Talk:Internet Explorer 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a WikiProject devoted to maintaining and improving the informative value and quality of Wikipedia's many Microsoft Windows articles.
B This article has been rated as b-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as high-importance on WikiProject Microsoft Windows's importance scale.
A summary of this article appears in Internet Explorer.

Contents

[edit] Two betas in H1 2008?

Why are we so certain that [1] and [2] refer to two different betas? - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:33, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, I wasn't reading Remember the dot's edit summary very carefully. Even if they were about to send private invitations to the beta, the blog writer wouldn't necessarily know that, or necessarily be allowed to reveal that information by giving a less vague release estimate then the most recent one, which was given two months before. - Josh (talk | contribs) 04:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IE 8 standards or quirk mode selection

IE 8 will use standards mode by default, this is an about face from thier previous stance. The web dev would have to use a special call string to use ie 7 mode. refrence at http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx - Tom 18:46, 3 March 2008

While that seems to be what they're saying in the first paragraph, they then go on to imply that IE8 standards mode will still be opted into, but using the same method used for switching IE7 into IE7 standards mode. ("Now, IE8 will show pages requesting “Standards” mode in IE8’s Standards mode.") - Josh (talk | contribs) 00:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Nope, IE8 standards mode (now called "standards mode" like the rest of the world does) will be default. The IE7 rendering mode (called "IE7 standards mode") is the one that will now need opting into using the meta element. --soum talk 00:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] IE7 standards mode by default?

Where is this idea that IE8 was going to use IE7 standards mode, and not quirks mode, by default coming from? - Josh (talk | contribs) 16:26, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I do not get your question. As per previous announcements, when served with a valid (X)HTML document (with a valid HTML 4/4.01 Strict or XHTML doctype) IE8 was supposed to trigger "IE7 standards mode" by default. "IE8 standards mode" was to be opted-in explicitly using the X-UA-Compatible meta tag. Per current announcement, HTML 4.01 Strict, XHTML as well as HTML5 doctypes will trigger "IE8 standards mode" by default. IE7 mode can be requested by explicit opt-in. Quirks mode is not affected (triggered by no doctype or HTML 4/4.01 transitional doctype). --soum talk 17:04, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
The article currently says "Originally, this was going to be the other way around, as the browser would use the 'IE7 standards mode' by default". - Josh (talk | contribs) 19:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Please see: http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx J.H (talk) 19:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Updating the article

A long workday ahead. Who's going to get started? --soum talk 12:39, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unneeded sections

Why the hell are these sections in the article? 6 IE8 White Papers 7 Features and Technology Overview 8 IE8 Developer Tools

They just copy and paste from the MS websites and offer nothing substanitally encyclopedic. And everything in section 7 is already in section 3. Why do we have to repeat MS' marketing spin? What is not achieved by just linking to the MS pages in EL section, as every other article do? Whatever happened to the copyvio clause? I am removing them. --soum talk 19:36, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Well you have a point with some that, but the developer tools section I think is still reasonable. Digita (talk) 19:51, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
No it is not. There are other tools that do work with IE8. On what authority are we to choose the MS-blessed ones over them? MS suggests these tools, let MS list them. We do not have any need to parrot them, nor are we doing anything better than MS. It all comes down as advertising them, which we strive to avoid at all costs. Going forward, this will become a magnet for every other tool ever developed, when there will an advert tag get slapped and eventually deleted. So, lets not keep it in the first place itself. Instead the whitepapers are a better candidate for listing in the EL section, because MS does not have a central list of them all. --soum talk 20:44, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Look soum, I was just trying to get IE8 Beta 1 content from the launch into the article, not launch some sort of MS crusade. I'll drop this table bit, but I think we ought to summarize some of what was in the launch either way. Digita (talk) 21:00, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
Of course we ought to - thats what we are here for, aren't we? (Cool down buddy, I ain't combative) But what should we summarize? Something that MS already has? Whats the point doing that? I get what you are trying to achieve - make this article a one-stop shop for all resources regarding IE8. But that is not what wikipedia articles are for. They just provide introduction to the subject. Making a list of tangential resources isn't an utility of this article. If that list is important, either make a list article. Or MS already has a great list made, just linking to it is enough. That was my point.
As for symmarizing, what other info was released by MS that isn't already summarized? We need to look at other sources now. We need info on the developer tools, and public reception. But for public reception, I think we should wait for now. Given that this is a dev-oriented beta, incorporating opinion from non-devs isn't that good an idea. We should wait for a end user-oriented beta. --soum talk 21:14, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
I think you have done a fine job soumarizing the IE8 stuff. Without being too particular I was trying to add some detail to the launch paraphernalia (e.g. wp and whatnot). However, it is not a big deal to me soum and I prefer to see us adding new content. Digita (talk) 21:38, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the platform bit is not needed and isn't on the other IE pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.18.70.247 (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Acid3 image

Since neither passing acid3 (nor implementation of major specs tested by it, e.g., css3 and svg) were touted as focus of ie8 development, I think the image should not be used here. Instead, because css2.1 full compliance is a stated goal, we should use the image of a test that tests css2 compliance (namely, acid2). Acid3 definitely can be mentioned but not highlighted. --soum talk 19:47, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Information on beta releases

Have Microsoft released a timetable (or anything similar) about when they plan to release each milestone? It would be good info for the article. --Titan602 (talk) 18:12, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

No, the only concrete information they have provided regarding any future release of IE8 (or IE in general) is what currently missing CSS 2.1 features will make it to IE8 RTM (which anybody could have figured out since they said full CSS 2.1 compliance)? They haven't said anything else; not even whether they are doing anything with the features they requested feedback via a closed survey (an improved bookmark manager is the only thing coming to my mind) or via webstandards.org (support for more of the DOM spec, native XPath, and JS features). The only known thing related to release schedule is a broader release coming in June, though that information is not from MS directly. --soum talk 18:38, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
I see. They might tell us more at the end of the month. --Titan602 (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scripting

Should JavaScript be refered to as JScript in this article? --Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 05:03, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Probably not because it would just confuse people even more. —Remember the dot (talk) 21:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Also, at this point "JavaScript" (as our JavaScript article explains) is used as a pretty generalized term. Saying 'Microsoft's proprietary JScript implementation of JavaScript' would be fine, though, IMO. ¦ Reisio (talk) 23:29, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "Microsoft's proprietary JScript implementation of ECMAScript"? 221.217.204.95 (talk) 05:37, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 'Controversy' section

The information under Version Targeting also has information about the criticism and response of the IE7/IE8 standards mode system. I think this should be broken out into another section called maybe Version Targeting Controversy, or simply Controversy for the fact that this is a chronological account of this particular item, and more information may emerge about this as time goes on. Sjetha (talk) 04:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)