3 ms·
> At the time of their release IE4-IE6 have been the most standard-compliant browser At the time of their release, Opera was the most standards-compliant brows
by lucideer 5y ago
> At the time of their release IE4-IE6 have been the most standard-compliant browser
At the time of their release, Opera was the most standards-compliant browser. Beyond Opera, I'm not sure where Firebird, KHTML, etc. stood relative to IE4 specifically, but IE5.5/6.0 were well behind most contemporary browsers (lets exclude Netscape shall we; it was in crisis at the time and promptly discontinued). Opera, KHTML, Firefox and Webkit all passed Acid2 long before IE (IE8 was the first version).
It's worth remembering that Acid1 was released in 1998; IE6 was released in 2001. So this wasn't a time before web standards and cross-browser compat: they were very much a part of the discourse at the time. A discourse MS largely refused to participate in.
> Back then all browsers had unstandardized behavior, there was plenty of Netscape specific and IE specific hacks. Some of them were intended as EEE, some of them were result of weak standardization or mere technical limitations of their respective architectures.
That is true, but it was largely due to bugs other browser makers were working on fixing. The EEE had a heavy influence on MS' motivations to get fixes out (whereas with Safari there isn't really any evidence of any EEE being present).
A good counter-point is XMLHttpRequest. It was non-standard mainly because "AJAX" was a new-ish idea and standards didn't exist. There's good arguments that Microsoft's engagement with standardisation efforts of AJAX APIs was non-existent/actively-hostile, but at the end of the day the various APIs they implemented were pretty easy to detect (even the ActiveX variants), and generally could be targeted in a very cross-browser-compatible way.
That was very much the exception to the rule though: the majority of pains were layout related, and involved not extra nor missing features, but rather features that were in common with other browsers that were deliberately implemented in a different way.
- The_Colonel 5y ago> At the time of their release, Opera was the most standards-compliant browser. That definitely does not correspond to my recollections. It was only in Opera 7 (2003) with the new Presto layouting engine that drastically improved standards compliance. > Beyond Opera, I'm not sure where Firebird, KHTML, etc. stood relative to IE4 specifically There wasn't any Firebird (neither Phoenix) at the time of IE6 release so how can you discuss this in relation to IE4 is beyond me. Mozilla Suite was still in 0.x beta and a year away from official release when IE6 was released. "The real work on KHTML actually started between May and October 1999" (wiki citation) so I don't think they had a big impact on the discussed time period. > but IE5.5/6.0 were well behind most contemporary browsers So let's get concrete, which browsers were better in 1999-2001? > It's worth remembering that Acid1 was released in 1998; IE6 was released in 2001. So this wasn't a time before web standards and cross-browser compat: they were very much a part of the discourse at the time. A discourse MS largely refused to participate in. Are you aware that IE6 is Acid1 compliant? IIRC the first one as the GA released browser (discounting Netscape 6/Mozilla 0.X betas). > Opera, KHTML, Firefox and Webkit all passed Acid2 long before IE (IE8 was the first version). Which is a direct consequence of the fact that Microsoft after IE6 release dissolved the IE development team. IE8 was the first substantial update of IE in 8 years. (IE7 was a minor update)
- tripzilch 5y agoIE7 brought PNG transparency support. As a webdeveloper in those days, this was huge. IIRC this was just at the start of the "shiny buttons" web2.0 design era.