
IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3 - toni
http://css3wizardry.com/2010/08/14/ie9-is-the-ie6-of-css3/
======
glhaynes
While I can't say I really disbelieve the spirit of the demonstration (past
performance is not _necessarily_ indicative of future results, but it often
ain't a bad approximation), it'd sure be nice to see more information,
especially the source code used.

Anybody who's done some web development would have to look at those
screenshots and think "all those differences could be due to just one
tag/directive that's being interpreted differently by IE9"... and that
different interpretation could conceivably even be more in-line with the spec
than what the other browsers do (whether that's a "good" thing or not is a
different discussion). So, if I had to bet, I wouldn't put my money on
Microsoft being the ones in the right here... but I don't like comparing
browsers' standards compliance solely based on screenshots.

~~~
alttab
I was thinking this same thing. Glad I found it posted already.

I know this is hogwash because I've made that _exact_ IPhone interface in
HTML/CSS3 for IE7, IE8, Webkit Browsers, and FF. Sure, the IE versions didn't
have rounded corners or even shadows for that matter but it didn't look
retarded.

I would guess that the author hasn't been developing cross-browser web
applications professionally for any significant length of time.

IE does some dumb things with hasLayout and floating, so you generally avoid
them. It also wasn't clear that the author knew that Safari and Chrome use the
same rendering engine.

Even with IE9 and their dumb syntax, its not impossible to learn how to make
something look freaking sweet in modern browsers, and passable in IE. This
position of course costs businesses thousands of dollars a year running VMs
for compatibility. It makes it worse that IE9 doesn't run on XP.

The entire post is a little link baity, but I certainly understand the
frustration.

~~~
rimantas

      I've made that exact IPhone interface in HTML/CSS3 for IE7,
      IE8, Webkit Browsers, and FF. Sure, the IE versions didn't
      have rounded corners or even shadows for that matter but it
      didn't look retarded.
    

So it did not have rounded corners and shadows but it was somehow _exact_?
Interesting. Could you elaborate more, what CSS3 have you got working on IE7,
IE8?

~~~
alttab
Well, it was the same for FF, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. IE 7/8 wasn't exactly
the same, just didn't have the shadows or the rounded corners. Still looked
good though.

Use a little javascript animation between views and getting an app to behave
like an iPhone app is extremely easy in HTML/Javascript/CSS.

~~~
rimantas

      IE 7/8 wasn't exactly the same, just didn't have
      the shadows or the rounded corners.
    

That's exactly the point.

------
maerek
This is a poorly written article for two main reasons:

1) No source code.

2) Incomplete test results. Why showcase two webkit engine based web browsers
(Safari and Chrome) but not include a screenshot from Firefox?

3) Factual inconsistencies.

FTA:"The IE team have been chanting a mantra ad nauseum : Same Markup. That
means, write once and have it render the same on all browsers. Funny, but the
other browsers have been doing that for years. Seems, from the images above
that it’s IE that’s unable to render the same markup."

Last I checked, implementing transitions/background gradients (etc.) in CSS
required a separate line for webkit, mozilla, etc.

~~~
fleitz
Yeah I was going to comment to that effect. While the syntax is the same for
rounded corners for gradients even though they use -moz and -webkit prefixes
the actual syntax for the gradient is different.

------
masklinn
No. That's stupid. IE6 was IE6 because _for more than 5 years it was the last
browser of its line_.

The "IE8 is the new IE6" claims at least have some meat to them: IE8 is the
last (edit: MS) browser running on Windows XP which means as long as Windows
XP exists in significant numbers so does IE8, but this is nonsense: Firefox,
Safari and Chrome are not going back into their hole, which means IE9 will not
be an undisputed champion of anything which means IE9 will _not_ be the last
IE ever to run on Windows Vista and Windows 7 (unless microsoft decides to get
out of the browser market entirely, but I don't see that happening).

Thus IE9 _can not_ be the new IE6. It might not be the best browser ever, but
IE10 will come next and improve it, and IE11 after it.

If you're grasping for parallels, IE9 is the IE5 of CSS3, not the IE6.

~~~
alanh
To me, “IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3” means exactly what the article illustrates:
“You will be unable to deploy cross-browser sites using exclusively CSS
techniques like CSS gradients and text-shadows without fallbacks specially
crafted for one browser.” IE9 will be holding CSS3 back from _meaningful_
adoption and impact.

Others here are griping the author could have done more to approximate the
Webkit rendering in IE9. This is _true_ but is counter-productive to the
_point_ of the article: Using only new CSS3 tools is _impossible_ thanks to,
well, IE9 being the IE6 of CSS3!

~~~
masklinn
> To me, “IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3” means exactly what the article illustrates:
> “You will be unable to deploy cross-browser sites using exclusively CSS
> techniques like CSS gradients and text-shadows without fallbacks specially
> crafted for one browser.”

It is already impossible right now, even ignoring IE9.

------
ghurlman
So - it works in Webkit and Webkit, and not IE9 Beta. How's it look in
Firefox, Opera, etc?

------
ck2
We need to start promoting ChromeFrame to every single IE user on as many
sites as possible.

<http://code.google.com/chrome/chromeframe/>

It will solve the IE6/7/8/9 issue.

The only problem is machines without the privileges to install it.

~~~
cmelbye
Google needs to see if they can allow unprivileged users to install it (it
would presumably only work on the current user, but that's better than
nothing.) I'd love to use it at school, but it requires an administrator.

~~~
jawee
I can load it up on my school account, but DeepFreeze keeps it off regardless.
I expect between security features like DeepFreeze and user policies it would
not be possible.

------
xentronium
> IE9 is the IE6 of CSS3

No. Two points: 1) IE9 is still beta 2) CSS3 is still beta

~~~
CWuestefeld
From what MS has said, #2 is crucial. They've stated that precisely because of
the staying power of IE6, they need to ensure that the next version adopted
doesn't get stuck with proposed/intended standards that wind up not
materializing. I don't necessarily like this, but I can see some wisdom in it.

~~~
lenni
The right solution would be to have more frequent feature updates.

~~~
glhaynes
Upvoted, but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity.
Corporate IT reasonably finds this attractive even in the face of its
downsides.

So the lesson if you're gonna be Microsoft and you're gonna have few releases
seems to be: pick the standards (de jure or de facto) that seem very likely to
have a good chance of being widely-adopted, keeping in mind that you have huge
influence over that variable since you control the most widely-used browser in
the world, especially if you make your moves wisely and with high quality.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
_but there is a benefit to fewer releases, of course: less diversity_

In theory. yes. In practice, it doesn't seem to work like that. Firefox and
Chrome get automatically updated quite rapidly, so the current version is the
only very important one.

~~~
glhaynes
You're talking about benefits to the progression of the browser. I'm talking
about [perceived, at least] benefits to the user (large corporations) of the
browser.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
Who else other than the user would the benefits go to? Web developer maybe,
but their interests are aligned, unless you like being stuck using a IE6-only
site during the day, and weeping when you compare it to the modern internet
that you use in the evenings.

~~~
glhaynes
Corporate IT managers think (rightly or wrongly; probably some of both) that
they benefit from fewer browser updates. And to some degree, other folks in
corporate IT... developers also prefer targeting fewer browser variations,
etc. Perhaps they don't prefer it more highly than their preference for being
able to write to modern standards, but when you're into user testing and
there's two weeks left on your deadline, you hate to have to spend a lot of
time dealing with the fact that it turns out that you have more versions of
browsers out there than you thought and they don't all deal with your shiny
new web app in the same way. It also sucks to have to deal with calls that the
_z_ in Firefox x.y. _z_ broke your app that you weren't expecting to spend any
money on maintaining this month.

~~~
StrawberryFrog
_you hate to have to spend a lot of time dealing with the fact that it turns
out that you have more versions of browsers out there than you thought_

But there are effectively only 2 versions of firefox in play on this day
today:

3.6.10 : The current release

4.0b : The current beta

And you can tell the people on 4.0b that it's their problem for using a beta.

------
keltex
Lets not forget that the main problem with IE6 was that it was the primary
vector that infected millions of computers with viruses and created the
gigantic botnets we have today.

Sure IE6's CSS compatibility and other rendering quirks are issues, but it was
far overshadowed by the huge security hole it created.

------
rufo
Source, please.

~~~
estel
Its non-inclusion throws this whole demonstration into question, imo.

------
loarabia
That seems a bit sensational considering IE9 is in Beta . . .

~~~
contextfree
This isn't even the beta, it's one of the earlier preview versions.

------
mojuba
The web site I'm working on at the moment will reject IE altogether. I'm doing
this for the first time ever in my career. A bit risky, I know. Just looked at
some of my pages in IE8/9 and realized how much work I saved by not supporting
this nonsensical monster that is Internet Explorer.

~~~
masklinn
> The web site I'm working on at the moment will reject IE altogether.

That is... dumb.

Just don't to anything, it'll look broken in IE but no more. If you want to do
something specifically about IE, add some kind of warning bar with a
conditional comment. You have no idea what the future holds, and locking out a
whole line of browsers out of a site is stupid.

~~~
MichaelGG
And please, if you add a warning, make it to the effect of "Hey, we know
there's an issue with your browser, sorry.", instead of some line about IE
being evil and standards and so on.

~~~
masklinn
Well, on the other hand saying "we know there is an issue with your browser,
sorry" may mark you as an incompetent fool to your readers.

------
mpiccino
The problem I constantly find with all IE versions is that they render fonts
much bigger than other browsers, so they constantly make things crowded and
cause items (e.g. the About button on that screen shot) fall to the next time.

It's immensely frustrating.

------
zacharypinter
I wonder if he was in quirks mode by not having an appropriate doctype tag?

------
Indyan
Not surprised. Btw, how does other browsers like Opera and Safari perform in
the same test?

------
devmonk
What about Opera?

------
Slimy
THIS IS DATED AUGUST 14, 2010. THE IE9 BETA WASN'T EVEN OUT.

Stop blindly upvoting.

~~~
est
> Don’t believe me? OK, I’ll prove it. I have the latest Beta 4 of IE9, in
> Microsoft speak that means the version before Release Candidate

The author is definitely a troll here.

