4 ms·
In earlier comments, I always cautioned people about IE9 and I just didn't trust them with actually creating a browser that works. And while I agree with the a
by pilif 16y ago
In earlier comments, I always cautioned people about IE9 and I just didn't trust them with actually creating a browser that works.
And while I agree with the article that IE9 is still very lacking, I also just went through making the application I'm working on IE9 compliant including rounded corners and shadows plus some CSS transformations. Here's the steps I had to do:
1) don't load IE specific CSS hacks
2) don't load IE specific JS hacks
3) ?
there was no step 3.
So if you are not using all the latest and greatest features in HTML5, but try using the essentials, you will get a very good experience while trying to make stuff work in IE9: The features it has seem to work correctly for a change and it has enough features to be useful in many webapps.
Of course it's still far away from being cutting-edge in feature support, but at least the usual crap of "try to open an existing website in a new IE version: see barely any page rendered until you add a ton of hacks" has gone.
Now, if IE9 would actually run on the (still) most-used operating system (Windows XP), I would be really happy as I could tell people to get a very good experience by just upgrading their browsers (as opposed to switching browser brand).
- yuhong 16y ago"Of course it's still far away from being cutting-edge in feature support, but at least the usual crap of "try to open an existing website in a new IE version: see barely any page rendered until you add a ton of hacks" has gone." Yea, it is unlikely any more rendering modes are needed, because IE9's standard mode finally deserves the name.
- speleding 16y agoThe app I needed to convert needed several JS hacks to get IE9 working. For example Number("") evaluates to NaN in IE9 while it evaluates to 0 in every other browser. It's small things like that which cause hard to find bugs.
- GrandMasterBirt 16y agoJasmine tests to the rescue :) They need to implement strict js mode in IE9. That mode really set some good rules on some weird js behaviors.
- SoftwareMaven 16y agoIE9 actually gets this one correct according to the language spec, but I assume it was a bad assumption that made it incorrect. The Number constructor is supposed to call ToNumber on its parameter, which is supposed to return NaN if it can't parse StringNumericLiterals, which would be the case with "". I think the confusion came from "" being treated as "false" in JavaScript, and Number is supposed to return 0 if it isn't given a parameter. I could imagine the code in the Number constructor looking like this for non-IE browsers: if (param) num = ToNumber(param) else num = 0 whereas in IE, it probably looks more like this: if (param != undefined) num = ToInteger(param) else num = 0