IE 8 to be standards-compliant: Good for devs and users

(Credit: Channel 9 / Microsoft Corporation)

Standards, standards, standards.

That's the general theme of a video about the next version of Internet Explorer, which will unsurprisingly be called IE 8. Details thus far have been scarce, but in a half-hour video with IE General Manager Dean Hachamovitch and Architect Chris Wilson produced by Microsoft's Channel 9, the two discuss the importance of standards, compatibility, and interoperability with the upcoming browser.

We also get a (faraway) sneak peak at a development build of the new hush-hush browser. The key takeaway? IE will finally be able to render the Acid 2 test correctly, which has historically been one of the toughest Web standards and compliance tests around.

Microsoft originally intended to add additional compliance support into IE 7 (including the Acid 2 test), but it didn't make it into the shipping build. It was then put in a lower priority on the bottom of a large "wish list" of improvements for future updates, but to no avail, as Microsoft focused its resources on building IE 8.

No version of IE has been able to pass the test, while mainstream competing browsers like Opera and Apple's Safari have managed to be compliant for the last few years. Mozilla's upcoming Version 3 of Firefox is also set to pass the Acid 2 test, though the current shipping version of Firefox (version 2) won't cut the mustard.

The real importance of standards compliance is a two-party problem: one for developers who have to laboriously make their sites work with as many browsers as possible, and another for the users who simply may not be able to use a site because it's been designed only for a limited number of compatible browsers. The Acid 2 test isn't the final solution, but it manages to put any browser through its paces with a seven-part test.

Still no word on other IE 8 user features--or a release date.

Update: According to Paul Thurrott, we can expect the browser to make its way to users in the first half of 2008. Thurrott also has some details on potential interface changes, including a mention of it sharing some characteristics with Office 2007--sans the "ribbon."

[The_Decider]

Too little too late.

At least they are admitting that IE7 and earlier are non-standard piles crap.

[Moosehouse]

What the heck do you mean too little to late. You win this year's award for "Talking Through Your Hat". Well done, let's see if you can do the same for 2008. My money is on you to keep up the verbal diarrhoea.

[stevent1992]

Is it me or is Paul Thurrott somewhat dissing the Acid 2 test, somehow from my perspective judging from the tone of the article, that he thinks that web standards isn't that important, but then take a look at his site and you'll know what I mean about his attitude towards web standards.

Its never too late, but it is very long overdue and it is inexcusable that Microsoft have put their nose up to web standards for several years now, its time they learned their lesson and start listening to people instead of their corporate strategy. No more of this crap.

IE8 better is the VERY LAST CHANCE, they have, they better fix that interface and they better fix the browser's standards support if they want to earn some more respect in both the web development and accessibility community.

There I've had my say.

[AppleSuxLeo]

FF isn`t so great , there have been many times when the text was garbled , and then I rendered the page with IE7 and it worked perfectly ;)

[Rod Roddy]

I agree with AppleSuxLeo, FF isn't the wonder browser it's made out to be. Besides, with IE being the dominant browser in the known universe, version 8 will only cement that title what with all it's compliance and all.

[Atomic1fire]

Thats because the site was probably designed for IE
Just because a few sites are designed for a certain browser doesnt mean that browser is the best choice for you
it depends on what you want
Standards are just a way of every person and their browser getting equal treatment as far as webpage viewing goes

[amaliapa]

Isnt it time that all browser work to the same standard .Why should the ordinary joe bloggs
have to suffer the terminal indignation that a program was not built to work with this or that .
It is time they berry the hatchet and make peace with each other .let good will rule.
merry christmas

[jazzy5]

My question we be, who set the standard? In the past there was Navigator and Internet Explorer. Navigator was first and later Microsoft came in. I know there was the bulletin before that and there was AOL and other internet service that I forgot the name. But the real browser was between these two and so was the browser war. Navigator was the king but IE kept improving with each new version until it won the browser war. It had very little to do that it came bundle with Windows for free. It was a better browser at that time. Please review all the articles from all magazines for that time and all of them said IE was better. As the winner of the browser war, Microsoft had the right to set the standards especialy that they had more than 90 percent of the market, not some bozo the might have a personal agenda against Microsoft. This is a free country with a free market. Whoever builds a better mouse trap get to set the standard base on market share.
Micosoft started to sleep on his laurels and did not notice that another small browser was gaining on their market. Fireflox started to build a better browser and when from 1percent to 17 or more percent of the market. It build a better mouse trap. Microsoft woke up and it started to fight back. First with IE 6.0, then 7.0 and now with 8.0, and Firefox is fighting back with new version 3.0 coming out soon. Those two are the ones who should be setting the standards. Like I said before, not some boze that created the ACID 2 test. I have being using both browsers, which neither pass the ACID 2 test and never had a problem with a web page, which tells me many web designer do not care of the ACID 2 test. They build for the biggest market share browser and that is it.

[shwayda]

Jazzy5, who set the standard? An international standards organization, with no vested interest except for end users, been able have the most consistent quality when using devices and platforms to access information via a browser etc. Micro$oft dominates the 'desktop', but it is not the only significant player in that market. Why should all UNIX, personal and business, users be locked out of the IE experience, if as you say, M$ is the standard? So other browsers fill in the market gap, left by M$, but decide to follow a standard to make the browser in a best practice way. M$ dominates the desktop, but a new segment of the market, which M$ does not dominate is the mobile device market, i.e. a cell-phone. You might be able to deal with bad rendering on a 21 inch wide screen monitor, because a page was written outside the 'standard', but on a tiny cell-phone screen it becomes an unnecessary pain. Also, if web developers have to write a different page for each type of browser, it becomes very complex and expensive to do properly and prohibitive to allot of businesses to get a net presence. We need standards and for rouge players like M$ to stop acting like the arrogant arses that they are and become more focused on the overall good and us, the end users.

[mcgmatt]

IE won the browser war by default, not by quality or stability. AOL bought Netscape and stopped development on it while Microsoft continued to work on IE. If a two-legged guy races against a one-legged guy and wins, he's still a loser. AOL bundled IE with their software, so letting Netscape rot was no accident. To continue the metaphor: The one-legged guy's missing leg was cut off by the two-legged guy's friend. That seems fair, right?

[emoslayer6224]

IE always suck in comparison to all Mozilla offerings, never has a useful interface, and only survive by marketing to people telling them that its the only browser they can use. If anybody knew anything, this would not e the case, but most people have never even realized that one can install new software from places other than their CD drives. What a joke.

[MoreScratch]

You have no idea what you are talking about. I design UI's for leading edge Web 2.0 applications and I can assure you that Firefox has as many standards compliance issues as IE. To say otherwise is pointless MS bashing. Shame on you.

[Wolfie2k5]

Just *** are you babbling about...? Firefox's interface isn't all THAT different from IE 6's. Nor IE 3, 4 or 5... They're all more or less the same thing. Yes, IE7's is a bit different and it's useful.

As far as marketing goes, I have YET to see ANYthing of the sort. If anything, I see more ads on web sites for Firefox than anything else.

And if I were you, I'd be real careful saying that Mozilla's offerings are better than the stuff that comes with Windows. Thunderbird bites big wind as a Usenet/Newsgroup reader. Even Outlook Express can combine/decode multipart messages natively - provided they're not encoded with Yenc - something Thunderbird can't handle.

I will grant you that MOST "noobs" probably don't know about installing stuff from other sources - but hey, they're noobs. They get with the program eventually.

[Ristic Break]

At least Microsoft have an ONLY chance to get over the other browsers (firefox, opera, etc...)
and admitting that IE7 Was ''Disappointing'' with its solid interface
i think that Microsoft IE wont be the ''Perfect Browser''

[bhartman35]

I can happily report that FF3 (as of beta 2) does indeed pass the Acid2 Test. Whether a person uses IE or Firefox is a personal choice, but hopefully, with everyone using the same standard, it won't matter anymore! :)

[sh1t_face]

does anyone still use IE?

[Wolfie2k5]

Yes... Plenty of people do.

[iconoclastt]

HECK!!!! I would just like Ineternut Exploder to work at all!!!
I have a perfectly updatable Sony Vaio which came with IE 6, but, by Automatic Updates, Microstupid put IE 7 on my computer one day and my ability to go to the internet was "CRIPPLED COMPLETELY". Microstupid was of no help at all, tried all the fixes( which for simply using a browser, there shoud be none. It should just work seamlessly with XP), and utter frustration; I reverted back to IE 6 and all is well. Even tried to install IE 7 several times, and the same results. I am no slouch and know how to install software. Just can't understand why i was not able to install a new version of the browser on my Microsoft machine; one made by Microsoft.