anonymous says:

    > I’ve even seem some blogs which encourage people to design for Mozilla, Opera etc and disregard IE. What a ridiculous attitude!

    I agree, but I haven’t seen that attitude. What I have seen are people encouraging people to design for browsers that conform to the various specifications, and merely do the minimum necessary to make sure that the website works for people who use broken browsers such as Internet Explorer. Are you sure you aren’t confusing the two viewpoints?

    > We’ve been waiting for CSS3 for ages.

    What are you talking about? CSS 3 is a group of specifications. Many of those specifications have already been finished and are available in their final form as recommendations. Others are at candidate recommendation stage, which means they are ready for implementing. Mozilla and Opera developers are already implementing these specifications.

    If you are impatient at not being able to use CSS 3, you need to look in Microsoft’s direction. The specifications are there for them to implement, and they haven’t finished implementing the six year-old CSS 2 specification, let alone any of the CSS 3 specifications!

    > Mozilla and their ilk are guilty of rendering bugs

    "Mozilla and their ilk" implement the vast majority of the CSS 2 specification, contain a few bugs, and have people working on solving them.

    Internet Explorer misses out entire sections of the CSS 2 specification, contains numerous, page-destroying bugs, and has not had any work done on the rendering engine for years.

    There is a *massive* difference between the two situations. What we are seeing here is Microsoft beginning to work on Internet Explorer again, and I am pleased about that. But it doesn’t change the fact that Internet Explorer was effectively abandoned and is nowhere near as capable as its competitors.

    > and also proprietary CSS (see http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4753).

    Every proprietary CSS property that I am aware of that is implemented by a non-Internet Explorer user-agent is prefixed with an -id- prefix to ensure there are no conflicts with future specifications. Internet Explorer, on the other hand, doesn’t bother to prefix their proprietary properties. This means that future specifications either have to obey Microsoft’s rules when adding properties with those names, or avoid those names completely, lest they break things.

    I am not concerned with properties that are properly shielded from interfering with future specifications. I would not complain if Microsoft added more proprietary properties as long as they do not interfere with future specifications.

    Furthermore, the examples you give of Mozilla’s and KHTML’s opacity properties *are part of CSS 3*. The only thing that makes them "proprietary" are the names – their initial implementations have been shielded from the public as when they were first introduced, the CSS 3 specification that deal with the opacity property was not yet at a stable stage. Once the specification and implementations are stable, you will see them simply renamed as ‘opacity’ and not ‘-khtml-opacity’ etc.

    Please note that you are criticising the Gecko and KHTML developers for implementing a W3C specification that has two Microsoft employees listed as authors, when Internet Explorer has used proprietary syntax instead! And you simultaneously criticise the W3C for not being quick enough about CSS 3!

    http://www.w3.org/TR/css3-color/#transparency

    CSS 3 is here, it is being implemented, and you are seeing people criticise Microsoft for not getting around to finishing their CSS 2 implementation. That is not hypocrisy, that is frustration.

  85. Anonymous says:

    I am a happy Internet Explorer User. The browser is intuitive, simple, and integrates nicely into my Windows OS.

    It would be great if I could customize my browser with small applications, like have stock tickers integrated, or a blog dialog where I can just insert text and hit a button to publish it. Take the toolbar thing further :-)

    In the future, I would like to do more work with the browser instead of using separate applications. Example: integrated pim services.

    Also, I want to see good identity management. I don’t get how it works right now.

  86. Anonymous says:

    What about the similarly old and barely updated Outlook Express? It seems that everyone is talking about Internet Explorer but what about Outlook Express. When is it going to be updated with new and much needed features? Or, Outlook Express has been forgotten?

    For me a spam filter should have been added long ago. Most users use Outlook Express. It is the most popular e-mail client. Shouldn’t it have a spam filter. Especially since Microsoft is so much interested about our security and privacy these days. Why should we buy Outlook 2003 to get spam filtering? Mozila include spam filters and for free. Mozila is not only a browser but it includes an e-mail application and it is time to look at the other features it has that Outlook Express might lack. Is adding a spam filter to Outlook Express so difficult? Everybody needs it. When I heard that MS was preparing a security update to XP, the upcoming sp2, I was astonished to find out that although you were claiming that the security features, like attachment blocking, that MS were adding to Outlook Express were fantastic, yet no spam filter was thought of, which should have been the first thing to be added.

    What about other updates that Outlook Express needs? And why should the simplest updates only be available via a service pack, like XP sp2?

  87. Anonymous says:

    Just curious, is any of the (above outlined) requested features news to you people? Anything at all? If so, please explain how you were able to avoid learning about that.

  88. Anonymous says:

    Disable third-party browser extensions (aka BHOs) and ActiveX by DEFAULT, but give users the option to enable manually, not automatically. BHOs are one of the worst killers of a PC.

    Make a built-in popup blocker.

  89. Anonymous says:

    I think this is a great way to help make IE much better than it already is.

    I do disagree with some of the features people want, most specifically tabbed browsing and their distaste towards OS integration.

    OS Integration is a nice feature because it standardizes operation of the operating system to that of working on the internet. Much like the domain structure of Windows 2000, I find it helps make things have a much better feel–no matter in which environment you are working in (local or network-based).

    Tabbed browsing isn’t exactly the greatest feature, though I do use Opera and it utilizes tabbed browsing. I haven’t found it really ‘helps’ me browse the web more than IE, after all, with taskbar grouping in Windows XP, it doesn’t really have a problem with a gazillion Windows open anymore as was a problem in previous versions of Windows.

    Let’s hope we can all work together to make the most used browser to being the best.

    -Mike

    Future MCSA

  90. Anonymous says:

    I think it is very important that ie stays simple. Minimum Menus and buttons. Why do you think Mozilla FireFox is far more popular to Mozilla’s Flagship all in one web/mail/editor/news/messanger/etc. The best software is simple software, that doesn’t need any explaining, it just works. A web browser only needs to display web pages properly, nothing else.

    An can i suggest you also start a OE Blog? Nothing personal but that has more holes than IE

  91. Anonymous says:

    THe people who are advoocating against tabs:

    In Mozilla and Firefox, you don’t need to use tabs. As a matter of fact, unless you ACTIVELY do something to get them, you’ll never see one. Yo only get tabs when you middle click, shift click , or use the Ctrl+T command. Otherwise, you can use mozilla just like IE.

    So basically, your arguments are a moot point. If IE does enable tabs similar to Mozilla, you’d never know unless someone told you. You obviously never really tried a browser with tabs

  92. Anonymous says:

    Did anybody mention full support of W3C standards?

    Wb developing is a Hell because of IE bugs.

    Please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please please etcetera.

  93. Anonymous says:

    Aim for full HTML, XHTML & CSS2.1 compliance.

    You won’t get there, but put the effort in and you’ll get most of the way.

    And if the are discrepancies or gaps in the standards, have a chat with the Mozilla org, Opera, Apple and the W3C and see if an agreement can be made for a way forward and inclusion in future standards. It’s easy if you try…

    Users across the world will, if not straight away, benefit from improved web sites that work across platforms and browsers.

    It’s important, and I for one am not interested in any propriatary (sp?) extensions in IE.

  94. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for starting to do some work on IE. As you have now seen for yourself the web IS imprtant so thats why it is nice you found the IE development folder somewhere in your desktop. Who had it by the way? The CSS support for IE5 Mac was one big step in the right direction. So I know you can do exellent if you want.

    Make open standards work in new IE or and stick to them. CSS, PNG, XHTML. At least fix render bugs in the upcoming servicepack for XP.

    It doesnt matter if some stuff you make up is better (like the CSS boxmodel) keep in line. My customers are tierd of paying me for develop fallbacks, hacks & tricks for things that is suppose to be simple.

  95. Anonymous says:

    After work, write 100 times on the blackboard:

    "I will never defy the W3C"

    "I will never defy the W3C"

    "I will never defy the W3C"

    "I will never defy the W3C"

    Until explorer supports standards as good as Mozilla and friends:-D:-D

  96. Anonymous says:

    One important issue about everyone’s favorite issue "full compliance with standards": it is frequently at odds with another important priority, BACKWARDS COMPATABILITY.

    How many websites out there in the "wild" have code blocks that look something like:

    if (window.navigator.appName.toLowerCase().indexOf("microsoft") > -1) {

    doIt One Way;

    }

    else {

    doIt Another Way;

    }

    Didn’t have to go far… this is code from THIS PAGE.

    So if MS browsers have always worked a certain way (deemed "wrong" by all the posters here), then they change the way IE interprets common code, then what percentage of websites will it break? 25%? 75%? 99%?!?!

    What’s the solution? I dunno. Maybe return a new unique phrase for window.navigator.appname that doesn’t include the word "microsoft" ? (not likely).

    I would very much like to hear the MS IE team’s response to this issue along with the larger issue of standards compliance.

  97. Anonymous says:

    Brad Corbin,

    Do you have reason to believe that IE would suddenly stop working the old way? Yes, browser sniffing is stupid, but there is no inherent conflict here.

    Also, non-compliance is deemed by the *W3C*, who define the lingua franca (as soon as IE plays ball) of the web, so that HTML is HTML. Without this, we’d have a web built entirely from Word documents, PDF files, and Flash, and no one could build a website without spending large amounts of cash for proprietary development tools.

  98. Anonymous says:

    Venting will not go on forever.

    : )

  99. Anonymous says:

    A lot of press has been given to Mozilla/Firefox’s tabbed browsing. Blah! It’s better than IE’s open a new window and clutter up my taskbar style navigation to be sure.

    But I think the best kept secret to Browser UIs has gone largly unknown. I certainly haven’t seen any mention of it here.

    If you want the perfect IE7 user interface, something that can compete with Mozilla out the gate that won’t take until 2008 to develop, then look at iRider (www.irider.com). This little shell extension for IE has the most innovative browser user interface I’ve ever seen, and I’ve seen a LOT! Among it’s most usful features is a side-bar based navigation system that is like a cross between tabbed browsing and the history navigation in IE. It makes Mozilla’s basic tabbed browsing look stone-aged!

    After a year of working with iRider I find I absolutly can not live without it’s navigation system (though I modify the settings so that new tabs are only created when I right-click). In fact, out of all the bazillion side-bars various browsers have included, iRider is the first and only browser to ever offer anything in a side-bar that was worth giving up the horizontal space for.

    If Microsoft could license the iRider interface, or even buy the company outright, you’d have the perfect UI today. Then all you’d have to do for IE to make it extra perfect is concentrate development on standards support, rendering, and security.

    If iRider offered their UI shell for Mozilla instead of IE, you’d pretty much have the perfect browser already!

    As much as I love Mozilla and Firefox’s rendering and standards support, I myself find that the UI of iRider, even with it’s IE core, is simply more important to me. I’m a professional web application developer, so that is a painful statement to make; but if I, as a developer, wont switch because of advanced UI functionalty, I can probably feel safe in saying that the average user wont either.

    Of course there is more to iRider than its navigation system so check it out!

  100. Anonymous says:

    Actually, Brad raises an interesting point. The actual source code in question on this page is:

    if (window.navigator.appName.toLowerCase().indexOf("microsoft") > -1) {

    theform = document.Form1;

    } else {

    theform = document.forms["Form1"];

    }

    The thing is, at least Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.0, 5.5 and 6.0 (Windows 2000) and Microsoft Internet Explorer 5.2.3 (Mac OS X) understand the document.forms["Form1"] syntax. I can’t test easily on other user-agents Microsoft have produced, but I suspect they are similar.

    Which leads me to the conclusion that this switch doesn’t achieve anything useful. However it does have a downside – if a browser pretends to be a Microsoft user-agent, but doesn’t support the syntax supplied to Microsoft user-agents, it will break.

    Of course, I could be wrong, and the code is there to support Internet Explorer 4.0 users or some other Microsoft user-agent. Hopefully somebody will chime in to correct me if that is the case.

  101. Anonymous says:

    Actually what I would like in IE is already in MyIE/Maxthon.

    MyIE/Maxthon is really feature packed and support plugins and skins.

  102. Anonymous says:

    I still remember what web-life was like *before* IE.. thank you thank you!

    I don’t think anyone even cared about standards before IE – perhaps everyone has forgotten about the horror that was Netscape? IE at least *tried*. Granted, it hasn’t been 100% bug-free compliance-wise, but hopefully that will change in 7.

    A few things I’d like to see (probably mentioned 100 times already..)

    * Fix the current problems in the CSS/HTML implenentations before adding new, half finished standards.

    * JPEG 2000 support. This is probably my #1 feature! The poor standard has been rotting on the backshelf, it will never be accepted until it’s native in IE.

    * I noticed a nice hack many websites are doing to get around the new popup-blocking features. They are adding "onclick" code to the ENTIRE site, so that whenever I click a link to a subpage, on the site itself to select, etc, it loads a popup – bypassing the popup blocker because I initiated the action. Shesh.

    * A feature to turn off certain evil javascript features, like pages that block right-clicks. I want my context menu to open other pages in new windows, darnit! :-)

    * Change the IE plugin model so that it doesn’t accept any-old active-x or registry key to enable a plugin. I realize this would be a HUGE change, but it would help with security. Not only can bad websites invoke buggy active-x controls, but weirdo applications being installed on the machine can quietly slip in nasty hooks into IE that steal information. If IE had some encrypted registry area, it could notice when new hooks are installed by their lack of an encrypted value, and bring up a dialog when IE opens. If the user accepts the mysterous plugin, IE encrypts some info into a different area saying the hook was accepted. Nothing is worse than spyware, or other applications trying to install dumb toolbars or buttons into IE without my permission. ICQ/Office/etc.

    * Pages with Flash tend to freeze IE occasionally in XP SP2 RC2.

    * Make the encoding detection consistent across all implentations of IE. For example, if I have the japaneese text addon installed, and I go to a japaneese site that was lazy and didn’t put the language type correctly into their site, I still see gibberish. Even if I don’t understand japaneese, the foreign symbols look a heck of a lot better than japaneese-in-ascii 😉

    * People seem to want tabbed browsing. I’m not a huge fan of it myself, but I can see why people want it. Have you guys taken a look at what Microsoft Research is doing with taskbar "tasks"? (Go look at the channel 9 video). If you implement tabbed browsing, it would be cool to have them auto-group based on the site, as opposed to the order they are opened.

    Thanks guys, IE is so successfull that its understandable people vent when there’s a bug – it pretty much affects the entire world now! What you guys do can influence every corner of the globe, lol!

  103. Anonymous says:

    There are two technologies in IE that I have really enjoyed: Behaviours and DataBinding.

    Here are my requests:

    * Enable DataBinding against XSD schema instead of xdr!

    * Fix attribute based databinding

    * Fix behaviours on databound objects/tables (very seriously broken!)

  104. Anonymous says:

    One good reason for skipping IE (at the moment) is the lack of IDN (international Domain Names) support… IE vNext and Outlook vNext _should_ support IDN… as FireFox and others do.

  105. Anonymous says:

    I believe that most people that use IE, use it because they

    a) Don’t know enough about computers to use anything else

    b) Need to access a site that only works with IE

    Who uses it because it actually has an innovative feature that others lack? No, it is used because we are stuck with it. But not for long…

    If you want users to respect and maybe even prefer IE, stop trying to lock users in by breaking W3C standards, get rid of ActiveX entirely, and add cool new features that are ahead of the competition. If there is one, I don’t see it. If you can’t think of one, get out of the browser business and use the Gecko engine!

    Also, give users *total* control of their browsing experience. Users want adblock, bugmenot, and other consumer-oriented features, in addition to pop-up blockers. When I demo these extensions in Firefox to my friends, they ask, "Where did you learn about this? Install it for me!".

    Casey

  106. Anonymous says:

    The onyly thing I want is better standards support. It would be so much easier to run my weblog

  107. Anonymous says:

    1. Take ActiveX out behind the barn and kill it with an axe.

    2. Allow user to select the option of IE never ever ever stealing the application focus, and separately not flashing in the status bar.

    3. A "fit to window width/fit to paper width" option for viewing/printing overwide web pages.

  108. Anonymous says:

    Fix the gzip related bugs. These bugs prevent us from turning gzip compression on our servers and are wasting the world millions of dollars in additional bandwidth charges.

  109. Anonymous says:

    If I could fix one single thing…

    It would have to be the address bar.

    Its so simple, yet, aggrevating.

    This includes url selection, page stealing focus while I am typing, inconsistencies with favicon.ico… ARG!

    Surely everyone has something to say about this piece of functionality!

  110. Anonymous says:

    IE is relegated on my box for those sites that are too confused to handle anything else. I look forward to widespread XP SP2 availability forcing sites to fix a lot of their breaks. Decent CSS and consistent scripting would stop people having to code two versions of a site -and SP2 does not do anything in that direction.

    So, first off, a version of IE that is secure even in the hands of incompetents. It should be impossible for trojans and other things to subvert the browser, yet today it is trivial.

    Then I want enough standards compliance that people can do web sites that work for all browsers

    And I want this across all systems. Even if I run SP2 betas, I have family in the house who are stuck in Win2K, and relatives still in Win98. They need a secure system too.

    Then finally: innovate. Its ok to innovate, but lets do it in a way that makes sense. For example, what happened to all that secure wallet stuff a few years back? How about bringing that back as a defence against phishing, with built in support for smart card smart USB authorisation. That way, banks can move beyond the current login+secret authentication that makes phishing at all possible. It could even make windows+IE a more secure system than the alternatives.

  111. Anonymous says:

    Thanks – I started to use netscape when they introduced tabbed browsing last year. It’s the greatest. But because microsoft products are the base of my computer usage – I end up with two browsers open. But please bring on the tabbed browsing. Also, thank you for taking the initiative to get input froom users of your products.

    – kudos

    also – if there was a better way to manage my bookmarks (of which I’ve added this) that would be great.

  112. Anonymous says:

    Let me expand on my previous comment:

    Obviously, the W3C is the "authority" on how things SHOULD work/behave/render/display/etc.

    (Please note also that there are some standards that are not completely fleshed out, or are left as "recommendations")

    The problem is when a feature that displays one way in IE6 suddenly displays a different way in (the hypothetical "standard compliant") IE7.

    According to http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp, IE6 is 71% of the browsers used out there. I can only assume that a reasonable size of this 71% is people who have simply installed the latest operating system and patches, and just happen to now have IE6 as their installed browser. (Rather than people who deliberately choose to go and get IE6).

    Lets assume MS releases IE7, which changes the way that feature XYZ is displayed (pick one: table padding, absolute positioning, your frustration of the day). Some high percentage of people run their Windows updates, and nearly overnight, IE7.0 is installed in (lets say) 30% of the systems out there.

    So what happens to all the websites that use logic like this:

    If (This is a MS Browser) {

    Funky proprietary IE tweaks that make the page look right in IE6

    } else {

    "Standard Compliant" code that makes it look right in Mozilla

    }

    How will this display in IE7? Depends on how the test is written, I suppose.

    As I’ve written it, it will do the "Funky Tweaks" that looked right in IE6, but now won’t display properly, when we really want it to do the else block.

    A few possibilities:

    1) The pages that use this type of browser specific code are few and unimportant.

    Not likely. I see this kind of thing all the time.

    2) The practical impact of these changes on existing web pages won’t be big enough to worry about.

    Maybe. If the changes you want don’t have a big impact, however, why is it such a big deal that IE be standards-compliant?

    3) IE7 can be written to be both standards-compliant and backwards-compatible.

    In some cases, probably. If IE doesn’t support a particular CSS feature, it can be added, but what about cases where different browsers simply interpret things differently? Is table padding counted as part of the table width? Yes, or No, there is no "sometimes".

    4) The changes to websites can be made quickly and easily.

    Maybe, but IE6 will still be around for a while, even with the release of new versions. IE5 still makes up 8% of the install base.

    Legacy browsers are a huge issue in web development of all kinds, and even if IE changes overnight, we still have legacy webSITES to deal with.

    My ultimate point is that even if everyone (at MS) agreed that moving toward 100% standard compliance was goal #1, actually making it happen without breaking a lot of existing web pages could be quite a bit more complicated than that.

  113. Anonymous says:

    Brad, the scripting situation you are referring to is commonly referred to as browser detection vs object/feature detection. Lots of experienced scripters advocate using object/feature detection to check for support rather than browser detection because it is more robust, as you mention. But, again, as you say, lots of people don’t bother, so it’s necessary to cater to this type of script.

    Have you checked out the discussion about doctype switching? Internet Explorer has already found a way around this "legacy websites" issue in the manner of your third option, and there are other ways of achieving the same thing, as I have suggested elsewhere on this weblog.

  114. Anonymous says:

    I want better printing. Most of the longer technical articles I print out are not readable because text is clipped off the right side. See http://blogs.msdn.com/danlehen/archive/2004/07/19/188075.aspx for an example. Print it out – it’s unreadable because of the clipped text. This is the number one thing that annoys me about IE 6.

  115. Anonymous says:

    I used to love IE and was completely against alternatives Netscape/Mozilla ect. However after using them, I certainly won’t go back to IE, unless some issues are fixed.

    Apart from security and other issues, what’s with the performance?! Whenever I start IE, it takes a whooping 60MB of RAM and that increases as the browsing goes on. Netscape on the other hand takes about third of that?!?!?

    And please don’t try to avoid the real issues by blaming spyware, or something similar. The problem is in the IE itself.

  116. Anonymous says:

    Let’s break it down, shall we?

    # Tabbed browsing : WHO????

    # Better Standards support (improved CSS, Transparent PNG support, XHTML, etc) : YEAH RIGHT!!!!

    # IEv6x is the Courtney Love browser in a world of Kirsten Dunst browsers : v6’x’ WHAT’STHE X FOR????

    # Better pop-up blocking : YEAH RIGHT!!!!

    # People want people to download Mozilla Firefox : FACT.

    # Release an IE7/down-level release : THE PAIN!!!!

    # Fix the security problems : IF WISHES WERE HORSES!!!!

    # Better performance : JOKING RIGHT????

    # Faster update turnaround : BIG DOWNLOADS : WHY TROUBLE????

    # Integrating browsing into any OS is a bad idea : NOW YOU REALISE !!!!

    # Developer tools are goodness for web devs : HMMM…

    # A Windows Service Pack is not the same size as a Mozilla Firefox or Opera install : BUT IT DOES HAVE 10000 TIMES THE BUGS

    # Did I mention standards support already? : DID YOU NOW?

    # I shouldn’t take this personally, people have been waiting for a while to vent on somebody :SORRY.

    # People want to understand the roadmap for IE : SPARE THE TROUBLE.

    Sorry if it hurt you.

  117. Anonymous says:

    Tabbed browsing isn’t that much important. There are a lot of cool frontends to IE (NetCaptor, AvantBrowser, etc.) that implement this feature. I wouldn’t give it too much attention if I were you.

    IE should first be a good, solid net-related control for browsing HTML and surfing on networks.

    About the standards : they suck. They have gaps, they contradict each other, and sometimes they are plain stupid (I prefer a lot more IE’s implementation of the box model than FireFox’s, and don’t even get me started on floating DIVs). BUT you have to have a consistency to web pages. So even if those standards suck and are stupid, you have to implement them (well in fact, they’re not even standards, they’re recommandations…). On the other hand, I’d like to see MS get a lot more involved with the W3C in order to clean up their mess. If you look at the browser validation pages for CSS1 on their website (dating back to 98 at least), you’ll notice that they don’t even test everything, so you basically have IE and FireFox both validating for CSS1 compliance, but when you design something only with CSS1 features, you can easily end up with huuuuuge differences. This is just completely outrageous, knowing how old CSS1 is.

    So I’d like a more standards-compliant IE, but I’d also like to see a W3C that is a bit less incompetent.

    Security problems : obviously a top priority.

  118. Anonymous says:

    Please look at here:

    http://www.meyerweb.com/eric/css/edge/complexspiral/demo.htm

    This is such an amazing css2 effect and it doesn’t work with IE :-(

  119. Anonymous says:

    FWIW, here are the four things I love about Firefox the most:-

    1. pop-up blocker

    2. tabbed browsing

    3. the web seach bar (the text box just to the right of the location bar)

    4. the ease of extensibility of the search bar (starting from zero knowledge I wrote a plugin to search the Yahoo! Movies site in about 20 minutes)

  120. Anonymous says:

    Security aside, W3C Standards are what it’s all about…until IE (developed by Microsoft, which has the most resources on Earth and, I believe, is a member of that standards-development body) will accept that developers want standards for valid, everyday life reasons (and not just to bash Microsoft), then developers will indeed bash MS.

    Adobe and Macromedia are just two examples of companies that have excellent relations with their customers: Photoshop artists are respected, Dreamweaver developers are courted, etc. – none of us outside of Microsoft need Bill Gates to come do our dishes for us (we’re not asking MS to do *everything*), but the year-after-year, arrogant disregard for what *actual* CUSTOMERS want is beginning to reap its proper rewards.

    A Wish-List for IE?:

    1 – FULL native support for CSS 1, 2, and as much of 3 as possible

    2 – FULL native support for MathML (yes, real people actually do want, and *need*, this) – think scientists, mathematicians, researchers, statisticians, etc.

    3 – FULL native support for PNG

    4 – FULL native support for SVG

    5 – FULL native support for XML *and* XHTML (delivered either as html or xml)

    6 – Tabbed Browsing

    7 – pop-up blocking (customizeable by site)

    8 – NO ActiveX, Smart Tags integration or dependencies

    9 – NO integration with the OS

    10 – NO integration with other Office products

    11 – SMALL Core Footprint, with the ability for plug-in/extension development to provide for more specific features

    12 – DROP Alexa: it’s spyware

    13 – FIX IE’s printing bug, where it prints something like "file://C:DOCUME~1(name)LOCALS`1TempNNL02KNO.htm" instead of simply printing a web page’s actual URL

    Until such time as IE sports some of these *basic*, *necessary* features, here are a few resources that are more useful than the way-out-of-date marketing…opps, sorry, technical, info provided by Microsoft:

    http://www.google.com/search?q=IE%27s+shortcomings&sourceid=firefox&start=0&start=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

    http://css-discuss.incutio.com/?page=CategoryBrowserBug

    http://www.positioniseverything.net/index.php

    http://www.blooberry.com/indexdot/css/supportkey/syntax.htm

    http://www.quirksmode.org/css/contents.html

    http://westciv.com/style_master/academy/browser_support/index.html

    http://nemesis1.f2o.org/bugs

    http://www.stopdesign.com/log/2004/01/26/ie-factor.html

    http://www.galaxygoo.org/blogs/archives/000528.html

    http://geocities.com/csssite/index.xml

    http://www.mozilla.org/start/1.0/guide/product.html#standards

    http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/why/

    http://texturizer.net/firefox/extensions/

    Sorry, but you’ll need Mozilla, Firefox, Netscape 7.1, or other Gecko-based browser to see some of these sites properly, since IE doesn’t fully support standards such as MathML, SVG, PNG, CSS, etc.

    PLEASE, listen to us…some of us actually DO like IE…but it has caused more trouble than any other single piece of software is many of our lives…and I’m not saying that to be mean or make you feel bad.

    I would LOVE to see an IE with incredible standards support and tough-as-nails security…wouldn’t happy developers constitute a small (or maybe not-so-small) army of marketers eager to tout the benefits of such an IE to all *their* customers, if they had a reliable browser from you?

    That just seems like good business.

  121. Anonymous says:

    Start quote ————–

    Actually, Brad raises an interesting point. The actual source code in question on this page is:

    if (window.navigator.appName.toLowerCase().indexOf("microsoft") > -1) {

    theform = document.Form1;

    } else {

    theform = document.forms["Form1"];

    }

    ————— End quote

    This is why PPK of quirksmode.org fame recommends testing for features (e.g. if (document.Form1) { stuff; } else { stuff; }) rather than browser sniffing.

    This particular example is retarded because you should really just use document.getElementById(), which all the modern browsers support.

    Anyway, my first wish is for better CSS support (selectors first, then new properties like min-width).

    Second is better XML/XHTML support (application/xhtml+xml, anyone? see http://www.hixie.ch/advocacy/xhtml).

    Third is more standards-compliant DOM support; it’s already good, and I like some of the MS extensions (innerHTML is great), but I’d be delighted to eliminate JS code branching.

    Browser features like tabbed browsing? Let MyIE and CrazyBrowser handle that stuff. OTOH, it may be the only thing that can get Joe User to download a new version of IE. Why would he care about rendering engine updates?

  122. Anonymous says:

    Oh, I forgot PNG32. Man, that definitely comes right after CSS and before better XHTML and DOM support.

  123. Anonymous says:

    Yes. Communicate IE’s roadmap to the community… It feels like the clock has stopped! IE6 and that’s it :( I’m sure you guys have plans… give us a taste of things to come…

  124. Anonymous says:

    First I want to say that I greatly appreciate the time and effort that Microsoft and its employees are taking to better Internet Explorer.

    Now to my wish list.

    1. Better CSS1 and especially CSS2 support. This is a _huge_ deal, since if CSS support were there – we would be able to start delivering our HTML content as just that, HTML content without having to put look/feel elements (layout, style etc) into our HTML documents.

    2. XHTML, reasoning is similar to wish list #1.

    3. Transparent PNG support as well as SVG support. See wish list #1 for reasoning.

    4. Block popups (or whatever is allowing SpyWare/MalWare to be installed on my computer without me authorizing it). The fact of the matter is, is that people are starting to turn away from using Internet Explorer because of the lax Standards that it implements and secondily – people are getting fed-up with their browser being hi-jacked by SpyWare/MalWare.

    As for the rest, I don’t have any problems with performance of IE launching or running as well as having any problems with what others have stated. IE consumes little resources compared to alternate browsers. Tabbed browsing would be nice to have some day – but I would greatly like to have the Standards (CSS, XHTML, PNG, SVG) implemented and security taken care of FIRST before any new "features" were added.

    I hope my comments help your development team.

    Many Thanks,

    Micheal

  125. Anonymous says:

    aaa

  126. Anonymous says:

    Not better standards support, the BEST and COMPLETE standards support. Please!

  127. Anonymous says:

    I think IE’s a pretty good browser. I have to work with CSS support from version four browsers, and compared to that, IE, as well as any modern browser is incredible. There have been two features I’ve always pined for, though. They’re big features that would probably be a lot of work, but here goes:

    * Some kind of compiled Javascript, not unlike Java bytecode. Oftentime I’ve been working with DHTML user interfaces and have been limited by the speed of the interpreter and HTML renderer. I don’t know what sorts of speed boost that would give, but it’s out there now.

    * Also, some means with CSS to sync heights. One of the reasons I still use tables for layouts is I have trouble making one container the same size as another. Maybe something along these lines:

    <style>

    #x {

    height: #someElementsID

    }

    </style>

    Anyways, this blog is pretty cool. It’s nice to see some real human response from a company as big as Microsoft.

  128. Anonymous says:

    dnl2ba,

    > This is why PPK of quirksmode.org fame recommends testing for features (e.g. if (document.Form1) { stuff; } else { stuff; }) rather than browser sniffing.

    Yes. I disagree with PPK on a hell of a lot of things, but this is one case where he is absolutely right.

    > This particular example is retarded because you should really just use document.getElementById(), which all the modern browsers support.

    I’m pretty sure that Internet Explorer 4.0 (among others) doesn’t support that, whereas I don’t know of a single user-agent that doesn’t support document.forms[] but does support document.formname – my point was that there was *zero* downside to using a single line of code instead of their conditional.

    Joe,

    > Also, some means with CSS to sync heights. One of the reasons I still use tables for layouts is I have trouble making one container the same size as another.

    CSS 2 has had this feature for over SIX YEARS!

    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/tables.html

    Nobody uses it because Microsoft never bothered implementing it in Internet Explorer. This is precisely why so many people are clamouring for Microsoft to address CSS support.

  129. Anonymous says:

    In addition to features mentioned before, stylable form elements (such as combobox and radiobutton) would be very nice as well 😉

  130. Anonymous says:

    — I want IE to stop downloading things like .cab files when I am on a site, I really, really hate that. —

    How about a checkbox on that spyware installer window stating "No I honestly never ever want to install any crap from GAIN/Gator corporations" instead of "Always trust content from GAIN/Gator which the average idiot always selects :(

    The cab file isn’t wrong, the most popular applications using it just are.

  131. Anonymous says:

    What about a status update on whats going on after all these responses? Just so that people know that all thats written here is actually read.

  132. Anonymous says:

    I like to save web pages localy. IE will fail the whole save if one item in the page is unsavable. This process should be user over-ridable, without coding. Furhter very often I want to remove just a piece of the page. It would be nice to have an annotated xml record attatched to the cip board with the content. Additionally it would be nice to have a link view of the page, and a scriptable interface so that I can give insttuction on page down load batch instructions along the link tree.

    Most importantly move IE out of the COM object model and into the .NET object model. Com interfaces are Kludgy, from the managed world.

    Make it possibile to take over client space in the browser without Active X. Infact completely move all COM features of IE into the .NET/managed world. Since moving .NET’s object model to the managed world should also make it easier to access from non-.NET language environment’s ie Java, for non-Windows IE users.

  133. Anonymous says:

    Just to further emphasize what’s already been said.

    Give us W3C standards!

  134. Anonymous says:

    One simple request: when I tell IE to download something to a certain drive (i.e., not the drive IE was installed on), I want it to ACTUALLY download the file to the drive i specify. I do not want it to download the file to a temporary folder on the installation drive first and then move it over to the drive I specified.

    Simple things like that are really annoying.

  135. Anonymous says:

    The big difference between IE and Mozilla is attitude…not only do they fix security problems fast, but they’re VERY into making their browser REALLY secure, and have just implemented an idea that I suggested a few days ago to you guys: pay those who find security problems.

    Check this out:

    http://www.mozilla.org/press/mozilla-2004-08-02.html

  136. Anonymous says:

    filetypes :

    no cheating with filetypes (transformation based upon name for instance).

    no "clever" guessing of filetypes (transfomation based upon contents of the document).

    XHTML compliance (with correct filetypes).

    ALWAYS obey Content-Type header, and no cheating after that.

    Let people fix their server crap configuration.

    Making cheats *an option* that is NOT set by default.

    I mean if you see "&nbsp " instead of "&nbsp; " you should not automatically fix it unless the browser has been manually set to (and even so, it’s stupid, just let people fix their garbage HTML and forget this behaviour).

  137. Anonymous says:

    I have to agree that integrated SVG support would be a killer feature, enough for me to swich back (provided the rest is reasonably on par with other browsers of course). I switched to IE when v3.02 came out, because of the better support for CSS (as many did when IE4 was released). SVG would have a similar impact.

    Even SVG Tiny would be fine, provided it is version 1.2, with (at least) MicroDOM support. Heck, even Macromedia is doing SVG these days, you’re the last kids in the game 😉

  138. Anonymous says:

    Stupid question : making IE a cool, robust and secure browser is wonderful but… isn’t it going to lead MS into court regarding an abuse of leading position ? Aren’t other browser developping companies going to whine that MS doesn’t give them a chance ?

  139. Anonymous says:

    Since OE is distributed along with IE, what about giving OE a facelift too?

    1. Fix issue with OE (sometimes) downloading the same message twice

    2. Empty Junk Folder option

    3. Empty Trash/Junk even if there is only 1 message in the folder

  140. Anonymous says:

    Quote: "Stupid question : making IE a cool, robust and secure browser is wonderful but… isn’t it going to lead MS into court regarding an abuse of leading position ? Aren’t other browser developping companies going to whine that MS doesn’t give them a chance ?"

    Opera will whine probably, just like Real did about WMP. But as with Real, people are not not using Real because WMP is unfair competition, but because their product is a spyware-bloated bad working piece of crap. WMP is just a tool so anyone can play music and video on their computer even if they don’t know how to download: everyone I know uses WinAmp. If Real would fix their product, they would get a following.

    The exact same applies to Opera: Mozilla has demonstrated with their main suite and with Firefox that it’s possible to fight the ‘monolith that is Microsoft’ with a simply superior product. Hell, even I am using Firefox for my main browsing duties.

    That is exactly what Microsoft should aim for with IE: like WMP the browser should be standards-compliant, sufficient for daily browsing, and not ‘good’ enough for the serious users. As long as they don’t use their position to *freely* distribute *superior* products noone *can* whine.

    I hope Microsoft will also fix their attitude about making their own websites only function in IE. I mean, there’s a tutorial on the internet that shows how to make Microsoft.com XHTML/CSS based, standards-compliant, and less than half the download size. Yet Microsoft refuses to fix it and leaves it performing badly in alternative browsers…. And if I give my full opinion about WindowsUpdate not containing a <body> tag so no alternative browser can render it this comment will be deleted, so I will not go there 😉 Fixing the attitude also means fixing those websites. You are in the damn W3C yourselves, then at least your 3 main portals (microsoft.com, msn.com and windowsupdate.com) should comply to it. Outlook Web Access is a good 4th….

  141. Anonymous says:

    Bah, why should MS "fix" their attitude about websites only working in IE? Should apple "fix" their software to make it run on PCs?

    Besides, MS has used HTC behaviours on a lot of their sites, particularly MSDN, and Mozilla et al do not support this technology. The HTC model is light-years ahead of the w3c spec for CSS/javascript. (for more info: http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4744 ).

    The investment bank I work for actively prevents anyone from using a non-IE browser on our systems. Because we can guarantee that people use IE, we can develop a consistent model for look and feel of our web-based systems. I wish I could say the same for the internet at large. Very rarely do we see IE’s much-criticised bugs affecting any real-world app development. Mozilla, Opera and their ilk piss me off because if you look into them more deeply you will find they are riddled with bugs (in fact, just take a look at bugzilla!), and have some severe rendering issues (see http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4883 ). The free version of Opera is plagued with banner ads, and goodness knows about the rendering engines in the more minor candidates, I shudder to think about having to support their quirks.

    Other browsers should be cloning the de-facto standards set by IE. That’s what happened when Intel created the x86 architecture and now there is healthy competition. It takes a real-live company (not a glorified discusssion board, like w3c) to implement innovative products. The industry should not have to wait for a the w3c to drip-feed us new internet standards. MS are way ahead on powerful presentation and logic standards (filter classes, css/htc behaviour model, enhanced javascript dom, to name but a few). F**k the upstarts – embrace the power of the market leader and make more constructive use of your time!

  142. Anonymous says:

    I’m not a developer nor a programmer, I’m just your average internet junkie and I stopped using IE6 months ago in favor of Firefox. It’s impossible to imagine going back now. My wife is even less internet savvy than me but after using Firefox a few times she won’t use IE.

    Firefox is faster, it has more features, I like the ability to change the look of it, the standards thing… etc. I absolutely HATE advertising and I love that with Firefox I can right click and block ads from specific servers. Tabbed browsing keeps the taskbar uncluttered.

    In the months before I switched, IE was hijacked a few times and a bunch of crap was installed on my machine which took a great deal of effort to delete. I just don’t have those worries with Mozilla… yet, anyway. It seems like I have a LOT more control over my browsing experience with Firefox than with IE and so I guess my suggestion to the fine folks at Microsoft would be to make IE as customizeable as possible.

    I like Microsoft products and I’m not a Microsoft basher by any stretch but when it comes to IE… fuggetaboutit.

  143. Anonymous says:

    Google have developed a brilliant addin for IE (only), called the Google Toolbar. Firstly, it blocks popups and secondly it integrates perfectly with the search engine. When you type in search terms into the toolbar and press enter, the search will be run and the search terms will become buttons on the Google Toolbar. You just have to click on them to find where they occur within the page. Plus, the toolbar has a form auto-filler and displays the Google page-rank of the current page.

    As for tabbed browsing, I have used this in Mozilla and Opera, comparing it to running several IE instances, listed on a vertically-docked start-bar. I prefer IE’s "tabbed browsing" experience. For me it works just as well, and you can potentially arrange several browsers on one screen. Also, the browser is well supported by the OS, it loads in a jiffy. I don’t find that the taskbar gets cluttered.

    If any of the alternative browsers get popular you will find that hackers and scammers will start targeting them just like IE. I don’t buy it when people say IE is intrinsically less secure. It’s simply more heavily targeted because it’s what everyone is using. Plus there are many beginners using IE as it comes packaged with Windows. These people are more likely to fall for scams and click on banners etc. As for web standards.. well don’t get me started on that – there is so much ignorance displayed in these comments I could go on all day! There is a holy war, a jihad, against Microsoft and I’m sad to see otherwise intelligent people get swept up in it in their droves.

  144. Anonymous says:

    Desperately missing from the list:

    1. A download manager built into IE as in Firefox, having the options to be displayed as its own window, a tab, or a sidebar.

    2. Fix the favicons, seperate them from the cache and permanently attach them to shortcut file itself. (Their disappearance and having to use FavOrg is very annoying).

  145. Anonymous says:

    I don’t agree on Tab Browsing. If IE is an intergated Browser. Than This extra function should be left to others. May be IE could have a plug in system to add this fuction?

    I think IE 6.5 should be geared towards Developer. With ALL the Standard support.

    And Improve Languages Selection. I don’t know how you go about it but currently i fails to detect some site. Some english sites uses chinese to render while some chinese uses English…………. Not good enough huh?

  146. Anonymous says:

    Fix IE’s cache!

    This is part of standards compliance. In lots of cases the IE browser cache does not work correctly. For example combining gzip with etags does not work. Caching gzipped js and css files does not work consistantly, and document caching is anyone’s guess. These bugs have existed for years.

    Caches are integral to the browsing experience. IE feels slower than firefox largely because it’s caching code is screwed up.

  147. Anonymous says:

    Interesting.. isn’t this kind of feedback from users what Netscape tried to do before releasing Mozilla? And if I remember correctly it worked pretty well, listening to the users’ feeback.

    I’m a hardcore linux user myself, however, the last thing I want to see are users stuck with spyware infested windows boxes, so I wish you guys well in your efforts to improve IE.

  148. Anonymous says:

    The things I’d like see are:

    A. Not having the browser integrated into Windows, if people want to totally remove IE – then let them. People should be able to do whatever they want.

    B. CSS support, up to CSS3

    C. PNG support – oh, this alongside CSS support would be sooo sweet.

    D. Pop up blocking similar to Firefox’s

    E. Tabs!

  149. Anonymous says:

    I had to use Konqueror to get this from to work in Opera.

    Wow, transparent png support. Sounds like a huge undertaking. Don’t overdue yourselves.

  150. Anonymous says:

    > Bah, why should MS "fix" their attitude about websites only working in IE? Should apple "fix" their software to make it run on PCs?

    Bad analogy – HTML was designed to be cross-platform right from the start, you have to go out of your way to only make things work for a particular browser.

    > The investment bank I work for actively prevents anyone from using a non-IE browser on our systems. Because we can guarantee that people use IE, we can develop a consistent model for look and feel of our web-based systems.

    This is completely untrue. You cannot ensure a consistent look and feel even if you restricted a website to Internet Explorer only. Even if you could, over here in the UK, such an action would be in breach of the DDA and therefore illegal. If you are in the UK, please talk to your solicitors about this. You may wish to even if you aren’t operating in the UK, as other countries have similar laws (e.g. Australia, where an IBM client, SOCOG, got sued for tens of thousands of dollars).

    Quite frankly, it is worrying that somebody working on a *bank’s* website doesn’t understand one of the basic principles of the WWW; namely that consistency is not only impossible but undesirable.

    > Very rarely do we see IE’s much-criticised bugs affecting any real-world app development.

    Working around Internet Explorer’s bugs sucks up a good portion of my time at work, and others have posted similar opinions. I take it you haven’t run into the bugs where the entire text of a page disappears? Or where sections of the page just get cut off halfway through? Internet Explorer has many, non-trivial bugs.

    > see http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4883

    I find it amusing that you moan about Mozilla’s shortcomings whilst simulataneously messing about with floats to try and make up for the fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t support display: table-cell. Oh, and just because your website complies with the specifications and does what you want in Internet Explorer, it doesn’t mean that Internet Explorer is doing the right thing and Mozilla has a bug; for example, text-align: center shouldn’t centre block-level elements, but you can put that in a valid stylesheet and Internet Explorer will do it, whilst Mozilla won’t – that is a bug in Internet Explorer.

    > Other browsers should be cloning the de-facto standards set by IE.

    Which Internet Explorer would that be? Internet Explorer 5.0? Internet Explorer 5.2? Internet Explorer 5.5? Internet Explorer 6.0 ("Quirks mode")? Internet Explorer 6.0 ("Standards mode")? Internet Explorer 6.0 ("Quirks mode", post-XP service pack 2)? Internet Explorer 6.0 ("Standards mode", post-XP service pack 2)? Internet Explorer 6.5 or whatever comes next?

    Where are these "de-facto standards" written down? Which ones, in particular, should we be following, and why should we follow them rather than the public specifications *that Microsoft helped create*? If we blindly follow everything Microsoft did, it would essentially be giving Microsoft control of the web. Why on earth would anybody outside of Microsoft be in favour of that?

    > It takes a real-live company (not a glorified discusssion board, like w3c) to implement innovative products.

    So how exactly are Microsoft innovative? Please give specific examples that were not already implemented elsewhere beforehand, that are present in Internet Explorer 6.0.

    > The industry should not have to wait for a the w3c to drip-feed us new internet standards.

    We’re still waiting for Microsoft to implement specifications that are between five and eight years old – it’s not the W3C that is slow.

  151. Anonymous says:

    Moloch,

    The problem with Opera and these forms can be worked around with a user stylesheet:

    http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/07/23/193152.aspx#193388

  152. Anonymous says:

    Most of the comments I have seen posted can be translated loosely to "I want IE to do what (my current browser) does". Now my question is, if IE is just going to evolve to copy all the other browsers, so they’re going to be the same, why should I bother to switch to something that’s the same as what I’ve already got?

    Give me a browser that doesn’t have anything I detest, (poor security, rendering, etc, you’ve heard the list already) BUT you’re going to have to give me something extra… something that I can’t get in another browser. Something with substance. An ORIGINAL idea.

    Can you deliver this?

  153. Anonymous says:

    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.

  154. Anonymous says:

    Since most ideas have been said already, one thing I’d like is a way to prevent IE from stealing focus.

    If I have an IE window minimised, or sent to the background, it immediately jumps to the front if there is any activity on it. This is EXTREMELY annoying if I’m trying to read or type something in. It even does it when I’m in other apps.

    There’s a reason taskbar buttons flash on activity: to get attention. The window itself does not need to grab attention by being overly intrusive.

  155. Anonymous says:

    YAY – somewhere I can beg for new IE features!

    OK – first, the biography to put the post in context – 20+ years of professional software development experience. First browser=mosaic, second = lynx. I try every browser – have firefox installed, and use it sometimes, but always go back to IE + google + AI roboform. Yes – I’ve tried the firefox extensions, but they don’t measure up – for instance the "google" copy bar doesn’t have my favorite button – the "blog this" button. I have no affiliation with MS, try every new technology on linux and MS and MenuEt and Syllable as soon as they come out, and have no particular reason to favour one over the other.

    Anyway, my first observation… a lot of people combine stupidity with extreme bigotry, not a good combination. Sure open source is a good thing, but let’s separate the concerns… the question of "what browser is most useful" and "which browser is open source" have nothing even vaguely to do with each other. Please try not to confuse them. Even more funny is the question of "standards". This is where people really demonstrate their lack of IQ. Where is the standard here – a) a piece of paper ratified by a board somewhere or b) a set of functionality in use 95% of the time? Grow up… An ad-hoc standard in use is worth a billion pages of carefully ratified, planned agreed standards lying in a drawer somewhere.

    Anyway.. Saying that, neither IE nor firefox is perfect – but given this is an IE blog, here’s my IE wish list, IN ORDER OF PREFERENCE:

    ==== regular updates ====

    I think what’s disappointed people most about IE is the fact that it appears to have stopped. We don’t count security updates, they’re like bug fixes – but we haven’t seen anything NEW in IE for years. As a developer, we’ve all gone over to agile methods, and as a user, we have come to expect our products, even our operating systems, to give us great new features every few months. For years I swapped between the latest version of netscape and IE – and then IE won – so convincingly that EVERYONE changed over. But that was a long time ago, and people need to feel like their product is keeping up with the times!

    ==== jpeg 2000 ====

    PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t go PNG. We don’t need another piece-of-s*** file format. JPEG2000 was produced by the very very bright among us, and is extraordinarily good. However, it’s languishing in need of popular acceptance, and if you give people PNG, they’ll go down that route. PLEASE support JPEG2000 and give us a file format that can take us into the future, not keep us in the past!

    ==== intelligent caching ====

    I think the biggest performance problem in IE is that the cache can be a lot more intelligent. We shouldn’t update or not update based on the whole page, some pages could be learned. For instance: I go to SlashDot every day.. The contents always change, but the pictures don’t ever. The explorer could very easily guess that the picture won’t change, and not attempt to load it. Every now and then, it can check "after the fact".

    Same thing with other pages. You have your news pages, but the majority of pages people go to are quite static. The browser could start remembering pages that haven’t changed between a few days – and again, present the page out of the cache IMMEDIATELY – only checking after the fact, and blinking to the new page (with a quick "I’m sorry" tooltip) later.

    Another suggestion would be pre-caching – guessing at clicks, following through the first search etc – so that the page is in the cache when the user decides they want to go there.

    Another suggestion would be to see pages that are accessed frequently, (news pages) and watch them every few hours, hoping to pre-cache them.

    Basically, I think there are thousands of little tweaks that can be done in terms of pre-loading, not-loading, guessing at things – aiming at a much higher cache-hit ratio than we are currently getting!

    ==== update me button ====

    How many times have you done something like posted a comment on a blog? Or you are watching something on ebay? or you have a news page that you like going to. There are many reasons why, when you are looking at a page, you want to be aware when that page changes. There are lots of ways to do it, and lots of programs, plugins that do it, but all I want is single button "Update me" that I can click – and when my system detects a change to the page a little notification box pops up. I can choose view, later, and/or stop watching this page now. Would be useful.

    ==== Rendering performance ====

    FASTER.

    ==== better find in page ====

    Anyone noticed that ie’s find in page just SUCKS? It’s easier to find something across the whole internet than it is to find it in the page that came back!

    ==== Integrated find with OS ====

    really, if I type a find into my google toolbar, and there’s a match on my local disk or in an email, I want it to come up. Yes, I use Lookout, but I don’t like having two different entry points. If I want to find something, I want to find it – I don’t want to have to make distinctions between my system, my lan, or the internet – I just want to find everything to do with BLAH.

    ==== built in svg ====

    come on all… let’s try to stamp out flash! It CAN BE DONE!

    ==== firefox extensions ====

    Got some good people out there doing some good extensions for firefox. Wouldn’t be hard for IE to use those extensions.

    ==== page faults / GDI ====

    I have a gig of memory, but IExplore does a hell-of-a-lot of page swapping, and uses an obscene amount of GDI objects. FireFox seems to be worse on memory, better on GDI.. Ideally both of those go down!

    ==== blog this/ news / RSS support ====

    Especially now that we’re reading RSS as formatted blogs, we have web page newsreaders, we have pages allowing us to submit news items, blogs etc, it’s time to lose the line between NNTP/RSS/HTTP. The browser should be able to present threaded hierarchical information, and allow for editing responses to such.

    ==== remember this password ====

    ANY dialog that has an option, should have an equivalent counter option. The remember this password box has a "Yes", a "NO", and a "never show me this again". HMM – what if (as is the case) I want to say "never show me this again – the answer will always be YES". Every time the dialog pops up, I get annoyed

    ==== anti-feature: tabbed browser ====

    I think a lot of people would find that if they turned off the very evil "re-use browser windows" option – in advanced, they’d want this a lot less. MDI is a very bad thing.. Applications shouldn’t do their own window management. If you want things like tabs, you should be approaching the people designing your window manager (ie Microsoft or StarDock) – NOT the people designing your apps. It would be very easy for instance for a developer to make a desktopX object to give tabs to every application that had multiple instances loaded – which is a far far better approach than building that functionality into one specific item. PLEASE DON’T ENCOURAGE PEOPLE PUTTING AN WINDOW SYSTEM FEATURE INTO A SPECIFIC APP. IT’S VERY VERY WRONG. Imagine I produced a program with my own NTFS driver built into it? Just as stupid.

  156. Anonymous says:

    I must state that if Internet Explorer is to ever get tabbed browsing that it is imperative that the implementation be as complete as that of Visual Studio 2005 (Whidbey). This is the absolute epitome of the TDI metaphor with multiple tab groups, the ability to make docked tabbed groups and also the ability to tear tabs off into free-floating windows. That last feature would be a killer above all current implementations of tabbed browsing and is something I’ve seen mentioned on sites like Slashdot as being a problem in FireFox. It is very important in a multiple monitor world to be able to take a page loaded in a tab and tear it off to drag it to another monitor, and then be able to load more tabs into that page and so on. The possibilities would be limitless. Of course TDI should also be optional for those that don’t want to use it.

    I would also like to see the ability to block all plugin/activeX content from executing on a page unsoliticited, by plugin/control and by page. For example I can state that I never want Flash animations to run automatically and instead I would get a placeholder where the animation would be. I could then click on that placeholder to get a menu that would allow me to execute that specific piece of content, execute all content of that type on this page or to execute all content on this page. This would improve security because nothing would execute without the user knowing. It would improve performance because bulky content would not be loaded up-front. It would also improve usability in environments like Remote Desktop because animations or other content would not overwhelm the existing bandwidth. The same options for images would be excellent.

  157. Anonymous says:

    i love ie 6 and just worrry about security is about it. i surf a lot and have tried all the major browsers. none compare to ie for speed and fault free use imo. i use netcaptor 7.52 on top of ie 6 for its tabbed enhancements. avant browser does the same thing but has had problems with memory leaks.

    netcaptor does act buggy at times.

    i am a very long time mac user that moved to windows with win98 second.

    now firmly a windows user.

    ie could stand to learn a lot from necaptor 7.52

    see how they allow control of the tabs…closing with right click or center click

    tabs are there from last closing state of browser when the browser is reopened.

    favorites menu expands horizontally so you dont have to scroll vertically through a huge list if your list is that large.

    look at flashget 1.6 as a sample of the best download manager. senses selections of multiple urls and pops up the dl manager when you do so….dls in streams and really maximizes a connections max speed. allows dls of more than one file at a time for those on super fast lines…

    id say make ie with all the features people are discussing, but leave them to be turned on by the savvy user. ie as it is fine for nearly everyone. most dont want tabs as a single window is more than enough to handle.

    keep up the great work ms!

  158. Anonymous says:

    don’t just play catch up – INNOVATE.

  159. Anonymous says:

    Please fix the "bug" where you can’t position an element on top of a selectbox.

    Then I could remove a whole lot of needless complex workaround code from my web apps.

  160. Anonymous says:

    *** XML performance

    There are several situations where the XML parser stops parsing. For example when doing an XSL or XSLT transformation.

    *** Edit masks

    I mean you can put edit masks in with JavaScript, but as a regular expression where it just puts in the characters there’s no choice on. Now that would be nice.

  161. Anonymous says:

    I want a toggle button on the tool bar that turns the proxy on/off. Drives me nuts every time log on or off of VPN.

  162. Anonymous says:

    i would like to have the flexibility of placing the address bar wherever i wish to. I prefer to have it at the botton. I use opera and it provides me exactly what i want.

    Also, there needs to be a better way of storing bookmarks. Opera’s bookmark is decent, but still can be improved. Also there should be a flexibility of exporting/importing bookmarks to/from XML/html.

    I want an integrated rss reader too with IE. Mozilla’s sage seems to be nice, but a lot is left to be desired.

  163. Anonymous says:

    Also, the back button is incredibly slow. Try Opera’s back button and see for yourself how fast it is.

  164. Anonymous says:

    1. Full adjustability of rendering properties for SELECT tag (dimensions, borders, z-index position, etc.)

    2. Disable Cross Domain Security (CDS) feature when server, for which are security rules applied, allow it, e.g. over HTTP field. CDS obstruct usability of behaviour HTC files as library on one domain for many web servers.

    3. Adjustable blocking for JavaScript page redirecting and window resizing

    4. Fix bug in RegExp, /.+/ no match with string that contains new-line (n or rn)

  165. Anonymous says:

    > We shouldn’t update or not update based on the whole page, some pages could be learned. For instance: I go to SlashDot every day.. The contents always change, but the pictures don’t ever. The explorer could very easily guess that the picture won’t change, and not attempt to load it.

    Please don’t even think about implementing this. There are already ways for website authors to mark that their images are static. This is predictable and flexible.

    What happens when a website author changes an image that Internet Explorer doesn’t anticipate? The wrong thing happens.

    Stick to the standard approach – Last-Modified, ETag, Cache-Control, If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match. This works with all browsers and doesn’t screw things up.

  166. Anonymous says:

    I think the most fundamental thing that needs fixing is the printing. Even just having a fit-to-width option would make a world of difference as so many web-sites put menus down the left hand side and the article text ends up being clipped. n-upping pages (i.e. 2 pages per sheet, 4 pages per sheet etc) would be nice too.

    Of course I suppose that a Java 2 JVM would be asking too much…

  167. Anonymous says:

    Hi.

    I would say complete XHTML 1.1 & CSS2 support is most important as has already been mentioned.

    Keeping the developers happy makes the web a better place. Poor support for current technologies limits creativity.

    As for user features the changes are far more trivial requiring only tabbed browsing and a pop up blocker. This should keep the media happy as well.

    Once again, I would place strongest emphasis on the interpretation of XHTML and CSS2. Specifically.

    * child selectors like td:first-child, td:last-child

    * position:fixed

    * input:hover

    * fix the box model

    Merely fixing such CSS issues would make a big difference in the way IE is perceived by developers and their recommendations to users. I determine what browsers my clients use and so far it isn’t IE.

    Improving CSS support will lower reliance on JavaScript to compensate for these missing features.

    Why is it that standards support is seen as a trivial and optional request? It is precisely this that determines the kind of content that appears on the web.

    Thank you for finally establishing a channel of communication with the public and I wish you all the best.

    Narada Sage.

  168. Anonymous says:

    > fix the box model

    They’ve already fixed the box model – if Internet Explorer is in "standards mode".

  169. Anonymous says:

    update IE on the Mac at least once more.

  170. Anonymous says:

    Look at Avant Browser as a model for features.

    – Block and click-to-play Flash (see Firefox extension)

    – easily-switchable background colours

    – proper text resizing

    – remember tabs and their locations on browser re-start

  171. Anonymous says:

    I’ve run Windows since Win95, and IE since 3.0, without any anti-virus software. I’m diligent about using WindowsUpdate, not opening untrusted attachments, not accepting spyware, keeping security settings high, and I never had a problem, never got a virus. In fact I was a big supporter of IE, writing ASP web apps which took advantage of its XML/DOM support, behaviors, DHTML, and even ActiveX in trusted environments.

    Finally about two months ago I got hit. I forget what it was, but it hijacked my home page, my default search engine, added bookmarks, and redirected URLs. I’m not exactly sure how I got it, I wasn’t really concerned, but I was able to identify down to about a 1/2 hour when I was infected, and looked at the sites I had visited in that time. I still don’t know exactly what happened, I didn’t notice anything unusual, but I didn’t really care, IE failed me. I downloaded Firefox the next day and really have found it to be terrific. Firefox became my default browser two days later.

    #1 issue: security

  172. Anonymous says:

    Speculation is fife at the moment about a possible Internet Explorer 7 update ahead of the planned Longhorn operating system update. There seems to be some substance to the speculation, especially the recent request on the recently launched IE…

  173. Anonymous says:

    Jim, as I said, the investment bank I work for actively prevents anyone from using a non-IE browser on our systems. Because we can guarantee that people use IE, we can develop a consistent model for look and feel of our web-based systems.

    This applies to our intranet systems, with approx 70,000 users. If you enter the site with another browser you are presented with a message and blocked from viewing content. For developers like me it’s great! No more minority browsers to deal with. As for people wanting to using "themes" or "gestures" for their browsers, you don’t get much of that round here because this is the -real world- and people don’t have the time or the inclination to geekily toy with their browsers. The users of our systems are also not concerned that we have strict w3c xhtml compliance – they are interested in the CONTENT of our pages and tend to care (or notice) if we happen to have put in an errant uppercase tag or whatever!

    Our intranet site offers dynamic data via ActiveX controls and none of this would work in Mozilla or Opera or whatever other browser, so that’s that.

    As for the legal implications of this clampdown, for god’s sake – do you really think we should be sued for not allowing our traders the ability to "skin" their browser or use "tabs." Come off it! Geeks can toy with their alternative browsers but Internet Explorer serves a crucial purpose in the real world.

    I know this post will receive the tired old comments about security holes and rendering bugs. As I have said before, IE is a victim of attacks because it is what almost everyone is using. It’s simply not as "worthwhile" attacking any other browser at present. As for rendering bugs, there’s enough in Mozilla to devote a whole website to (bugzilla). I have found some myself simply in making my homepage – see http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4883

    As for Opera, there’s no way I will tolerate banner ads within the browser itself, and there’s no way I will pay for a browser when IE does everything I want, perfectly integrates with my OS and with Google via the Google Toolbar.

  174. Anonymous says:

    I would ask for support of two items:

    1. SVG with support for events. (Work with W3c to add an evend for drag and drop handling.) Currently, short of some overly bloated Java code or obscured flash, there is no good way of implementing a next generation (in my mind) web page that is cross platform and has a level of interactivity and integration similar to current desktop applications. SVG with events (and D&D) will give us the baseline tools for a new generation of interactivitly and integration of websites and applications.

    2. Support for federated identity. This will provide a seamless and simplified user experience where they are not interrupted with continious login prompts between integrated 3rd party sites/apps/sevices. Passport was a good first attempt. THis is better: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnwebsrv/html/wsfedinterop.asp

  175. Anonymous says:

    I think by the time IE7 is out, there will be newer standards it will have to support – like CSS3, for example. No question that it will also have to have support for XHTML1.1, CSS2.1 according to W3C specifications. At the same time there are often ambiguities with W3C definitions, especially when it comes to front-end/on-screen rendering (which is what I care most about for my job). By that time many current web developers (like myself) will grow to expect their code (XHTML, CSS) to render how Mozilla renders it now and, most likely, in the future. This may not be because they do everything right – but because they do it best now, and by being a pioneer, of sorts, they set de facto rendering standards and developer expectations. So when IE7 is out I better not see a dotted border be dashed, or how weird little Opera does it now! :)

  176. Anonymous says:

    "Please don’t even think about implementing this. There are already ways for website authors to mark that their images are static. This is predictable and flexible.

    What happens when a website author changes an image that Internet Explorer doesn’t anticipate? The wrong thing happens.

    Stick to the standard approach – Last-Modified, ETag, Cache-Control, If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match. This works with all browsers and doesn’t screw things up. "

    Jim – how many website authors implement this stuff properly? That’s right _none_ (rounded off). But when it comes down to it, you have to be pragmatic. Sure, make it an option you can turn off, but if you gave a user (me) a choice between two systems

    a) one that works perfectly in all situations

    b) one that is on average 10x faster than a) but occasionally gets it wrong, and occasionally you have to hit the refresh again or get shown an old graphic / old page.

    I personally (and I think most rational people) would choose b). Your time is valuable – your integrity of browsing experience… well…. ain’t!

  177. Anonymous says:

    Chris,

    > Because we can guarantee that people use IE, we can develop a consistent model for look and feel of our web-based systems.

    Look and feel is not something you can enforce. Honestly. If you were using PDF or some other format, then I wouldn’t disagree with you. But when it comes to HTML, CSS, etc, look and feel varies. It is *supposed* to vary. That’s how it was designed. If you took away that kind of flexibility, you’d come up against accessibility laws when people with poor eyesight couldn’t bump up the font size, or any number of different things.

    > people don’t have the time or the inclination to geekily toy with their browsers.

    I wouldn’t call making something readable so they can do their jobs "geekily toying with their browsers". If anything, I’d say that a futile effort to get look and feel to be consistent is "geekily toying with browsers".

    > Our intranet site offers dynamic data via ActiveX controls and none of this would work in Mozilla or Opera or whatever other browser, so that’s that.

    I never suggested that your site would work in other browsers. Where did you get that idea?

    > do you really think we should be sued for not allowing our traders the ability to "skin" their browser or use "tabs."

    Once more, I didn’t even come close to saying that. I’m talking about varying look and feel. Things like IBM’s aural browser (based upon Internet Explorer, FYI), bumping up the font size, all manner of things that allow people to access websites where the "intended" design would otherwise prevent them from doing so.

    > As I have said before, IE is a victim of attacks because it is what almost everyone is using.

    And as I have said before, market share is not the reason for insecurity; Apache is the leading web server by far, and yet IIS leads the way in security holes. Nobody has managed to address this point yet.

    > As for rendering bugs, there’s enough in Mozilla to devote a whole website to (bugzilla).

    That’s ridiculous. Most applications that are worked on by a large team have a bug tracker, and Bugzilla is not solely devoted to rendering bugs; they are almost certainly in a minority.

    > I have found some myself simply in making my homepage – see http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=4883

    Yes, did you read what I wrote about that? I’ll paste it in here:

    I find it amusing that you moan about Mozilla’s shortcomings whilst simulataneously messing about with floats to try and make up for the fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t support display: table-cell. Oh, and just because your website complies with the specifications and does what you want in Internet Explorer, it doesn’t mean that Internet Explorer is doing the right thing and Mozilla has a bug; for example, text-align: center shouldn’t centre block-level elements, but you can put that in a valid stylesheet and Internet Explorer will do it, whilst Mozilla won’t – that is a bug in Internet Explorer.

    You haven’t answered my question either: what is innovative about Internet Explorer 6.0?

    Darren,

    > how many website authors implement this stuff properly? That’s right _none_ (rounded off).

    What is your basis for saying that? Last-Modified and ETag are computed automatically by Apache, and it also pays attention to If-Modified-Since and If-None-Match when they are supplied by clients, providing a 304 response when appropriate. That leaves fine-tuning, sure, but the basic mechanism is in use by the *majority* of websites.

    > Sure, make it an option you can turn off, but if you gave a user (me) a choice between two systems

    > a) one that works perfectly in all situations

    > b) one that is on average 10x faster than a) but occasionally gets it wrong, and occasionally you have to hit the refresh again or get shown an old graphic / old page.

    But b) wouldn’t be ten times faster, and it’s more than likely that it will get it wrong *often*.

    The current mechanisms do *exactly* what you want, and are not inherently unreliable. Why is there a need to introduce something new and unreliable that works differently to all the other browsers?

  178. Anonymous says:

    Chris,

    "But b) wouldn’t be ten times faster, and it’s more than likely that it will get it wrong *often*.

    The current mechanisms do *exactly* what you want, and are not inherently unreliable. "

    What’s the single biggest bottleneck? That’s right – connection to the server. I should be able to render the entire page out of the cache faster than I can do a dns lookup on the site, let alone make a connection to it. Asking the last modified date of everything on the page takes a significant amount of time.

    I would render the page, guessing, THEN ask for the last modified date – in parallel. It’s actually quite easy to guess at whether something has changed, and even when you are wrong, your bitmaps might quickly flash away or something, but most of the time you’ll have a page you can use AT LEAST 10x quicker apparently.

    "Why is there a need to introduce something new and unreliable that works differently to all the other browsers?"

    The best program is the one that produces the best user experience – which is almost certainly not the MOST CORRECT user experience. For instance – if I was making a 3d visualisation program, I wouldn’t be having a beautiful fully rendered 3d model spinning around – because it’s far more important for the user to be able to quickly move and change it.. I’d render the objects at far less precision, cut colours ignore shading/shadows etc until I got the speed and feel I was looking for.

    The same thing here – what I want in a user experience with a browser is bang, a page, click a button, bang a new page. I’m quite happy to live with the fact that the google title image I’m looking at may be yesterday’s – because what I want to do is type a search in as quickly as possible. Same with practically any site – even if I go to a news site, I’m far more happy to occasionally go "bummer, this is an old page", and hit refresh than I am to wait looking at three empty tables while it tries to ask the server what the image size of this particular bitmap is.

    "The current mechanisms do *exactly* what you want"

    Obviously they don’t! – I want FASTER.. MUCH, MUCH faster.

    "that works differently to all the other browsers?"

    I couldn’t care less if browsers work similarly or differently. I want a browser that suits me, and works the way I want it to. Why do I care if other browsers don’t? That’s like saying I shouldn’t use Photoshop because it works differently to Microsoft Paint?

  179. Anonymous says:

    > Asking the last modified date of everything on the page takes a significant amount of time.

    *Please* learn a little about HTTP before asking for new features. Web browsers *don’t* need to ask for the last modified date. HTTP caching already deals with this. That is what I am trying to get across to you. There’s no need for a new, unreliable mechanism.

    > most of the time you’ll have a page you can use AT LEAST 10x quicker apparently.

    No. You are still operating under the assumption that a private cache has to validate its cached copy each time. This is incorrect. The *best* your new mechanism can do is be equally as fast as the current mechanism which is reliable and works in every browser. Of course, that’s the *best* it can do, it will often be very much slower, rendering and re-rendering the content when it guesses wrong.

    Us web authors, instead of being able to tune our caching properly, would then have to put up with our websites being slower in Internet Explorer than they were previously and have to worry about tripping up on its guesswork. There would be nothing we could do to improve the situation for our visitors. Right now, things work fine, we can mark when things are valid and when they become stale, when have flexible tools for doing so, and it’s a proven technology that *works*.

  180. Anonymous says:

    Definitely wanting the alpha transparency in PNG-24, that is my number 1 complaint with MSIE, the second one is the CSS Rendering bugs, I design my sites with straight XHTML and then style it using the Web Developer plugin for Firefox which lets me edit the CSS file on the fly and see how it changes the document right infront of my eyes. If I then test the same page in Opera and MSIE it never seems to work in MSIE, I have come to the point where I have a warning on my sites informing the user that they are not getting the full experience of the site due to the standards non-compliance present in their browser and provide a link to download Firefox.

    BTW see if you can get this blog valid, afaik the <link> tag is "empty" so there shouldnt be a </link>, though in terms of XHTML it should be <link /> I am going to take a look to see if its a problem with the .Text blog software though

  181. Anonymous says:

    Chris: "Jim, as I said, the investment bank I work for actively prevents anyone from using a non-IE browser on our systems. Because we can guarantee that people use IE, we can develop a consistent model for look and feel of our web-based systems."

    You’re whole assumption is wrong. You’re not guaranteeing everyone uses IE, you’re guaranteeing that people *NOT* using IE will stop using your bank and bring their hard-earned money to a bank that does support open standards and cares a bit about their Solaris/Mac/Firefox/Mozilla/Konqueror/Safari/whatever based browsing machine. In other words: you are proactively screwing up your company’s profit by negligence and stupidity.

    I am a hardcore Windows-user and use IE about as much as I do Firefox. The only reason I still use IE is because OWA, Knowledge Base and MSDN won’t work entirely on Firefox, and it pisses me off to have to switch browsers. I’m dependent on those 3 things, but I have actually stopped using sites that exposed the same arrogance. HTML is an open standard, use it that way.

  182. Anonymous says:

    Jim – I think we are talking about very different things. Let’s assume no local caching at all. When I type a url into the browser it does the following things:

    1> parse the url, look for a method

    2> prepare a http get header

    3> look up the ip address in dns

    4> make a connection to the ip addresss

    5> send through the http header

    6> download the content

    7> do any content specific layout

    8> render the content

    Now, suppose you had internet explorer set to "Never" in the "Check for new versions". In theory, the steps would be

    1> find url in cache

    2> do any content specific layout

    3> render the content

    now, you SHOULD be able to do ALL OF THAT quicker than you can even get to 3> above – because any IP connection is quite expensive in the scheme of things. Trouble is, you’d never get any updates. The real trick is in the heuristics of finding an in-between solution. How do we get the highest LOCAL cache hit rate we possibly can, so we never have to go anywhere near making a DNS request, let alone a full HTTP connection! All I’m saying is we can get a lot more intelligent. For instance – even when title bitmaps change, they tend to remain the same SIZE. A very smart caching browser could pre-layout the page based on the size of the previous bitmaps, HOPING the new ones will be the same size… in some cases it would get it wrong, but in most cases the apparent user experience would be astronomically quicker. There are certain things that you just can’t do – at some point you have to get the data over the link for instance… but the more trickery, fakery, whatever we put into the browser to give the user a snappier feel, the happier everyone is.

  183. Anonymous says:

    "OWA, Knowledge Base and MSDN won’t work entirely on Firefox, and it pisses me off to have to switch browsers. I’m dependent on those 3 things, but I have actually stopped using sites that exposed the same arrogance. HTML is an open standard, use it that way."

    That’s a complete contradiction, Niels. If HTML truly is an open standard then Microsoft should feel free to extend it, as long as they don’t pollute other people’s namespaces (which they don’t, as far as I know). In the case of MS’s ActiveX, it serves our purposes, so we’ll use it. We know that all our users will be able to use it because our corporate intranet is locked down to Internet Explorer only. When we get any complaints from our 70,000 users about this lock-down (none so far!), perhaps it will be re-considered. But for the time being, our users here in the real world just aren’t that fussed about "gestures" and "tabbed browsing" ..ah well..

    "Look and feel is not something you can enforce … when it comes to HTML, CSS, etc, look and feel varies. It is *supposed* to vary. That’s how it was designed. If you took away that kind of flexibility, you’d come up against accessibility laws when people with poor eyesight couldn’t bump up the font size, or any number of different things."

    Jim, the look and feel of a site is precisely what HTML and CSS is designed to dictate. Yes, of course parts of the actual "look" will vary when the browser is resized, overall text is resized or the colour depth varies or whatever, but good standards ought to offer the designer a full toolset and allow him to have a large level of control over the final look and feel, facilitating such differences. This should, and does, extend to accessibility – the designer should be able to use the same standards to enable blind users to view the website in a consistent fashion too. Since when did I suggest otherwise?? IE was used as the basis for IBM’s aural reader, as you said, so what, exactly is your issue? (are you getting confused and actually arguing FOR internet explorer here?)

    "market share is not the reason for insecurity; Apache is the leading web server by far, and yet IIS leads the way in security holes. Nobody has managed to address this point yet"

    You are diverting the argument to the server market, which is a completely different issue. I would agree with you that some of the best servers are unix based. However, this thread, and this site is discussing the CLIENT market, and specifically, browsers.

    "I find it amusing that you moan about Mozilla’s shortcomings whilst simulataneously messing about with floats to try and make up for the fact that Internet Explorer doesn’t support display: table-cell."

    Since when did I say I wanted to use the "display: table-cell" property? I don’t. Floats work very well on my site, especially from an accessibility point of view. On a handheld device, like my Smartphone, the navigation is displayed first, and the content is displayed underneath. But being the bleeding heart accessibility guru you are, I’m sure you knew that already.

    "what is innovative about Internet Explorer 6.0"

    In answer to your question I have begun documenting what’s special about IE6 on my site at

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/techJournal

    In my opinion the HTC behaviour model alone is reason enough to make me want to develop for IE rather than the minority browsers. HTC behaviours are in a league of their own. With this technology, IE allows javascript behaviour to be propogated through a whole site without having to put any event handlers inline with the HTML. I’m sure developers in this forum could understand the significance of this. HTC can even be used to call SOAP webservices. Plus, IE has a much enhanced JavaScript DOM allowing, for example, HTML elements to be iterated much more neatly than in Mozilla, Opera etc. Since 1997, IE has the awesome filter classes in CSS that allow powerful client-side effects such as gradated transparency and photoshop-style colour filters. IE6 can automatically resize images to fit them within a page, it allows display-time editing (using the contentEditable attribute), coloured scrollbars, media bar, transparent IFrames, vertical text layout, and css zoom property.

    If you need to know more about innovation in IE6 don’t hesitate to ask

  184. Anonymous says:

    Guys, we know you love your pet alternative browsers, but rather than spreading ignorance about IE6, how about helping Microsoft to develop IE7 into the browser that people will want to use? No wonder it takes MS a while to get it to final release it when there’s such a euphoric condemnation and scrutiny from all the self-proclaimed web gurus swept up in the jihad that’s become the "web-standards" battle. None of you will be happy, however good IE7 becomes, because there is always something that some minority browser does, that IE doesn’t. And there are so many personal agendas, for which the w3c has become a festering ground. CSS3 will probably never be finished. It’s a case of too many cooks spoiling the broth.

    Have you noticed how Microsoft’s developers never bitch about the bugs and flaws in other browsers (which do exist, believe it or not!). It seems open-source developers spend most of their time trying to discredit the market leader in order that they might get a slice of the pie. It’s complete hypocricy.

  185. Anonymous says:

    Darren,

    > I think we are talking about very different things. Let’s assume no local caching at all.

    What? Why? Your initial suggestion was entitled "intelligent caching". We are talking about caching mechanisms. Without any local caching, your idea wouldn’t even get off the ground because it _is_ local caching.

    > In theory, the steps would be

    >1> find url in cache

    Hang on a sec, I point out that the current caching mechanism is better than your suggestion, so you say "well it’s not better if it’s turned off", and then proceed to explain how your idea is better, relying on the cache being turned on?

    If you would like to compare like with like (i.e. normal caching behaviour against your proposed behaviour), then go ahead. You’ll find that the current mechanism works very well. But if you are going to create a completely artificial scenario where everything possible is done to slow down the current mechanism, of *course* your method will win – *any* method would.

    > How do we get the highest LOCAL cache hit rate we possibly can, so we never have to go anywhere near making a DNS request, let alone a full HTTP connection!

    How do we get the highest cache hit rate? Simple. We listen to what the website tells us. The web server and web developers are in the best possible position to know when something is going to be in date or out of date. No amount of guesswork or heuristics on the part of the browser will outperform them.

    > but the more trickery, fakery, whatever we put into the browser to give the user a snappier feel, the happier everyone is.

    Firstly, as I have said, it doesn’t give the user a snappier feel. In fact, you have agreed that in the cases that it gets it wrong, a rerendering will be necessary, which is *slow* in the eyes of the user.

    But more importantly, you are removing the opportunity for web authors to tune their caching headers to provide the fastest, most reliable experience for their visitors. That isn’t going to make everyone happier!

    > the look and feel of a site is precisely what HTML and CSS is designed to dictate.

    HTML wasn’t designed with look and feel in mind at all. CSS wasn’t designed to dictate anything, it was designed to _suggest_ presentation. A fundamental concept in CSS is how author suggestions only make up one third of the presentation layer (that’s where the ‘C’ in CSS comes from).

    > Yes, of course parts of the actual "look" will vary when the browser is resized

    Well that is what I was trying to say – the look and feel varies no matter what you try and do about it. I’m not sure why you quote the word "look", I’m not using some outlandish definition of the word.

    > This should, and does, extend to accessibility – the designer should be able to use the same standards to enable blind users to view the website in a consistent fashion too. Since when did I suggest otherwise?

    When you seemed to be saying that you were trying to enforce a particular look and feel. What is a reasonable presentation to one person is an unreasonable presentation to others.

    > IE was used as the basis for IBM’s aural reader, as you said, so what, exactly is your issue?

    That you cannot enforce look and feel, even if you restrict yourself to a single browser.

    > Since when did I say I wanted to use the "display: table-cell" property? I don’t.

    You arrange your website into columns. Floats were only designed to shift stuff to the side within normal flow, they weren’t designed for creating columns. They have numerous disadvantages when they are hacked into doing so.

    display: table-cell, on the other hand, was designed for just this purpose, and is tailor-made for your type of use pattern. Why on earth would you not want to use it?

    > Floats work very well on my site, especially from an accessibility point of view. On a handheld device, like my Smartphone, the navigation is displayed first, and the content is displayed underneath.

    You are talking as if display: table-cell doesn’t do this. It does. Even if it didn’t, that’s what handheld stylesheets are for.

    > In answer to your question I have begun documenting what’s special about IE6 on my site

    No, you said "innovations" to begin with. That means something that is brand new. There are plenty of things that make Internet Explorer "special"; that doesn’t mean that it is innovative.

    I loaded up your page, and the very first thing I saw was a rant about how Mozilla was doing the wrong thing. At the end of the entry, you admit that you were writing invalid CSS – i.e. Mozilla was correctly implementing CSS error handling, ignoring non-zero lengths without units, and Internet Explorer was incorrectly assuming they were pixels. Specification:

    http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-CSS2/syndata.html#parsing-errors

    Then I read further. As far as I can tell, you think innerHTML and HTCs are innovative. I think we are talking at cross-purposes here, I don’t count something as innovative unless it lets you do something new. That’s a high bar – I don’t consider things like tabbed browsing to be innovative; MDI interfaces have been around for decades. Xerox was innovative.

    > HTC behaviours are in a league of their own. With this technology, IE allows javascript behaviour to be propogated through a whole site without having to put any event handlers inline with the HTML.

    You mean like Mozilla’s XBL?

    > HTC can even be used to call SOAP webservices.

    Yep, Mozilla can do this too.

    > Plus, IE has a much enhanced JavaScript DOM allowing, for example, HTML elements to be iterated much more neatly than in Mozilla, Opera etc.

    You see that’s where we disagree. I don’t consider "neatness" to be something innovative.

    > Since 1997, IE has the awesome filter classes in CSS that allow powerful client-side effects such as gradated transparency and photoshop-style colour filters.

    You even state yourself this isn’t new stuff!

    > IE6 can automatically resize images to fit them within a page

    Mozilla does this.

    > it allows display-time editing

    Mozilla and Safari do this.

    > coloured scrollbars

    Konqueror does this.

    > media bar

    This has been removed from Internet Explorer with XP service pack 2. Must be really useful, eh? :)

    > transparent IFrames

    I’m not sure what you mean by this. You certainly don’t mean "transparent iframes"; that’s simply a case of visibility: hidden.

    > vertical text layout, and css zoom property.

    These I am not sure about.

    It seems to me that you have mixed up "innovative" with "does something in a nicer way than the competition", or "has a feature the competition doesn’t", and furthermore are a little ignorant of the competition’s capabilities. I’m not saying Internet Explorer is deficient in every possible way. I’m saying that I can’t think of anything it has done recently that is *innovative*.

    > None of you will be happy, however good IE7 becomes, because there is always something that some minority browser does, that IE doesn’t.

    I don’t think I’ve criticised Internet Explorer for not having an obscure feature. I haven’t even asked for XHTML or CSS 3 support. What I have done is ask for support for years-old public specifications that Internet Explorer’s competitors all implement well. HTML 4.01. HTTP 1.1. CSS 1. CSS 2. PNG 1.

    > CSS3 will probably never be finished.

    There are a number of CSS 3 specifications that have already reached Recommendation status, as I have pointed out to you before.

    > Have you noticed how Microsoft’s developers never bitch about the bugs and flaws in other browsers (which do exist, believe it or not!).

    I’ve noticed that people in general tend to bitch about Internet Explorer far more. Did you ever consider that there’s a perfectly legitimate reason for that?

  186. Anonymous says:

    What I would like to see is for MS to quit integrating stuff into IE and to make things "addons" like for instance the RSS reader. I don’t need that right now so I don’t want it in my browser.

    Make Active X and Java and Javascript easier to turn on/off.

    These things are easily done in Mozilla. For Java and Javascript, I can just check or uncheck a box on a bar (called a prefbar) above my browser window (the bar was an addon). If I want to add support for Active X, I can always go to a page to install it.

    If I want a calendar with my browser, I just go to the calendar addon page and get/install it. If I want an RSS reader, I can go to a page to add that.

    I haven’t heard anything about improving Outlook Express but there are many features that Mozilla has that OE can’t compare to.

  187. Anonymous says:

    Right then Jim, let’s get anal about this, if that’s what you want.

    "display: table-cell" — According to w3schools.com "The element will be displayed as a table cell (like <td> and <th>)." Therefore I’d assume it ought not to wrap below other such cells on the same row. And, if it does, I’m sure you would agree that this is a completely counter-intuitive w3c spec.

    Regarding the filter classes (first seen in IE4, 1997), these have been expanded in IE6. But in any case, if you can lump all versions of IE together to support your argument, I ought to be able to use previous Internet Explorer innovations to support my argument.

    [regarding the innovation of HTC] "You mean like Mozilla’s XBL"

    Ahh yes — but which came first? Remember we’re talking about _innovation_ here. HTC was first submitted by Microsoft as a spec in 1998.

    Y’know the javascript innerHTML property? That was a Microsoft innovation that became so popular that Mozilla implemented it, despite the fact it’s not in the w3c spec.

    "There are a number of CSS 3 specifications that have already reached Recommendation status"

    So, are you suggesting we have a new release of IE for each new little chunk of CSS3 that drips out of the w3c? Ridiculous! IE is developed by a real-world software house, not by open-source hobbyists, it therefore goes through a well-controlled but less-frequent release cycle. If you think that one organisation (w3c) should control innovation on the web then you are being completely hypocritical when attacking Microsoft for it’s domination.

    "I loaded up your page, and the very first thing I saw was a rant about how Mozilla was doing the wrong thing. At the end of the entry, you admit that you were writing invalid CSS"

    Remember that "invalid CSS" is a dichotomy here, and, moreover, we’re talking about the javascript DOM, NOT vanilla CSS. Despite being the most w3c-compliant browser, Opera will quite happily accept my old code, which (logically) assumes pixel measurements by default. Your debate is around the strictness of CSS parsing – and I’d be happy to indulge you there in another post.

    "You see that’s where we disagree. I don’t consider "neatness" to be something innovative."

    But you like strict adherence to anal parsing rules.. go figure.

    "I’m not sure what you mean by this. You certainly don’t mean "transparent iframes"; that’s simply a case of visibility: hidden"

    Again, perhaps you’re slightly missing the point. A transparent iframe is one where elements within the iframe window are displayed individually above elements _behind_ the iframe, avoiding a rectangular cut-out imposed by the iframe above the page.

    "I’ve noticed that people in general tend to bitch about Internet Explorer far more. Did you ever consider that there’s a perfectly legitimate reason for that?"

    Yes, as I’ve made clear, the minority browser luvvies need to discredit IE in order to claw themselves some market share. In fact today I saw a ridiculous post from a firefox evangelist at http://www.sxc.hu/forum.phtml?f=showtopic&n=3374

    He claims that problems with being denied webpages by an overloaded web-server are slightly alleviated by using firefox as your browser. So now firefox can magically avoid server-outages? Perhaps using firefox also cures hair-loss and increases fertility?

  188. Anonymous says:

    A small suggestion:

    Download files directly to a destination.

    Currently I’m verrry anoid when I select to download a file to my D: drive because C: is almost full and IE downloads a file to c:…temprary internetfiles and afterward starts COPYING this file (why not move it?)

  189. Anonymous says:

    It is important to treat filetypes straightforwardly.

    *NEVER* guess filetypes from filename extensions nor their content.

    *ALWAYS* obey Content-Type header, and no cheating after that.

  190. Anonymous says:

    — Quote: "That’s a complete contradiction, Niels. If HTML truly is an open standard then Microsoft should feel free to extend it, as long as they don’t pollute other people’s namespaces (which they don’t, as far as I know)."

    No that’s not a contradiction. HTML is an open standard, in that anyone can make suggestions to the appointed independent entity, tentatively named World Wide Web Consortium to indicate that they have something to say about WWW standards. The W3C will then judge whether the suggestion makes it into the standards, and anyone implementing those *OPEN* standards can then render the page correctly.

    Microsoft is one of the *cofounders* of the W3C. Ignoring them is akin to a dictator who publicly founds a justice system with independent judges and has 500 people shot without trial the next day.

  191. Anonymous says:

    The w3c may have been co-founded in MS with good intent. However, it is now acting AGAINST Microsoft by ‘drip-feeding’ parts of the CSS3 spec through to the market. Microsoft cannot deploy a new version of IE to support each revision of a specification like this. Its users would not accept having to upgrade their browsers every time some trivial new CSS trick came out. And then we have w3c reinventing the wheel, developing features into CSS3 that Microsoft have made de-facto standards for years, like vertical text display and element alpha support. The w3c CSS3 spec is a hotch-potch collection of disparate "modules": one such module is called "CSS2.1," which is a fix for the mistakes made by the w3c in CSS2. Maybe in some ways it’s a good thing that MS IE doesn’t support all of CSS2. In any case, I don’t think it should be forced to support CSS3 either.

    I’d go so far as to suggest that some people in the w3c know that they now have a rare strangle-hold on Microsoft. They use the good reputation of CSS as a standard (as developed in cooperation with MS) abusing it’s coherence to foist a mixed bag of new technologies onto the market, some of which a 3-year-old IE6 already support with MS’s own standards. And then MS gets bashed for not supporting these "new" w3c ideas!

    I would question the independence of the w3c, in it’s "luvvie" open-source community.

  192. Anonymous says:

    I don’t know what you think luvvie means, Chris, but I don’t think it means what you seem to think it means.

  193. Anonymous says:

    If any of you guys are using Firefox you need to read the following about the following security hole:

    http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=5107

    It’s the most critical and severe hole I have ever seen in a browser. Not only that but Mozilla have known about it for 5 years and been unable or unwilling to do anything about it. Even the latest Mozilla (0.9.3 at time of writing) is subject to this flaw. I’m certainly glad I’m using IE6

  194. Anonymous says:

    If you’re using Mozilla Firefox you should read the following disturbing security advisory

    http://secunia.com/advisories/12188/

    This is the most significant security hole I have ever seen in a browser. Because the browser is written in XUL language and also accepts and runs XUL, a website can completely re-write the user interface of the browser! This hole has existed for 5 years. And what’s the recommended fix for this huge and intrinsic problem? "Do not follow links from untrusted sites" … good luck, you guys.. I’m glad I’m using IE6..

  195. Anonymous says:

    – IEv6x is the Courtney Love browser in a world of Kirsten Dunst browsers

    I wouldn’t say this.. Courtney Love still only has 7 holes :p

  196. Anonymous says:

    this bug exists in practically any browser that can display fake browser-like XUL buttons and such.

    "do not follow untrusted links" is really the only advice you can give – think of all of the people who use IE who get POPUPS of fake internet explorer images? SP2 fixes the popup problem, but not a lot of people have downloaded the update, and even so… IE is still way behind with tons of other things.

    there is a VerifyURL extension that allows you to right-click and see the true URL of any website (even the ones with fake buttons or within frames). this does more than solve the problem, it gives you a new tool to check other seemingly fake sites.

    taking away a great feature because it can be abused is no good. that’d be like assuming your entire userbase is dumb and won’t know that they’re using a fake browser window.

  197. Anonymous says:

    "this bug exists in practically any browser that can display fake browser-like XUL buttons and such."

    Err yes, as you have just confirmed, this bug exists in Mozilla and not IE. IE does NOT support XUL (thank goodness).

    "there is a VerifyURL extension…"

    So, you have to install extensions to your browser to make sure you’re not gonna be spoofed? Haha! Perhaps you also have to install extensions to make sure your themes system doesn’t make your browser unreliable? (as it is at the moment see: http://www.chrisbeach.co.uk/core/scripts/entryViewer.php?ID=5091 )

    "taking away a great feature because it can be abused is no good. that’d be like assuming your entire userbase is dumb and won’t know that they’re using a fake browser window."

    If you think it’s a great feature to allow a website to re-write your browser user interface? When the Mozilla Organisation keeps a serious bug like this confidential (it did for 5 years), I’d expect you to be ill-informed about such holes. To that effect, you could be right in saying the entire userbase of Firefox is "dumb"!

    [regarding SP2] "not a lot of people have downloaded the update"

    Changes to IE (including SP2, when it’s released to the public properly) will be auto-downloaded via Windows Update. The current SP2 fixes have been released to developers at the moment. Mozilla relies on people visiting its site to download the latest version of Firefox, although a Microsoft-style update feature is soon to be incorporated into the browser.

    What happens to all those people using versions 0.9.3 and before who simply haven’t got round to re-downloading and re-installing their browser?

  198. Anonymous says:

    R DA SCUM OF DEE EARTH! OUR BRAINZ OWN Y0! GO MODERATE _this_ DOWN, IF YOU DARE! MUAHMUAHMUAH!

  199. Anonymous says:

    …that was my crazy brother over there, I am so sorry please forgive me, he is out of his mind you must now. i beg your pardon it will not happen again. sorry…

  200. Anonymous says:

    IE7 needs to be available for all Windows OS – not just Longhorn.

  201. Anonymous says:

    pamibe &raquo; IE tries to play catch up&#8230; and still fails!

  202. 247Blogging says:

    Thanks for the overwhelming amount of feedback and discussion. After work yesterday, I spent some of my time reading through the comments to my post (instead of reading the 9/11 Commission report). It looks the comments have grown some since I pulled

  203. Dating says:

    Thanks for the overwhelming amount of feedback and discussion. After work yesterday, I spent some of my time reading through the comments to my post (instead of reading the 9/11 Commission report). It looks the comments have grown some since I pulled

  204. Weddings says:

    Thanks for the overwhelming amount of feedback and discussion. After work yesterday, I spent some of my time reading through the comments to my post (instead of reading the 9/11 Commission report). It looks the comments have grown some since I pulled

  205. Thanks for the overwhelming amount of feedback and discussion. After work yesterday, I spent some of my time reading through the comments to my post (instead of reading the 9/11 Commission report). It looks the comments have grown some since I pulled