4 ms·

The actual responses are here: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dk3s0/the_ie9_team_responds_to_your_questions/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/co

The actual responses are here: http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dk3s0/the_ie9_team_responds_to_your_questions/ http://www.reddit.com/r/reddit.com/comments/dk3s0/the_ie9_te... The comment linked summarizes the IE team's responses in the voice of a M$ strawman, ready to be attacked by Reddit. As a result, it makes for a more entertaining read if you like to hate Microsoft, but it doesn't tell you what they're actually thinking. I preferred the long version.

cubicle67 16y ago
the long version doesn't tell you what they were thinking either [edited to add the following] Yes, there's a few cases where the longer version contains a bit more detail, but in general the tl;dr version is a pretty concise summary. For example, compare this answer XP is a platform that doesn't allow for the performance characteristics of a modern web experience. We have a great browser for XP users (IE8) but as the web continues to advance you need a modern operating environment that can take advantage of the underlying hardware through the OS. IE9 requires Direct 2D support which is available in Vista (with SP2) and Windows 7. to this Because Microsoft neither wants to backport new APIs to XP, nor do they want to release a version of IE9 that doesn't require the new APIs.
- StavrosK 16y ago
  Especially with the answer about visualisation, the summary was spot on. Seriously, what the fuck, Microsoft? Your browser is so precious that you can't release it as a standalone product so the entire world can move on?
lenni 16y ago
I didn't notice any misrepresentation of MS comments. What the commenter has done was to shorten and strip out the BS.
- fauigerzigerk 16y ago
  Compare these answers to the "why not build on webkit" question: Reinterpreted answer: "Our marketing team tells us the best way to get cross-browser compatibility is to reinvent the wheel." Original answer: "Unfortunately, there are no short cuts to getting to a web with same markup (i.e. write once and renders consistently across browsers). For one perspective around the challenges with various Webkit implementations see this article that recently ran. The way to achieve same markup across various browsers and various implementations of rendering engines is through the W3C with comprehensive standards test. We have a robust engine and platform with IE9 that coupled with our work towards same markup and participation with the W3C is focused on making the life of developers a lot easier." Sorry, but that's not stripping out the BS. That's inventing BS claiming it was Microsoft's when it's in fact a BS reply of some trolling reddit user to another trolling reddit user's question.
  - jacobolus 16y ago
    That's because the original answer (despite beginning with “serious answer”) did nothing to answer the question. The tl;dr guy decided to just put snark there instead of guessing at the real answer. Not his fault. There are probably many reasons they didn’t base IE on Webkit: pride, marketing, control, ease of hooking it in to other operating system services, existing MS developer familiarity with the code base, etc. etc. “[...] our work towards same markup and participation with the W3C is focused on making the life of developers a lot easier” is none of those. Everyone wants markup to work across browsers and a functional W3C process, so this answer is pretty much vacuous. It’s great that MS is engaging now with the HTML WG at the W3C, but all the other browser vendors have been doing that all along.
    - kenjackson 16y ago
      That's completely disingenious. First, it does answer the question IMO. The idea that competing conforming vendors will accelerate the push to same mark-up seems reasonable to me. I think the problem is that you have preconceived notion of why they aren't using WebKit, so if its not that answer then you don't buy it. If Mozilla or Opera gave that answer, I don't think the snarky summary would have been given. IMO, the snarky summary, if I were MS, would confirm my suspicion that this group didn't want real answers. They wanted to simply attack. Because the snarky summary wasn't even a clever one that would have caused MS to pause... something like "We want a web with more standards conformance... isn't that obvious? It's what we've always done, and WebKit is all about breaking standards."
statictype 16y ago
The longer version was less snarky but had a lower signal to noise ratio. There's lots of PR double-speak in there. The short version was also funnier.
jacobolus 16y ago
For what it’s worth, in the summarizer guy’s words, http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dkk3l/iama_we_are_members_of_the_ie9_product_team_here/c10vxgx http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dkk3l/iama_we_are_memb... “I agree that there is an element of satire, but I feel the humor makes it a bit more readable, and I don't think it detracts from the quality of the summary. However, if you can provide a better translation to some of those responses, I'd be happy to edit them in.”

cubicle67 16y ago

the long version doesn't tell you what they were thinking either [edited to add the following] Yes, there's a few cases where the longer version contains a bit more detail, but in general the tl;dr version is a pretty concise summary. For example, compare this answer XP is a platform that doesn't allow for the performance characteristics of a modern web experience. We have a great browser for XP users (IE8) but as the web continues to advance you need a modern operating environment that can take advantage of the underlying hardware through the OS. IE9 requires Direct 2D support which is available in Vista (with SP2) and Windows 7. to this Because Microsoft neither wants to backport new APIs to XP, nor do they want to release a version of IE9 that doesn't require the new APIs.

StavrosK 16y ago
Especially with the answer about visualisation, the summary was spot on. Seriously, what the fuck, Microsoft? Your browser is so precious that you can't release it as a standalone product so the entire world can move on?

lenni 16y ago

I didn't notice any misrepresentation of MS comments. What the commenter has done was to shorten and strip out the BS.

fauigerzigerk 16y ago
Compare these answers to the "why not build on webkit" question: Reinterpreted answer: "Our marketing team tells us the best way to get cross-browser compatibility is to reinvent the wheel." Original answer: "Unfortunately, there are no short cuts to getting to a web with same markup (i.e. write once and renders consistently across browsers). For one perspective around the challenges with various Webkit implementations see this article that recently ran. The way to achieve same markup across various browsers and various implementations of rendering engines is through the W3C with comprehensive standards test. We have a robust engine and platform with IE9 that coupled with our work towards same markup and participation with the W3C is focused on making the life of developers a lot easier." Sorry, but that's not stripping out the BS. That's inventing BS claiming it was Microsoft's when it's in fact a BS reply of some trolling reddit user to another trolling reddit user's question.
- jacobolus 16y ago
  That's because the original answer (despite beginning with “serious answer”) did nothing to answer the question. The tl;dr guy decided to just put snark there instead of guessing at the real answer. Not his fault. There are probably many reasons they didn’t base IE on Webkit: pride, marketing, control, ease of hooking it in to other operating system services, existing MS developer familiarity with the code base, etc. etc. “[...] our work towards same markup and participation with the W3C is focused on making the life of developers a lot easier” is none of those. Everyone wants markup to work across browsers and a functional W3C process, so this answer is pretty much vacuous. It’s great that MS is engaging now with the HTML WG at the W3C, but all the other browser vendors have been doing that all along.
  - kenjackson 16y ago
    That's completely disingenious. First, it does answer the question IMO. The idea that competing conforming vendors will accelerate the push to same mark-up seems reasonable to me. I think the problem is that you have preconceived notion of why they aren't using WebKit, so if its not that answer then you don't buy it. If Mozilla or Opera gave that answer, I don't think the snarky summary would have been given. IMO, the snarky summary, if I were MS, would confirm my suspicion that this group didn't want real answers. They wanted to simply attack. Because the snarky summary wasn't even a clever one that would have caused MS to pause... something like "We want a web with more standards conformance... isn't that obvious? It's what we've always done, and WebKit is all about breaking standards."

statictype 16y ago

The longer version was less snarky but had a lower signal to noise ratio. There's lots of PR double-speak in there. The short version was also funnier.

jacobolus 16y ago

For what it’s worth, in the summarizer guy’s words, http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dkk3l/iama_we_are_members_of_the_ie9_product_team_here/c10vxgx http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/dkk3l/iama_we_are_memb... “I agree that there is an element of satire, but I feel the humor makes it a bit more readable, and I don't think it detracts from the quality of the summary. However, if you can provide a better translation to some of those responses, I'd be happy to edit them in.”