Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Programming > HTML > IE 9 Beta (OT)

Reply
Thread Tools

IE 9 Beta (OT)

 
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010
I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good! The redesigned top
is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I prefer.
(I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a pixel or two,
though.) And hallelujah! - it does opacity! They've opted for the
"disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on but don't count
as a negative.

There are a few issues. The positioning is fouled up, -notably
elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
do in other browsers. Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
think they fixed it.) Also, there seems to be an odd delay _on the
start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which should by
then be cached) after the first one. The video loads fine (fast) once
it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for some reason.
Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet and except for
the probs I like it better than ie 8.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
rf
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010

"Neredbojias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9DFA3E9594F3Bneredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112. ..

>I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!


Go over to CLJ to see how it breaks all the "major" javascript "libraries"





 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-21-2010
On Sep 21, 8:09*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good! *The redesigned top
> is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I prefer.
> (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a pixel or two,
> though.) *And hallelujah! - it does opacity! *They've opted for the
> "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on but don't count
> as a negative.
>
> There are a few issues. *The positioning is fouled up, -notably
> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
> do in other browsers. *Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
> think they fixed it.) *Also, there seems to be an odd delay _on the
> start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which should by
> then be cached) after the first one. *The video loads fine (fast) once
> it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for some reason.
> Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet and except for
> the probs I like it better than ie 8.


According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
see it.

If you would kindly view my page http://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines xhtml
is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the server as
html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self closing br, img,
etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in xhtml 1.1 and works,
we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is capable of displaying an
xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On 21 Sep 2010, "rf" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> "Neredbojias" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DFA3E9594F3Bneredbojiasnano@78.46.73.112. ..
>
>>I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good!

>
> Go over to CLJ to see how it breaks all the "major" javascript
> "libraries"
>


Yep, I've noticed some irregularities pertaining to the j/s. But it's
a beta, don't forget, and much will be fixed before the final release.
(-Just how much is the question.) Funny thing is I tried it on a
rather extensive j/s image-styling loop that made ie8 (-but no other
browser) hiccup and it handled that okay. We'll see.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On 21 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sep 21, 8:09*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good! *The redesigned
>> top is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I
>> prefer. (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a
>> pixel or two, though.) *And hallelujah! - it does opacity! *They've
>> opted for the "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on
>> but don't count as a negative.
>>
>> There are a few issues. *The positioning is fouled up, -notably
>> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
>> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
>> they do in other browsers. *Opera had a similar problem awhile back
>> but I think they fixed it.) *Also, there seems to be an odd delay
>> _on the start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which
>> should by then be cached) after the first one. *The video loads fine
>> (fast) once it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for
>> some reason. Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet
>> and except for the probs I like it better than ie 8.

>
> According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
> mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
> and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
> see it.
>
> If you would kindly view my page http://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
> on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
> xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
> xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines
> xhtml is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the
> server as html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self
> closing br, img, etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in
> xhtml 1.1 and works, we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is
> capable of displaying an xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.


Here's from view source "original":

<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
"http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html
xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">

<head>

<title>Fatty</title>

<style type="text/css">
body {background-color: #000044;color: #eeeeee}
a:active {color: #eeee00; background-color: #000043}
a:visited {color: #00ee00;background-color: #000043}
a:link {color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043}
p {font-size:125%;color:#eeeeee;font-weight:bold;background-color:
#000043} p.two {text-align:center;font-size:100%;color:
#ff0000;background-color: #000043} h3{text-align:center;font-size:
100%;color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043} </style>

</head>


Here's from view source DOM (page):

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML Strict//EN">
<html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">

<head>

<title>FattyFatty</title>

<style type="text/css">
*body {
**color: rgb(238, 238, 23;
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 6;
*}
*a:active {
**color: rgb(238, 238, 0);
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
*}
*a:visited {
**color: rgb(0, 238, 0);
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
*}
*a:link {
**color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
*}
*p {
**color: rgb(238, 238, 23;
**font-size: 125%;
**font-weight: bold;
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
*}
*p.two {
**text-align: center;
**color: rgb(255, 0, 0);
**font-size: 100%;
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
*}
*h3 {
**text-align: center;
**color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
**font-size: 100%;
**background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
*}
</style>


</head>


I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.


--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-22-2010
On Sep 22, 2:22*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On 21 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sep 21, 8:09*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> I loaded Ie 9 beta, and, wow, it looks damn good! *The redesigned
> >> top is especially pleasing, -a minimalist approach in the manner I
> >> prefer. (I might reduce the thickness of the eggshell-white bar a
> >> pixel or two, though.) *And hallelujah! - it does opacity! *They've
> >> opted for the "disappearing" status bar which I'm not really sold on
> >> but don't count as a negative.

>
> >> There are a few issues. *The positioning is fouled up, -notably
> >> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
> >> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as
> >> they do in other browsers. *Opera had a similar problem awhile back
> >> but I think they fixed it.) *Also, there seems to be an odd delay
> >> _on the start of_ loading a video (-or more likely the player which
> >> should by then be cached) after the first one. *The video loads fine
> >> (fast) once it starts but there's a couple-of-seconds hesitation for
> >> some reason. Anyway, I'm not going to bust a gut to uninstall it yet
> >> and except for the probs I like it better than ie 8.

>
> > According to some, IE 9 finally is supposed to support the correct
> > mime type for true xhtml served properly with the correct mime type
> > and not as text/html. I hope this is so, but I will believe it when I
> > see it.

>
> > If you would kindly view my pagehttp://www.cwdjr.net/flash/Fatty.php
> > on IE9, check the source code and it should have the Doctype for
> > xhtml1.1 and the usual code for xhtml if IE9 finally can view a true
> > xhtml page properly.. Up through IE8, header exchange determines
> > xhtml is not supported, and using php the page gets written on the
> > server as html 4.01 strict. All of the xhtml stuff such as self
> > closing br, img, etc is removed. If the page gets served to you in
> > xhtml 1.1 and works, we can be fairly certain that IE9 really is
> > capable of displaying an xhtml page served properly as xhtml+xml.

>
> Here's from view source "original":
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.1//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml11/DTD/xhtml11.dtd"> <html
> xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" xml:lang="en">
>
> <head>
>
> <title>Fatty</title>
>
> <style type="text/css">
> body {background-color: #000044;color: #eeeeee}
> a:active {color: #eeee00; background-color: #000043}
> a:visited {color: #00ee00;background-color: #000043}
> a:link {color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043}
> p {font-size:125%;color:#eeeeee;font-weight:bold;background-color:
> #000043} p.two {text-align:center;font-size:100%;color:
> #ff0000;background-color: #000043} h3{text-align:center;font-size:
> 100%;color: #ee0000;background-color: #000043} </style>
>
> </head>
>
> Here's from view source DOM (page):
>
> <!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML Strict//EN">
> <html xml:lang="en" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml">
>
> <head>
>
> <title>FattyFatty</title>
>
> <style type="text/css">
> *body {
> **color: rgb(238, 238, 23;
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 6;
> *}
> *a:active {
> **color: rgb(238, 238, 0);
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
> *}
> *a:visited {
> **color: rgb(0, 238, 0);
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
> *}
> *a:link {
> **color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
> *}
> *p {
> **color: rgb(238, 238, 23;
> **font-size: 125%;
> **font-weight: bold;
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
> *}
> *p.two {
> **text-align: center;
> **color: rgb(255, 0, 0);
> **font-size: 100%;
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
> *}
> *h3 {
> **text-align: center;
> **color: rgb(238, 0, 0);
> **font-size: 100%;
> **background-color: rgb(0, 0, 67);
> *}
> </style>
>
> </head>
>
> I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.


Thanks very much for viewing my page on IE9 and your report concerning
the code. I have made an exception to my rule of not downloading beta
browsers, and installed IE9 so I can test it in detail. I usually use
Firefox online, and I have an old XP with IE7 installed which I could
upgrade to IE8 if the need arises. Although many hate and a few may
love IE, you nearly have to have it to check your web pages. I will
post again if I find anything new that is interesting.

 
Reply With Quote
 
Neredbojias
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-24-2010
On 22 Sep 2010, cwdjrxyz <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> On Sep 22, 2:22*am, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> I can view the vid fine and the page looks the same as in ff.

>
> Thanks very much for viewing my page on IE9 and your report
> concerning the code. I have made an exception to my rule of not
> downloading beta browsers, and installed IE9 so I can test it in
> detail. I usually use Firefox online, and I have an old XP with IE7
> installed which I could upgrade to IE8 if the need arises. Although
> many hate and a few may love IE, you nearly have to have it to check
> your web pages. I will post again if I find anything new that is
> interesting.


I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so... I
miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
frequently. Will probably go back in a week or so.

--
Neredbojias

http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/
 
Reply With Quote
 
cwdjrxyz
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2010
On Sep 23, 7:25*pm, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
> and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so... *I
> miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
> frequently. *Will probably go back in a week or so.


Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food . Of course this
is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.

 
Reply With Quote
 
idle
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-25-2010
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 12:06:18 -0700 (PDT), cwdjrxyz wrote in alt.html:

> On Sep 23, 7:25*pm, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I don't usually "do" beta's, myself, but I ran across a blog somewhere
>> and they were talking about it and it sounded interesting, so... *I
>> miss ie8's error message thingy, though; limited or not, I used it
>> frequently. *Will probably go back in a week or so.

>
> Apparently IE9 will not be available for Windows XP and earlier. I
> read about this in a Microsoft forum. I then went to my old XP
> computer and selected to update to IE 9 beta. It detected that I had
> XP with IE7 installed. It said that IE9 beta was not availabe for my
> XP. Of course they had a solution, I could update to Windows 7 first.
> That could be quite an expense. The top version of Windows 7 costs
> over $US 300. That would buy a lot of parrot food . Of course this
> is just a beta, and perhaps the final release of IE9 will work on XP.
> The odds of this happening likely are the same as some unknown
> billionaire relative of mine leaving me some of his/her fortune.


IE9 uses Direct2D to hardware-accelerate HTML5-based scrolling and 3D graphics, handing such processing to the machine's GPU.
Direct2D was introduced with Windows 7, and it was later rolled into Windows Vista SP2 and Windows Server 2008 R2.

For Windows XP, the writing has long been on the wall. Microsoft said back in November, at its PDC conference in Los Angeles,
that IE9 would make use of Direct2D.

--
Double parked on the corner of Null and Void.
 
Reply With Quote
 
GTalbot
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-26-2010

On 21 sep, 09:09, Neredbojias <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> There are a few issues. *The positioning is fouled up, -notably
> elements positioned absolutely without parameters after a
> statically-positioned element don't "follow" it accordingly (-as they
> do in other browsers. *Opera had a similar problem awhile back but I
> think they fixed it.)


Neredbojias,

"
(...) * The static position for 'left' is the distance from the left
edge of the containing block to the left margin edge of a hypothetical
box that would have been the first box of the element if its
'position' property had been 'static' and 'float' had been 'none'.
(...)
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.3.7 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.h...replaced-width

"
(...) the term "static position" (of an element) refers, roughly, to
the position an element would have had in the normal flow. More
precisely, the static position for 'top' is the distance from the top
edge of the containing block to the top margin edge of a hypothetical
box that would have been the first box of the element if its specified
'position' value had been 'static' and its specified 'float' had been
'none' and 'clear' had been 'none'.
(...)
But rather than actually calculating the dimensions of that
hypothetical box, user agents are *_free to make a guess_* at its
probable position.
"
CSS 2.1, section 10.6.4 Absolutely positioned, non-replaced elements
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/visudet.h...eplaced-height

regards, Gérard
--
Web authors' contributions to CSS 2.1 test suite
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSe...ss21testsuite/
Internet Explorer 8 bugs: 64 bugs so far
http://www.gtalbot.org/BrowserBugsSection/MSIE8Bugs/
 
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
[ANN] Beta test of the W3C Markup Validator (0.7.0 beta 1) David Dorward HTML 0 07-12-2005 09:27 PM
Request.Browser.MajorVersion.ToString() returns null on ASP.NET 2.0 Beta 1 and Beta 2 ocn0248@hotmail.com ASP .Net 1 05-02-2005 11:46 PM
install Beta 2 after Beta 1? Mark Oliver ASP .Net 3 01-25-2005 01:39 PM
[ANN] JNIWrapper 2.5 Beta for Windows and JExplorer Beta 3 Eugene Toporov Java 0 07-15-2004 01:15 PM
Beta 70-298 Beta Exam Romila MCSE 1 09-07-2003 11:38 PM



Advertisments