Internet Explorer Developer Documentation updates


The information published in this post is now out-of-date and one or more links are invalid.

—IEBlog Editor, 20 August 2012

We’re working on improving our documentation for web developers on MSDN. Here are a few changes we’ve made over the last month or so.

  • A Simplified Table of Contents
    This can be seen in the panel on the left under Web Development. The previous table of contents was a bit confused and often made it a struggle to find topics that were relevant.
  • Removal of “new” tags
    As a great many people have pointed out Internet Explorer 6 is no longer “new”. We’ve removed the highlights on reference pages for functionality that was new in 2001.
  • Corrections
    We’ve made many corrections to the reference documentation. Tom Gilder in the comments of this blog http://blogs.msdn.com/dmassy/archive/2004/07/02/172106.aspx#172124 pointed out an error in listing functionality as being part of DOM level 1 when it was not. Thanks for the feedback Tom, and sorry it took us a little time to get this updated.

We’re planning continued improvements and updates to our developer documentation as part of our renewed focus on Internet Explorer. With such a comprehensive set of documentation we appreciate all the feedback we get as it is often difficult to see issues with a fresh eye. If you spot errors or have topics you’d like to see covered please let us know here on the blog or through the feedback mechanisms on MSDN. We plan to continue to address issues and provide great documentation as we move Internet Explorer forward.

Thanks
-Dave

Comments (65)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Documentation problem:

    MIME Type Detection in Internet Explorer

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/workshop/networking/moniker/overview/appendix_a.asp

    This describes the behaviour of Internet Explorer before Windows XP service pack 2 has been applied. The newer version acts slightly differently (still contravening RFC 2616, section 7.2.1 though).

  2. Anonymous says:

    People please grow up here in the comments :|

    I’m viewing this blog in Firefox, and I use FF for 95% of my sites (the other 5% are OWA which refuses to render decently in FF).

    That is not to say that I hate IE or anything, I just feel FF is a better browser for me as a web developer. Someone at the top was claiming to have ‘got so many viruses from IE. and none from firefox.’ Well, in that case, you are an idiot. I haven’t had a single virus in the last 13 years of intensive fulltime computer use, and that last one was the Saddam disk validator virus on the Amiga. I have only started using antivirus software 2 years ago because it happened to be corporate standard.

    Fact is: IE has more potential than FF because it is more extensible using more powerful technology through ActiveX and .NET. Downside is that it has an idiotic rendering engine that is backwards compatible with the same HTML that I wrote on that Amiga and isn’t found anywhere on this planet anymore. IE isn’t fundamentally buggy or anything, it was even recently proven that it was the only engine capable of taking on sustained attacks of malformed HTML without exploitable buffer overflows (Opera), crashes (Mozilla) or lockups (Lynx/Links).

    Bottom line: if you are a true Firefox user, you should promote free choice of software and a competition between that software that provides a drive to provide better software. Live to that spirit, and spare the childish comments on a serious blog about a serious piece of software.

  3. Anonymous says:

    I got some problems with Firefox, while my javascript is running perfectly on Internet Explorer.

    Why Firefox doesn<t understand window.events or do not support creating button objects. It’s realy stupid. Isn’t javascript a standardized language, so everybrowser should support the same code …

  4. Anonymous says:

    Not gonna beat Firefox, sorry, won’t happen. Mabye if you got rid of your Crayola coding, but not until then.

  5. Anonymous says:

    i agree with above =P

  6. Anonymous says:

    aye Fire fox owns explorer, that was me above. i got so many viruses from IE. and none from firefox.

  7. Anonymous says:

    Is there a downloadble version available ?

  8. Anonymous says:

    You need to make Internet Explorer 6 capable of being completely and cleanly un-installed from any MS OS.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Oh my. I’m famous!

    Thanks for that :)

  10. Anonymous says:

    I’ve been using both Firefox and MSIE (Microsoft Internet Explorer) for almost two years now. I’ve kept my computer up-to-date with any security patches/fixes. I have to admit that IE has been my favorite choice over Firefox.

    I feel that I always had a better browsing experience with IE and that its interface is much more "chill" than Firefox’s interface (even with any skin mods). In addition, I installed PopUpCop and that exponentially increased my satisfaction rating with IE.

    I’m just glad I have the opportunity now to thank the entire team of IE developers. You guys/gals ;) have done an excellent job of creating a product that is almost perfect. I believe that nothing can be perfect, but IE is perhaps the only browser close to perfection. Thanks again guys.

  11. Anonymous says:

    You know, there are already loads of books on HTML and CSS and JavaScript and whatnot available, so why not just quit wasting time on the documentation and spend more time making your browser render the way all those books say a web browser is supposed to? I think it’s quite clear from the feedback you’ve been getting on these blogs for the last several months that that would be far more helpful. In other words, if you wait until Longhorn to release a version of IE that actually renders correct code suitably, you know that by then IE will have lost a great deal of market share on the Windows platform since more and more of us are telling end users that we know to just use Firefox. Since you pay developers a starting salary of at least $70,000+ straight out of college (or $85,000 for those who work in California), I would hope you’d get better returns on the quality of your products.

  12. Anonymous says:

    FYI

    I’ve deleted several comments that violated our posting policy.

  13. Anonymous says:

    The problem with IE is the full integration with the OS… browser issues all of the sudden become OS issues… I help run an 80,000 workstation network and IE related security mitigation cost us something in the realm of $7-8 million alone in software, consulting and staff costs.

  14. Anonymous says:

    I have tried FireFox, and apart from the fact that 70% of the sites I visit didn’t work it was a good browser. As for the general consensus that FireFox is a more secure browser, you cannot make this statement when it suffers from buffer overruns caused by things as simple as malformed HTML.

    I’ll keep IE6 + XP SP2 as my main browser for the foreseeable future thanks.

  15. Anonymous says:

    FYI – I deleted several posts from an over-enthusiastic Firefox user. Please feel free to talk about Firefox – no problem with that – but please don’t just spam the comments.

  16. Anonymous says:

    70% of sites didn’t work? That’s bullflop. 99% of sites are coded to be backwards compatible with any browser, as XHTML is becoming the new standard. Show me 30 sites that &quot;don’t work&quot; with Firefox please.

  17. Anonymous says:

    I use a lot of thin client software, and FireFox can’t render them because they are written using IE specific extensions. That is the fault of the software writer and is not meant as a slur on FireFox, but that argument is lost on most end user.

  18. Anonymous says:

    On a closely related topic, a debugged version of the documentation for VBScript/JScript/WSH/etc. would be nice sometime.

    Closer to "home" I think more documentation on writing HTAs would be handy, though I have to admit the straight reference material is adequate. HTAs seem wildly underutilized as desktop applets, probably because of their relative obscurity.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Why can’t you stop IE from being hijacked by CWS and more?

  20. Anonymous says:

    All documentation is already here: http://w3c.org/

    Please make IE standard-compliant or I’ll stop support it on my sites. Thanks.

  21. Anonymous says:

    Is that a threat?

    I use both FireFox and IE. I like both of them. Can’t we for once have a browser competition instead of a browser war? Can’t we for once leave the zealotry at home? On either side, please.

  22. Anonymous says:

    > I’m viewing this blog in Firefox, and I use FF for 95% of my sites (the other 5% are OWA which refuses to render decently in FF).

    What version of Exchange server are you using? My experience of it has been flawless in Firefox for Exchange 2000 and 2003. It’s almost surprising that they didn’t code in any IE-specific features, but there’s no real problems I’ve noticed in either browser.

    Once issue was being unable to view any messages due to my ISP at home blocking port 135, but since we switched to HTTP over SSL that has been fixed.

  23. Anonymous says:

    When will you remove the browser sniffer for Opera, which makes it impossible for Opera users to view the MSDN?

    If I ID Opera as MSIE, I get a working page. If I ID Opera as itself, I get sent away to the useless http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/shared/deeptree/bot/bot.asp?dtcnfg=/library/deeptreeconfig.xml

    What is the reason for this? Didn’t you (Microsoft) lose a lawsuit over this before?

  24. Anonymous says:

    The organization of the documentation is still confusing. For example, http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/dnanchor/html/anch_webdev.asp contains two links to the "HTML and Dynamic HTML" page with different names. Under "In this Library Section", the link is called "HTML and Dynamic HTML", but in the TOC at the left, the link is called "HTML and CSS". How would we know that these link to the same page? Additionally, one of these links displays the page inside its own frame, with a TOC and other frames around it, while the other link displays only the page.

    If you follow the "HTML and CSS" link, you’ll get an "HTML and Dynamic HTML" page that includes fewer topics than the TOC at the left. Where are the links in the main frame to topics like "Cascading Style Sheets" or "Rights-Managed HTML"? Which is to say, why are there two separate hierarchies, one

    in the TOC and one in the pages themselves?

    Finally, the link on the "HTML and Dynamic HTML" to the "HTML and DHTML Reference" is called only "DHTML Reference" and described as containing an API. This is hardly the place you would expect to find a listing of HTML elements. Again, why is the organization of these page so inconsistent?

    These were all problems I found in about 2 minutes. I’m sure I’d uncover many more if I had the time. These are the sorts of things that make the MSDN nearly worthless. When do you expect these problems to be resolved?

  25. Anonymous says:

    dBrowne,

    > I have tried FireFox, and apart from the fact that 70% of the sites I visit didn’t work it was a good browser.

    > I use a lot of thin client software, and FireFox can’t render them because they are written using IE specific extensions.

    There’s a huge difference between thin client software and websites. Saying to people that "70% of the sites I visit didn’t work" is nothing but FUD that will put off normal users for no good reason.

    > I use both FireFox and IE. I like both of them. Can’t we for once have a browser competition instead of a browser war? Can’t we for once leave the zealotry at home?

    It’s not zealotry. Web developers waste inordinate amounts of time trying to work around Internet Explorer’s bugs. After three years of absolutely zero progress on Microsoft’s behalf, developers are getting increasingly cheesed off at Microsoft wasting their time.

    A "browser competition" does no good, because as long as there is a critical mass of Internet Explorer users (and, being integrated with a monopoly OS, there will always be those users), us web developers will have to deal with them The only solutions are:

    a) spend time working around Microsoft’s bugs for them.

    b) drop Internet Explorer users

    Given that b) is not feasible for most of us, and that Microsoft won’t help with a) by fixing their bugs, web developers are caught between a rock and a hard place. If you want to work on a mainstream website, you have *no choice* but to deal with completely inane bugs like text turning invisible for no reason.

  26. Anonymous says:

    Thanks for all the feedback. A couple of quick notes.

    Jor,

    We’ll look in to the issues with Opera and pass them onto the MSDN team.

    David A. Mills,

    Thanks this is exactly the feedback we need to improve how you find information. I hadn’t noticed the fact that the TOC and the Library root page no longer matched. I think it’s a little extreme to say this makes MSDN nearly worthless as you can still find information through either root but it certainly makes sense for us to make this consistent.

    BlackCat,

    I’m not sure even the W3C would suggest that the raw specification represent adequate documentation for web developers. Internet Explorer is already compliant with many standards, we have acknowldged that our support for some aspects of CSS is inconsistent and are looking forward to addressing this in the future.

    Thanks

    -Dave

  27. Anonymous says:

    Hey Dave a few quick suggestions and a bug maybe

    Bug in the Toc the Scriptable Editing doesn’t drop down it just seems to say unavailable.

    Suggestions

    Your barely breaking the ice with these guides on what IE can do. Where is SMIL? I know IE can do it and it handles if extremely well. Your missing a few other web technologies on there as well.

    Please Bring Back DHTML Dude collumns!

    How about some very clear references as to how IE will render certain HTML and CSS like how the maths between borders and so on goes. I know you guys catch a lot of flak for these and people call them bugs but no where in the real HTML spec does it say how these things are so there are differences between Mozilla and IE, a create guide on the math formulas on size would really be a great help to web developers.

  28. Anonymous says:

    Dave, so we should dump the w3c specs and stick to the MSDN? Just stop lying.

    XHTML 1.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/

    CSS 2.1: http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/

    IE.browser > sucks {

    /* IE won’t understand this */

    }

  29. Anonymous says:

    Too Far Afield &raquo; Good in the end.

  30. Anonymous says:

    "Nearly worthless" was too harsh. My apologies. I do find those sorts of inconsistencies frustrating, though, and they make me reluctant to use the MSDN library when there is an alternative.

    And my last name is "Mellis."

  31. Anonymous says:

    Flavio,

    I don’t believe I said "we should dump the w3c specs and stick to the MSDN" and I certainly didn’t mean that.

    The W3C does do a good job in specifying the raw functionality. However if you were to just hand the CSS1 or CSS2.1 specifications to someone who wished to learn CSS and had no prior experience I suspect they would struggle. There are certainly many good books and websites covering these topics but I’ve yet to see anything with as comprehensive a reference as MSDN. This includes highlighting the relevant standard if any for the functionality so it is not as if we are deliberately trying to mislead anyone about what is relevant to a W3C recommendation and what is not.

    Thanks

    -Dave

  32. Anonymous says:

    How can anyone claim that IE is a good piece of software? When will the coders at Microsoft stop trying to be inventive, and actually use some standards? For Gods sake, Microsoft was the company that introduced viruses from images. Instead of trying to change the way computer software is made, spend the time to make it more secure.

  33. Anonymous says:

    2thumbsup: Wasn’t it a buffer overflow attack? And I thought it was caused by the freeware JPEG library created by the Independent JPEG Group?

  34. Anonymous says:

    FYI – I moderated a few comments that were essentially blog spam.

  35. Anonymous says:

    MSDN is difficult to navigate and generally use. The problems are:

    1. MSDN is not downloadable. It should be! Or at least important parts of it, like the HTML reference. And if parts are downloadable make it clear from where one can download them and do not hide it somewhere in an obscure page, like the complicated and activex driven Platform SDK page. The problem is that we cannot be online 24 hours a day just to read let’s say the HTML reference or an MSDN online book. How do you expect us to use all that reference material productively if we are on a dial-up connection? Even if things are available for free on the MSDN as you always advertise and even if we are on a fast connection, it does not help us since you generally break useful content up into very small parts or pages, that a user has to click so many times to read the whole thing that the efford is not worth it. This forces most people to use other less complete perhaps sources on the Internet but sources which are easy to navigate and easy to read on a single or on a few online pages, or at least on pages which can be downloaded in a zip file.

    2. The search functionality is inadequate and often does not give the best results or does not place the best results at the top.

    Also its interface is overloaded because it includes at the top several links for switching to other categories of results like company news, downloads, etc. This category choices should have been placed in a combo box next to the search button on every page and not at the top of the search results taking up space and confusing people. Also, categories should have been different depending on the site like on MSDN, they should have been like: material For beginners, sample code, advanced articles, webcasts, references, etc.

    3. All the content is placed in a huge confusing toc. This toc appears at the top of every page making it difficult to navigate the site. Break the site up into more than one toc and please remove this heavy toc pannel from the top of each page. Break the site up into useful sub sites or the library into many shelves.

    4. Add a next link and a previous link at the bottom of every MSDN page which will take you to the next or previous topic in the MSDN library respectively. This will help people who are using screen readers and aulternate browsers to navigate more easily without the toc but will also benefit everyone since it will make navigation easier, without having to hunt for the next or previous topic in the toc.

    5. More material for beginners please!

    I have many friends who always tell me: Why should I use the MSDN. I can never find anything in there. It is too complicated and the material is broken up into so many small pages, which are overloaded with frames and toolbars that they confuse me. I prefer an easy site with perhaps less info but one which I can use quickly or store for offline viewing.

  36. Anonymous says:

    Dave Massy, thanks for the reply. Apology for the tone of the earlier message, I had just received a form reply from the MSDN webmasters, which is not useful or correct.

    Actually I see now something has changed: Opera now gets a smaller page when ID’d as Opera, but still not the page it gets when ID’d as MSIE. A good first step!

  37. Anonymous says:

    <quote user="jim">

    > I use both FireFox and IE. I like both of them. Can’t we for once have a browser competition instead of a browser war? Can’t we for once leave the zealotry at home?

    It’s not zealotry. Web developers waste inordinate amounts of time trying to work around Internet Explorer’s bugs. After three years of absolutely zero progress on Microsoft’s behalf, developers are getting increasingly cheesed off at Microsoft wasting their time.

    </quote>

    Yes it is zealotry. I’m not talking about people that say Internet Explorer lacks proper standard support. I am a web developer, and I too get frustrated with certain bugs or missing CSS properties and stuff like that.

    It’s the people that can’t make a sensible argument out of it, and can’t seem to post anything more constructive than "Firefox pwnxors IE!!!!!!111!11oneoneone!1two"

    Those are the people we could do without.

  38. Anonymous says:

    Also, I’ll start using the W3C standard documents as reference while developing web sites the minute they integrate with Visual Studio. ;)

  39. Anonymous says:

    Was wondering if you had a page/section that showed the WIndows XP SP 2 updates.

    ALso I found a bug in XP SP 2’s pop up blocker at PIONEERELECTRONICS.com if the site is set at default on or nor in the allow list the sites pull down menus can not be used properly

  40. Anonymous says:

    Hi Typhoon,

    You can find links to information on the Windows XP SP2 changes in a previous blog post at http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2004/09/29/236026.aspx

    I can’t reproduce any issues at Pioneerelectronics.com but we’ll check it on a few other machines as well.

    Thanks

    -Dave

  41. Anonymous says:

    I’m about ready to loose my sanity being a web developer. I can’t take the IE glitches any longer. It’s about enough to drive me away from what I love. I’ve heard rumor of an IE update. I’m sick about it as the last time I heard, the next IE would only run on Longhorn and everybody else is going to fly a kite. Is this true? If not, how soon until we have a return of sanity in the way of a new IE release? I’m about ready to post on all web sites that I’ve made a script to advise all visitors to migrate away from IE as soon as possible due to security and creative limitations.

    Thanks! I know that you will not feel at liberty to disclose dates and so forth, but Bill ought to at least take the liberty of taking exception so as to not put us through any more undue misery.

  42. Anonymous says:

    Dave,

    I learned CSS, XHTML, XSLT and more by reading the specs. They are the only trusted source of information for me. When you develop a web page you cannot use the MSDN because you have to follow the *standards*. MSDN is full of proprietary stuff. MS also tries to change the name of well-known technologies (HTML -> DHTML, JavaScript -> JScript).

    >>>> However if you were to just hand the CSS1 or CSS2.1 specifications to someone who wished to learn CSS and had no prior experience I suspect they would struggle.

    How can they learn CSS on MSDN if IE does not even fully support it?!

  43. Anonymous says:

    The problem with MSDN – the web stuff from it – is that it’s IE-specific, which means newbie programmers will learn how to code invalid JS, for example. Yes, I was guilty of that 3-4 years ago; window.event vs. event.which, parentElement instead of parentNode…

  44. Anonymous says:

    The W3C CSS specs *are* intended for both browser makers and for Web developers trying to learn the technology. The specs even say so themselves in the opening paragraphs. It’s how I learned, and I was by no means an expert at the time. Granted, you may have to consult some outside resources to know what works and what doesn’t in certain browsers (especially IE), but I would never attempt to learn it from MSDN.

  45. Anonymous says:

    First, as a developer I appreciate the amount of documentation that is on line via MSDN. MSDN partnered with Google (for effective and fast searching) is an invaluble resource. At times it surprises me how much information is in MSDN.

    Second, I work at Borland on the ASP.NET designer in Delphi 2005 and over the past few years I’ve made numerous suggestions for documentation improvements and via the comments system in MSDN and I’ve never seen a single improvement incorporated. Please, go through the comments made by users and utilize them to help improve the documentation. Based on experience I _know_ there certain things that MSHTML supports that are either documented incorrectly or completely missing.

    Thanks

    -Steve

    Delphi R&D

    Borland Software Corp.

  46. Anonymous says:

    As I read some of the entries I feel the need to post my own thoughts on some (not all) of the pro IE fans …

    While I like the forward thinking attitude in some regards to support extra features (CSS cursor/scrollbar enhancements) people have mentioned they enjoy IE… with a popup blocker.

    This is one example of the way Microsoft has unintentionally put people in to certain mindsets.

    My post is not intended to be negative but merely to point out the lack of updating such a profound product is causing some really bad issues among those who aren’t the most experienced of browsers.

    A browser should be judged on it’s stand alone performence and features. It’s invalid to say IE or any other browser is great (because there are no popups for example) when the browser is not the one providing that feature (such as blocking pop-ups).

    I want to remain nuetral but bring up a political analogy to make my point. The vast majority of the world population outside of the US strongly dislike Bush and anyone who supports him tends to recieve poor (non-re-elective) ratings in their own country. With that in mind some nations feel they are in a sense dealing with America instead of working with America. This is true now when we program for or use IE.

    The grassroots movement against IE is no different then the grassroots movement against Bush. While IE is a decent browser in all honestly it is a decent browser if the year is 2001. Because of the undeniable lack of development since then IE has officially replaced Netscape 4 as the female dog browser. It is the browser that experienced folks like myself don’t work with but deal with.

    I do very much hope that IE7 will feature nightly builds or some sort of regular updates to it’s code for it’s support of the code we work on as designers and developers if not features as well in a way that for example Firefox has achieved.

    I am currently a struggling fan of Firefox. Their scroll/div bug has lived on since Netscape 6 though has finally been resolved in their nightly builds of late. Once Firefox 1.1 is released I will only use IE for windows updates and for cross browser testing of sites I work on. In all due respect IE is three years old and browser versions don’t have long life spans among the more advanced of us.

    I’m hoping for full CSS3 support if CSS3 arrives before IE7 or at least a windows update or IE7 auto-update feature to download support for CSS3 and other standards. Since the browser is literally three years old I would imagine you folks at MS have some work cut out for you.

    If there is one thing I’d like to leave in the minds of the folks working on IE it’s that if you don’t want IE to be the Bush of browsers then ensure that you are cattering (in part of your efforts) to designers and developers. We are the ones who are slowly taking away IE’s market share … we have good reason one could argue.

    Best of luck to all … variety is the spice of life.

  47. Anonymous says:

    First MSDN is very slow (thanks for the frames and the old html: around 5s to load a page with a 6Mbps DSL connection), sometimes it’s really a pain to find an information. I use almost only online documentation when developing and for example http://www.php.net/manual/en/index.php seems to me more useable and better structured than MSDN.

    About the content, well how to say… when it comes to IE my main reference is http://positioniseverything.net/ ; this site is not dedicated to IE but to *all browsers* bugs and advanced CSS techniques.

    The main problem with MSDN and IE is that there’s almost no information about bugs and turnarounds you need to use other sources than Microsoft, it’s a shame and really a major annoyance.

    I agree with Robert, W3C specs are for the web developers, I may consult MSDN or Opera Site or Mozilla Site to find ideas and example of applications but I will not trust a browser vendor site to explain me the basics and fundamentals of HTML and CSS.

    By the way please stop to write that IE fails to support some CSS features and take a look to the implementation of the object html element, why a submit button value is not sent when you use the enter key instead of clicking on the submit button, sorry but IE fails also with basic HTML and I don’t see anything on MSDN about it nor any evolution since IE4 for these two examples.

  48. Anonymous says:

    nektar: all those problems are solved by downloading MSDN, which can show you the full TOC, has a really fast full-text search, next/previous page links and is generally much more usable. Actually, you can’t download the whole MSDN (I think that’s available to subscribers and Visual Studio users only), but at least the documentation and most of the samples (which are arguably the most useful parts). See http://www.microsoft.com/msdownload/platformsdk/sdkupdate/

  49. Anonymous says:

    Flavio: DHTML isn’t HTML, it’s the document object model of Internet Explorer, a predecessor/alternative to DOM (Internet Explorer now supports both); and JavaScript is a trademark of the Netscape Corporation, so Microsoft had to come up with their own name (the real name, by the way, is ECMAScript)

  50. Anonymous says:

    I mentioned this as a comment on a different blog here, but here’s something I’d like to see.

    The "WebBrowser Customization" article on MSDN mentions some #defines for resources in SHDOCLC.DLL, and uses it to customize the IE context menu. These #defines, if meant to be public, should be documented along with some clear examples of how to use them.

    I come from a C++ perspective, and generally have been pleased with the IE documentation.

  51. Anonymous says:

    One addition to the above… It would also be nice to have documentation for other CGIDs, such as CGID_InternetExplorer, CGID_ShellDocView, etc. More insights into the areas where the shell and IE come together would be great.

  52. Anonymous says:

    > How about some very clear references as to how IE will render certain HTML and CSS like how the maths between borders and so on goes. I know you guys catch a lot of flak for these and people call them bugs but no where in the real HTML spec does it say how these things are so there are differences between Mozilla and IE, a create guide on the math formulas on size would really be a great help to web developers.

    You are looking in the wrong place; margins etc are defined in the CSS specifications, not the HTML specifications. And Internet Explorer’s behaviours are clearly bugs when they don’t follow the specifications.

    > It’s the people that can’t make a sensible argument out of it, and can’t seem to post anything more constructive than "Firefox pwnxors IE!!!!!!111!11oneoneone!1two"

    I agree, those aren’t useful comments at all.

    > DHTML isn’t HTML, it’s the document object model of Internet Explorer, a predecessor/alternative to DOM

    I was always under the impression "DHTML" was short for "Dynamic HTML", and was a buzzword for anything involving HTML+client-side scripting+stylesheets (so a pretty meaningless buzzword).

  53. Anonymous says:

    thanks for all your patches!

  54. Anonymous says:

    This blog seems to attract a lot of Firefox fanboys saying things like "Firefox pwnz j0r IE". Why bother commenting? Nobody cares

  55. Anonymous says:

    Hi,

    Just wanted to note, here’s a very useful site for beginners to learn CSS, HTML and what’s new in XHTML, though it won’t replace the specs :)

    http://www.w3schools.com/html/default.asp

    http://www.w3schools.com/xhtml/default.asp

    http://www.w3schools.com/css/default.asp

    It tells you in what version of IE and NN the tag/syntax was introduced, if at all, and if it’s works under Framset, Transitional and Strict doctype

  56. Anonymous says:

    Chris, please stop your blatant discrimination. I’m an Opera fanboy.

    ;)

  57. Anonymous says:

    For web developer information nothing beat the old Netscape devedge site which disappeared a while ago. What was good about it was it gave lots of useful tips about what worked in each browser rather than just giving the specifics of one particular browser.

    P.S. Firefox 1.0 has been released today.

  58. Anonymous says:

    Yes, DHTML = Dynamic HTML

    But client-side-scripting is an incredible pain in the a** without DOM, so DOM is very necessary

  59. Anonymous says:

    > I’m hoping for full CSS3 support if CSS3 arrives before IE7

    "CSS 3" is a group of specifications, not a single one, and a dozen or so have already "arrived" in the sense that they are ready for implementation. Opera and Mozilla are already in the process of doing so.