Quote: "There they go with their proprietary code again!
It's not even 'standards'!"
IE7 is WSC 1.0 compliant, the additions are there partly for backward compatibility; but more because they're just Microsoft-specifics.
You know in the world of C++, both Microsoft and Borland provide not only compatibility with ISO for C and C++ but also provide their own specifics that only their editors understand.
The only pure standard compiler is GCC.
No one goes around bitching that the other has specifics they won't share with the competition... and to be perfectly honest, why the hell should they?!
What because they have a monopoly? We're not talking about an industry where Microsoft are artificially keeping prices high, because Internet Explorer is and will remain FREE. Despite the EU forcing them to remove it from Windows within the EU (along with Media Player, thank you WinAmp), they're not saying that cause they have specific code they *must* change it again to be compliant? Or what... IE becomes banned within the EU itself?
Oh, which btw the company who made the complaint are Opera.
Last time I checked it still costs £20 PER YEAR, for the privilage of using their browser.
Sorry, but the way of the world has always been those with majority market share; dictate standards. You have two choices when it comes to these standard... either you make your product compatible, or gamble on your system been better enough for people to migrate.
Quite frankly Microsoft has been bending over backwards as of late to provide more standards compatibility; despite this people just aren't happy.
With the comment above, aparently Jess seems to feel that the automatic backward compatibility was obviously just as wrong as their new "developers must dictact the compatibility mode"
You know what, as web-developers if you've not made your website WSC compatible then tough. Either include the no doubt XHTML tag or more likely Javascript tag for setting to previous Explorer rendering models or actually write a site that is standard compatible.
Really still clueless to why Microsoft should change anything and why their way of doing things wasn't made a standard.
NVIDIA lost the Shader format war to Microsoft, you don't see them claiming foul play do you? No instead while Cg is still around, NVIDIA have focused on providing the best tool possible compatible with the standard that won.
In the last few years Microsoft has actually introduced a standardisation for Shaders, which prior to SAS pretty much used whatever syntax they felt like (anyone familiar with shaders in DBP should know EXACTLY what I mean)
This is the same really with the browser standards. Only difference is, the other companies have kept crying to governments who then just take it as red that "Microsoft = Evil Monopoly" and thus force them to adhear to everyone elses' way of thinking despite the fact that Microsoft were basically the ONLY browser option available to people using Windows for a good number of years before FireFox and Opera came along. Unless you wanted to keep with a browser that was no longer maintained and lacked huge numbers of fairly important aspects; like say... keywords in the address bar. Might not seem a big deal but you use the browser knowing the exact name of the site your looking for, without a search engine to back it up or trying to hunt it down in your history.
I agreed with many, that Explorer needed more compatibility with web standards; and Explorer 7 provided this; but now all of this is just getting really petty and silly. I honestly don't think Microsoft should keep jumping through hoops for people who won't be happy until they leave the market entire.
How about this for an idea, might be crazy; but what if these rivals who always bitch about Microsofts' market share and standards compatibility ACTUALLY had this same compatibility in their own browsers.
