Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > Internet Explorer 8 first 2 bugs

Reply
Thread Tools

Internet Explorer 8 first 2 bugs

 
 
GTalbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-09-2008
[Followup-to set to alt.html]

Hello all,

Yesterday, I reported a crash bug (credits must go to Alan Gresley,
Antonio Bueno and Brett Merkey for discovering, reporting and figuring
out this bug) to Microsoft people. Later that same day, I got emails
from Microsoft and a few visits from an user agent with the "MSIE 8"
string. I double-checked carefully (Reverse DNS lookup and complete
WHOIS lookup) and I can say with absolute certainty that it was
Microsoft people in Redmond following up on that crash in IE 7
(involving button[value="x"]). In fact, I've got over 400 hits since
January 15th 2008 from such user agent, always with the same first 7
digits as IP addresses. I also checked with some trustworthy people
(at webstandards.org and with D. Massy); the machines used to visit my
IE 7 browser bugs webpage were also very well equiped (SLCC1, .NET
3.5, Origami Experience 2, Windows Vista 64 bits), high-powered ones.

So, even though Internet Explorer 8 is still in alpha or pre-beta
state and not available to the public, I can say with certainty that
IE 8 still has not fixed 2 bugs related to favicon.ico

105 Bugs in Internet Explorer 7 for Windows
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSe...E7Bugs/#bug105

Bugs in Internet Explorer 8 for Windows
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/

Regards, Gérard

[Followup-to set to alt.html]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2008
On Feb 9, 3:34 pm, GTalbot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> [Followup-to set to alt.html]
>
> Hello all,
>
> Yesterday, I reported a crash bug (credits must go to Alan Gresley,
> Antonio Bueno and Brett Merkey for discovering, reporting and figuring
> out this bug) to Microsoft people. Later that same day, I got emails
> from Microsoft and a few visits from an user agent with the "MSIE 8"
> string. I double-checked carefully (Reverse DNS lookup and complete
> WHOIS lookup) and I can say with absolute certainty that it was
> Microsoft people in Redmond following up on that crash in IE 7
> (involving button[value="x"]). In fact, I've got over 400 hits since
> January 15th 2008 from such user agent, always with the same first 7
> digits as IP addresses. I also checked with some trustworthy people
> (at webstandards.org and with D. Massy); the machines used to visit my
> IE 7 browser bugs webpage were also very well equiped (SLCC1, .NET
> 3.5, Origami Experience 2, Windows Vista 64 bits), high-powered ones.
>
> So, even though Internet Explorer 8 is still in alpha or pre-beta
> state and not available to the public, I can say with certainty that
> IE 8 still has not fixed 2 bugs related to favicon.ico
>
> 105 Bugs in Internet Explorer 7 for Windowshttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/#bug105
>
> Bugs in Internet Explorer 8 for Windowshttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/


To me the main question is if IE8 will support application/xhtml+xml
at least semi-properly. If not, nothing else matters much - IE is
still hopelessly outdated. Nearly all browsers with much general web
usage have been able to support application/xhtml+xml for quite a
while now, although there are a few bugs for some of them that usually
can be worked around or avoided. It seems that all new browsers should
support everything from W3C html 3.2 through xhtml 1.1 well at the
very least. If Microsoft does not have the talent to do this, they do
have plenty of money as evidenced by the huge amount they are offering
in an attempt to get Yahoo. They could easily hire Opera or the
Mozilla project to write a decent browser for them. or even hire some
programmers away from these organizations to head the Microsoft
browser development. However, I suspect the difference here is that
management at the highest levels in Microsoft thinks they can gain
more control of the ad market by spending a fortune to buy Yahoo, but
are misers when it comes to in house browser development - why should
we spend much, or anything, on browser development when IE browsers
are the most used and browsers do not make money for us type of
attitude.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Chaddy2222
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-10-2008
On Feb 10, 4:04*pm, cwdjrxyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Feb 9, 3:34 pm, GTalbot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > [Followup-to set to alt.html]

>
> > Hello all,

>
> > Yesterday, I reported a crash bug (credits must go to Alan Gresley,
> > Antonio Bueno and Brett Merkey for discovering, reporting and figuring
> > out this bug) to Microsoft people. Later that same day, I got emails
> > from Microsoft and a few visits from an user agent with the "MSIE 8"
> > string. I double-checked carefully (Reverse DNS lookup and complete
> > WHOIS lookup) and I can say with absolute certainty that it was
> > Microsoft people in Redmond following up on that crash in IE 7
> > (involving button[value="x"]). In fact, I've got over 400 hits since
> > January 15th 2008 from such user agent, always with the same first 7
> > digits as IP addresses. I also checked with some trustworthy people
> > (at webstandards.org and with D. Massy); the machines used to visit my
> > IE 7 browser bugs webpage were also very well equiped (SLCC1, .NET
> > 3.5, Origami Experience 2, Windows Vista 64 bits), high-powered ones.

>
> > So, even though Internet Explorer 8 is still in alpha or pre-beta
> > state and not available to the public, I can say with certainty that
> > IE 8 still has not fixed 2 bugs related to favicon.ico

>
> > 105 Bugs in Internet Explorer 7 for Windowshttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE7Bugs/#bug105

>
> > Bugs in Internet Explorer 8 for Windowshttp://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/

>
> To me the main question is if IE8 will support application/xhtml+xml
> at least semi-properly. If not, nothing else matters much - IE is
> still hopelessly outdated. Nearly all browsers with much general web
> usage have been able to support application/xhtml+xml for quite a
> while now, although there are a few bugs for some of them that usually
> can be worked around or avoided. It seems that all new browsers should
> support everything *from W3C html 3.2 through xhtml 1.1 well at the
> very least. If Microsoft does not have the talent to do this, they do
> have plenty of money as evidenced by the huge amount they are offering
> in an attempt to get Yahoo. They could easily hire Opera or the
> Mozilla project to write a decent browser for them. or even hire some
> programmers away from these organizations to head the Microsoft
> browser development. However, I suspect the difference here is that
> management at the highest levels in Microsoft thinks they can gain
> more control of the ad market by spending a fortune to buy Yahoo, but
> are misers when it comes to in house browser development - why should
> we spend much, or anything, on browser development when IE browsers
> are the most used and browsers do not make money for us type of
> attitude.

Well lets face it.
XHTML is not really very benificial for most web pages anyway.
Also the W3C from what I know are not going to do any more work on
XHTML they are working on HTML 5 instead.
--
Regards Chad. http://freewebdesignonline.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
Toby A Inkster
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2008
Chaddy2222 wrote:

> Also the W3C from what I know are not going to do any more work on XHTML
> they are working on HTML 5 instead.


That is not the case -- although the W3C has now blessed HTML 5, work on
XHTML 2.0 proceeds as planned. Whatsmore, HTML 5 itself does define both
an "HTML syntax" and "XHTML syntax".

--
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
[Geek of HTML/SQL/Perl/PHP/Python/Apache/Linux]
[OS: Linux 2.6.17.14-mm-desktop-9mdvsmp, up 12 days, 15:43.]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dylan Parry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2008
GTalbot wrote:

> So, even though Internet Explorer 8 is still in alpha or pre-beta
> state and not available to the public, I can say with certainty that
> IE 8 still has not fixed 2 bugs related to favicon.ico


No you can't. You can't even say that there are bugs in browser that
visited your site and claimed to be IE8 as you cannot prove that a bug
exists if you can't even see the software that has the supposed bug.

Even if it were IE8, as you say it's in *alpha*, so there are bound to
be bugs. That's the whole purpose of the alpha stage.


--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Alan Gresley
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-11-2008
Dylan Parry wrote:
> GTalbot wrote:
> > So, even though Internet Explorer 8 is still in alpha or pre-beta
> > state and not available to the public, I can say with certainty that
> > IE 8 still has not fixed 2 bugs related to favicon.ico

>
> No you can't. You can't even say that there are bugs in browser that
> visited your site and claimed to be IE8 as you cannot prove that a bug
> exists if you can't even see the software that has the supposed bug.

[...]
> Dylan Parryhttp://electricfreedom.org|http://webpageworkshop.co.uk


Yes you can. A log file is a log file. The only thing that needs to be
proved is if the UA was IE8. I have had visits from IE8 on my site.
One IP addressed used and when checked give this information.

IP address: 131.107.0.102
Host name: tide532.microsoft.com
Country: UNITED STATES

Location of IP address 131.107.0.102:
Redmond, WA in UNITED STATES (US).

My log file has:

131.107.0.102 - - [31/Jan/2008:16:23:11 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/ HTTP/1.1" 200 1767 "http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/
MSIE7Bugs/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)"

131.107.0.102 - - [31/Jan/2008:16:23:12 -0700] "GET css-class.com/
favicon.ico HTTP/1.1" 200 1406 "-" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0;
Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET
CLR 3.0.04506)"

http://css-class.com/test/bugs/ie/

This directory shows just a list of files. There is no index page here
but IE8 is indeed requesting the favicon icon.

What UA anyway claims to be IE8 and request favicon icons? I would
find it bazaar to suggest that someone is spoofing IE8 for fun.

The first page visited showing the logs:

131.107.0.102 - - [31/Jan/2008:16:23:13 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/body-width.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 1048 "http://css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)"
131.107.0.102 - - [31/Jan/2008:16:23:18 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/body-width.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 1048 "http://css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)"
131.107.0.102 - - [31/Jan/2008:16:23:23 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/body-width.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 1048 "http://css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)"
131.107.0.102 - - [31/Jan/2008:16:23:25 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/body-width.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 1048 "http://css-class.com/test/
bugs/ie/" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 6.0;
SLCC1; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; Media Center PC 5.0; .NET CLR 3.0.04506)"

http://css-class.com/test/bugs/ie/body-width.htm

If a UA passes the test on this page. The page does not have to be
refreshed three times.

Another log:

131.107.0.102 - - [23/Jan/2008:10:58:31 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET
CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.2; .NET
CLR 3.5.21022)"
131.107.0.75 - - [23/Jan/2008:10:59:24 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.2; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)"
131.107.0.104 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:01:05 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
"Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b2) Gecko/
2007121120 Firefox/3.0b2"
131.107.0.102 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:01:38 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U;
Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/523.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/
3.0 Safari/523.15"
131.107.0.104 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:01:50 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm" "Opera/9.25 (Windows NT 6.0;
U; en)"
131.107.0.104 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:04:35 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-" "Opera/
9.25 (Windows NT 6.0; U; en)"
131.107.0.104 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:04:35 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm" "Opera/9.25 (Windows NT 6.0;
U; en)"
131.107.0.75 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:17:43 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-" "Opera/
9.50 (Windows NT 5.1; U; en)"
131.107.0.75 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:17:43 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm" "Opera/9.50 (Windows NT 5.1;
U; en)"
131.107.0.101 - - [23/Jan/2008:20:06:34 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR
2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.2)"
131.107.0.101 - - [23/Jan/2008:20:33:41 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; SLCC1; .NET CLR
2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.2)"
131.107.0.102 - - [23/Jan/2008:20:49:47 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
"Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.2; .NET CLR
1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; MS-RTC LM 8; .NET
CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; InfoPath.2)"

From the way this page was visited it would indicate that IE8 has the
same bug as IE7. There even time there (13 minutes and almost 3 hours
gaps) to have a coffee and discuss the implications before moving onto
another machine to test further. The last log has "MS-RTC LM 8." Is
that IE8 in IE7 mode?

Strange that that page was visited the same day that I wrote a private
email to a IE team member suggesting that they may want to test IE8
with this page.

I know of other ways to test IE8 and all by the evidence that I will
get in my log files. It would be so much easier if the IE team and the
development community wasn't playing the game and just worked
together.

Alan Gresley






 
Reply With Quote
 
GTalbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2008
On 11 fév, 05:24, Dylan Parry <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> GTalbot wrote:
> > So, even though Internet Explorer 8 is still in alpha or pre-beta
> > state and not available to the public, I can say with certainty that
> > IE 8 still has not fixed 2 bugs related to favicon.ico

>
> No you can't. You can't even say that there are bugs in browser that
> visited your site


Dylan,

Requesting /favicon.ico automatically is one bug that web developers,
web authors have been requesting to be fixed as soon as 1997.
Another one is that requesting a file regarding a specific or
restrained location on the server goes against the architecture of the
web. Where is the website icon is a question, an issue that should
fall entirely under the responsibility of the owner/publisher of the
domain name, not Microsoft's decision.
So, the browser which visited my site on February 8th 2008 at 16:12:27
had both bugs.

I did a Reverse DNS lookup and a complete WHOIS lookup and that
browser originated from Microsoft's labs.

Furthermore, only 2 people (besides Microsoft people) knew that I
contacted Microsoft to report that serious crash. So, I add up
everything (notwithstanding all of the previous visits from the same
domain and other info) and I claim certainty regarding the identity of
that browser.

Regards, Gérard
 
Reply With Quote
 
GTalbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2008
On 11 fév, 10:38, Alan Gresley <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


> Another log:
>
> 131.107.0.102 - - [23/Jan/2008:10:58:31 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
> css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
> "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 6.0; WOW64; SLCC1; .NET
> CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506; .NET CLR 1.1.4322; InfoPath.2; .NET
> CLR 3.5.21022)"
> 131.107.0.75 - - [23/Jan/2008:10:59:24 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
> css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
> "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 8.0; Windows NT 5.2; .NET CLR
> 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727)"
> 131.107.0.104 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:01:05 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
> css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
> "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.0; en-US; rv:1.9b2) Gecko/
> 2007121120 Firefox/3.0b2"
> 131.107.0.102 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:01:38 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
> css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm" "Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U;
> Windows NT 6.0; en-US) AppleWebKit/523.15 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/
> 3.0 Safari/523.15"
> 131.107.0.104 - - [23/Jan/2008:11:01:50 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
> css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm" "Opera/9.25 (Windows NT 6.0;
> U; en)"


(...)

Yep! I had visits like that. As if they were comparing rendering and
discussing or something.

> 131.107.0.102 - - [23/Jan/2008:20:49:47 -0700] "GET css-class.com/test/
> css/selectors/ie7hacktargetingopera.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 3647 "-"
> "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 7.0; Windows NT 5.2; .NET CLR
> 1.1.4322; .NET CLR 2.0.50727; .NET CLR 3.0.04506.30; MS-RTC LM 8; .NET
> CLR 3.0.04506.648; .NET CLR 3.5.21022; InfoPath.2)"
>
> From the way this page was visited it would indicate that IE8 has the
> same bug as IE7. There even time there (13 minutes and almost 3 hours
> gaps) to have a coffee and discuss the implications before moving onto
> another machine to test further. The last log has "MS-RTC LM 8." Is
> that IE8 in IE7 mode?


Good question...

> Strange that that page was visited the same day that I wrote a private
> email to a IE team member suggesting that they may want to test IE8
> with this page.



Exactly. Why would it be unreasonable to expect to get visits with/
from an IE8 browser on the very same day you report a serious bug in
IE 7 if you email Microsoft's IE team?

Best regards, Gérard
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dylan Parry
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2008
GTalbot wrote:

> Requesting /favicon.ico automatically is one bug that web developers,
> web authors have been requesting to be fixed as soon as 1997


Ah right, I didn't realise that. Possibly because I neither use IE, nor
pay any attention to my logs

--
Dylan Parry
http://electricfreedom.org | http://webpageworkshop.co.uk

The opinions stated above are not necessarily representative of
those of my cats. All opinions expressed are entirely your own.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Travis Newbury
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      02-12-2008
On Feb 12, 3:06 am, GTalbot <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> Furthermore, only 2 people (besides Microsoft people) knew that I
> contacted Microsoft to report that serious crash. So, I add up
> everything (notwithstanding all of the previous visits from the same
> domain and other info) and I claim certainty regarding the identity of
> that browser.


Are you not worried that Microsoft will have to "disappear" since you
found (and are spreading rumors) about their browser. You are walking
on thin ice there my man.

Maybe it is a conspiracy?

On a serious note, I am pretty sure Microsoft doesn't give a ****
about you or your site, and I am also pretty sure you did not find
something they did not already know about.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Internet Explorer 8: C:\Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe vs C:\Program Files (x86)\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe Nathan Sokalski Windows 64bit 16 02-22-2010 08:31 AM
internet explorer 7 - Internet Explorer cannot display the webpag sandy j Windows 64bit 0 05-02-2009 02:12 AM
Internet Explorer gets bombarded by bugs Au79 Computer Support 1 03-23-2006 07:13 PM
Bugs and Bugs...get rid of them Jason Computer Security 1 01-31-2006 10:47 PM
Still use 'ruby-bugs' for Ruby bugs? Josef 'Jupp' Schugt Ruby 2 11-04-2004 10:10 PM



Advertisments