4 ms·

I really don't know how this is on HN - this is barely much more than a PR plant espousing how fantastic IE9 is. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad IE9 is more standa

I really don't know how this is on HN - this is barely much more than a PR plant espousing how fantastic IE9 is. Don't get me wrong, I'm glad IE9 is more standards compliant than past IE versions, but this is basically a promo piece. This made me chuckle though, in the tradition of "it's not a bug, it's a feature": "In contrast to the other browser developers, Microsoft's approach to standards support has been conservative. The company doesn't want to ever have to remove or fundamentally modify a feature that it has implemented due to changes in specifications. As such, it has taken a policy of only implementing those specifications that are unlikely to undergo any further changes. As a result, Internet Explorer 9 will compare unfavorably on sites like HTML5 Test, but Microsoft views this as far preferable to making developers have to alter their real-world applications just because a specification has changed. "

Timmy_C 16y ago
You obviously stopped reading after the first page. The second page of this article points out a lot of features that Microsoft FINALLY got around to implementing and some of the short-comings that are still lingering. If I remember correct, the last couple paragraphs claim that Firefox 4 or Chrome will pass up IE on features in the near near future. Not exactly a PR plant at that point.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  No I read the second page. They looked like "half-criticisms" that won't affect the IE userbase - "geeks won't like it", "the 64 bit version sucks" etc.
  - Timmy_C 16y ago
    True, those aren't exactly the harshest critiques.
ugh 16y ago
That’s a pretty hefty accusation you are making there. Any evidence? I’m so fed up that it has become so common to call everything you disagree with a “PR plant” or the author a “shill”. That’s not the right way to argue. Say that if you have evidence, shut up if you don’t.
- nopassrecover 16y ago
  I didn't say it is a PR plant, I said it's barely much more than one. This is to say, I'm accusing the article of being low on content demonstrating its primary premise (IE9 is the most modern browser) and of being written in a tone comparable to marketing material for the IE browser.

Timmy_C 16y ago

You obviously stopped reading after the first page. The second page of this article points out a lot of features that Microsoft FINALLY got around to implementing and some of the short-comings that are still lingering. If I remember correct, the last couple paragraphs claim that Firefox 4 or Chrome will pass up IE on features in the near near future. Not exactly a PR plant at that point.

nopassrecover 16y ago
No I read the second page. They looked like "half-criticisms" that won't affect the IE userbase - "geeks won't like it", "the 64 bit version sucks" etc.
- Timmy_C 16y ago
  True, those aren't exactly the harshest critiques.

ugh 16y ago

That’s a pretty hefty accusation you are making there. Any evidence? I’m so fed up that it has become so common to call everything you disagree with a “PR plant” or the author a “shill”. That’s not the right way to argue. Say that if you have evidence, shut up if you don’t.

nopassrecover 16y ago
I didn't say it is a PR plant, I said it's barely much more than one. This is to say, I'm accusing the article of being low on content demonstrating its primary premise (IE9 is the most modern browser) and of being written in a tone comparable to marketing material for the IE browser.