|
| |
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6272
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
 |
IE7 beta 2 - 2/1/2006 5:08:53
There's another IE7 Beta out which you can download here:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/IE/ie7/ie7betaredirect.mspx
If you don't really want to risk an IE beta on your system then Browsercam have it in both the screen capture and the remote access services. If you don't have a BC account it might be time to try out their free trial period to check all your sites in the screen capture service.
This following quote is lifted wholesale from another forum:
quote:
I just did a little testing and can confirm the following selectors work:
Child: div > span
Adjacent: div + span
Attribute: img[title]
Support for * html has been removed so it can no longer be used to distinguish between IE and others.
The before and after pseudo elements still don't work.
margin-left:auto; and margin-right:auto; now center the element like they should.
Still need to use text-align:center for <= IE6.
Looks like it's still going to gag on xhtml served properly.
So far it looks more like a bug fix on IE6 than anything inspiringly new - oh well, I suppose we should be optimistic and hope that the "real thing" is better than this latest Beta.
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
|
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67
Joined: 2/6/2003
Status: offline
|
RE: IE7 beta 2 - 2/2/2006 10:15:27
Downloading/installing IE 70 Beta overwrites IE 6.0 ( or whatever version of IE is installed).
There (still) doesn't seem to be a means of installing multiple versions of IE.
Removing IE 7 Beta involves Control Panel, Add/Remove Programs, Windows Components and then re-installing whatever version of IE you want (to go back) to.
On first glance it has some FireFox appearances and the Export to Excel spreadsheet seems to work very well for a Beta.
As for detected problems in IE 7.0 with rendering etc it has to be impossible for two separate development teams to come up with the same interpretations of (the W3C) specifications/recommendations and that will always be the case, surely?
After all, if FF and IE were identical what would be the point of them?
| |
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6272
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
|
RE: IE7 beta 2 - 2/2/2006 10:24:23
Far as I know you can have multiple IE installs: http://www.skyzyx.com/archives/000094.php I've never bothered because I use browsercam.
If IE and FF were identical it would make life a lot easier for a lot of web designers! If IE could just manage the same amount of CSS implementation as FF (which isn't perfect either) it'd be nice.
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67
Joined: 2/6/2003
Status: offline
|
RE: IE7 beta 2 - 2/2/2006 10:37:24
Ideally, if a company is releasing Beta versions (in the hope that some of their testing will be done for them, for free and on a scale they can't easily match in-house) then they should provide for the preservation of what the Beta is intended one day to replace.
Everything has to have a USP including software products. Manufacturers' enhancements that differentiate their products without conflicting with the agreed specification have been with us forever and go back to the very earliest days when IBM and the BUNCH each had their own allegedly ANSI/CODASYL conforming COBOL compilers.
And notwithstanding product differentiation, as the amount of ground/functional content covered by a browser continues to grow the likelihood/sheer possibility of independently developed browsers matching each other gets smaller and smaller.
| |
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6272
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
|
RE: IE7 beta 2 - 2/2/2006 10:44:43
Sure I'd love to see some more added value from each of the browser manufacturers - but they should do the basics roughly the same surely?
FF, Opera and Safari all do a reasonable job at implementing web standards etc etc. On top of that they've all got their own little USPs - FF has it's extentions, Opera has it's nice zoom effect and some nice developer tools (don't use it too often so I only know things that appeal to me personally) - not sure about Safari's added value.
I'd be very interested to see what added value such a large company as MS could add on top of a browser that functions as well as it's opposition - presumably they'd be able to add loads of cool apps - oh but of course MS doesn't much like the move away from desktop apps to online apps does it?
Edit: rambling again - my point is that the USP shouldn't be the fact that it actually works as well as it's oppo. it should be something more on top of that.
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
|
|
briesmith
Posts: 67
Joined: 2/6/2003
Status: offline
|
RE: IE7 beta 2 - 2/2/2006 10:57:45
Absolutely, the basic functionality should be the same; they should all accord with whatever specification has been adopted, in this case from WSC.
All the differentiaters should, as you say, add value to each manufacturer's flavour of the basic product without causing compatibility problems.
The problem arises from weak specification, different but equally valid interpretation, the passing of time etc.
Going back to the COBOL example I gave; all the 6 manufacturers claimed that their COBOL compilers conformed to the published standards and that programs could be moved from one host to another without problem. In reality it was a nightmare and impossible to do.
This situation leads onto death by committee; COBOL was effectively destroyed by the ANSI committee which was dominated by several extremely large (American) users who wanted no changes made to the COBOL spec because of the cost implications any changes had for them.
The same thing will inevitably happen to xHTML, CSS etc as the W3C stranglehold gets tighter and tighter and progress becomes more and more impossible.
Cascading Style Sheets, level 2
CSS2 Specification
W3C Recommendation 12-May-1998
For example, this specification (my emphasis) is still not implemented nearly six years later.
| |
|
|
|
Tailslide
Posts: 6272
Joined: 5/10/2005
From: Out here on the raggedy edge
Status: online
|
RE: IE7 beta 2 - 2/2/2006 11:23:11
I'm not convinced that the specs haven't been implemented? All the usual suspect browsers I mentioned previously seem to have implemented them reasonably well. maybe there are great chunks of recommendations never taken up by the "good" browser manufacturers but I can't think of what they are offhand - and I'm a regular at the W3C validator.
_____________________________
"My strategy is so simple an idiot could have devised it"
Little Blue Plane Web Design | Blood, Sweat & Rust - A Land Rover restoration project
| |
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts
|
|
|
Printable Version 
