Opera Claims Microsoft Has Poor Interoperability 316
Noksagt writes "Opera CTO Hakon Lie has countered the claims that Bill Gates made regarding Microsoft's superior interoperability last week. He points out their invalid webpages, MS's unwillingness to serve the same content to different browsers, IE's poor CSS support, tardy documentation and limitations of their XML format, and more." From the article: "You say you believe in interoperability. Why then, did you terminate the Web Core Fonts initiative you started in 1996? You deserve credit for starting it, but why close down a project which could have given you yet much good will? (Verdana sucks, but Georgia is beautiful!)"
MS interoperability (Score:2, Informative)
Well I can vouch for that: there is just no way I can access my Hotmail account with Mozilla, and it seems a dicey affair with Konq. However, for some reason (ahem...), it works just great with IE
Oh well, nothing new here. Remember the DRDOS case against Microsoft? They claimed Windows couldn't interoperate without MSDOS 7 too, yet it could. It's a classic case of Microsoft trying to maintain its monopolies by messing with standards to its advantage.
Re:MS interoperability (Score:5, Informative)
At last the truth is told (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Actually (Score:3, Informative)
I love the way Verdana looks, but when I make pages using it and switch from a Windows environment to my home Linux environment, all the fonts are the wrong size!
Verdana does suck because of they way in which it is disproportionately sized relative to other font sizes... which is why it is great when small, but it does indeed suck when increased in size.
Hotmail in Moz, etc. (Score:3, Informative)
Re:MS interoperability (Score:1, Informative)
I don't have problems getting in with Firefox 1.0 either.
Still, you have to ask the question why any version would have an issue.
Re:MS interoperability (Score:2, Informative)
Note that it's not much of a problem really, since I use Gotmail to redirect stuff coming to my Hotmail account to my main POP3 account
Re:I have to see this one! (Score:3, Informative)
IEBlog [msdn.com]
It makes for great comedy.
WARNING: Could cause serious coffee splurtage.
Dave Hyatt on IE ruining Web coding (Score:5, Informative)
From the blog:
"Sometimes trying to support the standards can be a real pain.
While trying to improve our CSS2 compliance, I recently did a big cleanup of our block layout code, including the code for handling floats. I made what I believed to be a fairly innocuous correction to follow the CSS2 specification. Here's the scenario.
Lets say you have a div that is set to 300 pixels in CSS. You then put a 250 pixel wide float inside that div. Immediately after that you have a 100 pixel wide overflow:hidden div. All sizes have been specified in CSS.
Now here's the pop quiz. What do you think the layout should be? Should the overflow div:
(a) Be on the same line with the float and spill out of the enclosing 300 pixel div
(b) Be placed underneath the float, automatically clearing it because there is insufficient space for
the overflow div next to the float
Before I give an answer, lets see what the CSS specification has to say on this issue. Section 9.5 on floats, fifth paragraph.
'The margin box of a table or an element in the normal flow that establishes a new block formatting context (such as an element with 'overflow' other than 'visible') must not overlap any floats in the same block formatting context as the element itself. If necessary, implementations should clear the said element by placing it below any preceding floats, but may place it adjacent to such floats if there is sufficient space.'
My interpretation of this language is that there must be sufficient space for the table or overflow:hidden element to fit within the containing block. If not, you should clear. That's what I implemented. So in my opinion the correct answer to the question above is (b).
I decided to see what other browsers did. I started with Gecko. Gecko chose (a). Gecko always does (a). It is at least consistent if - in my humble opinion - incorrect. Gecko chooses (a) regardless of whether you pick strict, almost strict or quirks mode.
Next I tried WinIE, and this is the part that blew my mind. Depending on whether the float was an image or a table, the float was left or right aligned, the table specified that it floated via the align attribute or the float CSS property, and on whether or not the normal flow element was declared as a sibling or not of the float, I could get completely different results! The level of inconsistency was astonishing.
I was able to watch WinIE do clipping in one case, to wrap in a second case, to not wrap in a third case, to overwrite content in a fourth case, all by just tweaking the parameters outlined above. It's no wonder Web designers have no idea how to code a page to standards when they have to deal with a layout engine that is so horribly inconsistent and buggy.
Naively I opted to implement (b) and to hope for the best. Unfortunately the bugs immediately started pouring in. finance.yahoo.com was broken for example because it used an old-style align table and relied on it not wrapping underneath the float. Undaunted, I simply added a strict mode/quirks mode check and opted to do (a) in quirks mode and (b) in strict mode.
The bugs kept coming in though. Next was versiontracker.com, a page that is actually in strict mode and relies on an overflow:hidden div to spill out of a containing block rather than wrapping.
So now I really have no choice. This is an example of where the CSS2 standard simply can't be followed because buggy layout engines have set a bad precedent that the rest of us have no choice but to follow.
It's a shame that Gecko does not do the right thing in strict mode at least, but I suppose they had no choice in the matter either."
Re:You Dad Sucks Syndrome (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Of course they terminated Web Core Fonts (Score:5, Informative)
http://corefonts.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]
Long Live Verdana!
Serif vs. sans-serif (Score:5, Informative)
I think there's a lot of misunderstanding about what makes fonts easy to read. The reason both Verdana and Georgia are easier for most people to read on a screen has more to do with being well-hinted, being designed to avoid warts at the relatively low resolutions in use, and having a large x-height. None of these is particularly true of obvious alternatives like Times Roman and Helvetica/Arial on most of today's systems. The presence or absence of serifs has relatively little to do with it.
More surprisingly, some research has suggested that serifs don't actually help much on paper either, at least for shorter works. They do seem to boost reading ease in long, blocky works like novels, but for something like a magazine article or a short paper, reading ease isn't much of an indicator one way or the other.
Re:MS interoperability (Score:5, Informative)
The free MS fonts live on... (Score:4, Informative)
I prefer Bitstream Vera myself.
For terminals though, I *love* non-smoothed Lucida Typewriter 9 point. Not the Xfree version though (the 'm' and 'w' look wierd), I like the one which comes with Solaris (the standard font used by OpenWindow's cmdtool).
Mmm, functional
Re:Actually (Score:2, Informative)
I think you have the right idea about it. Fonts have to be made for specific purposes, and it often takes some careful thinking about which ones to use when, and at what size.
I'm something of a TypeNazi, so I thought it was funny seeing "Verdana sucks, but Georgia is beautiful!" in the story. What most people probably don't know is that they were created by the same designer.
Say hello to Matthew Carter [google.com].
Re:Actually (Score:5, Informative)
Verdana is a better font, but not for the web. The problem is that it has a higher aspect value than most other fonts. This means that at a smaller size it still remains legible where other fonts may not. It also means that at a normal size, it appears to be quite a bit larger than other fonts.
The problem is that web designers can't specify any particular font and assume that the web browser will honour that request. There are lots of different reasons why a different font may be substituted for the originally requested one.
This means that if a web designer specifies Verdana for small text, another font could be used in its place, resulting in unreadable text. If a web designer specifies Verdana for normal text, people will think that it's ugly because it's too big. There really aren't that many situations where Verdana is an appropriate choice for web designers.
None of this is to say that it isn't a nice font; I personally use it throughout most of KDE. But it's not a good choice for the Web Core Fonts collection.
Opera has had first-hand experience with Microsoft breaking interoperability. At one point, Microsoft were deliberately serving broken CSS to Opera that would cause it to mess up the layout for that one particular browser [opera.com].
Re:Microsoft has 'McInteroperability' (Score:2, Informative)
What kind of APIs do you really think they use that give such a great speed boost and still are unavailable to everybody else? You know, it's not that hard to track down what the software actually does with debuggers and monitoring tools. Yes, some Microsoft products use some undocumented calls, but they are mainly insignificant. On the other hand, many true performance hogs on Windows systems do absolutely outrageous things, like reading a multi-MB file in few-byte chunks (bad if you do it often), polling the registry constantly even during idle operation, writing to the registry constantly during idle operation, Plain Stupid(TM) painting code doing things like re-enumerating all fonts, rereading all settings and then redrawing the whole window to a off-screen buffer, to then transfer the whole bitmap to screen, preferably with a different color depth so it's not a simple bit transfer operation.
Ok, I've generally not seen all of these in the same application, but if you see one, you're likely to meet some of the other ones. Some of them are in MS applications, most are not. Outlook Express is generally an example of how you should not write a well-performing Windows application, while ICQ, for example, is far, far worse.
I've yet to see that wonderous user-mode behavior that I've no idea how they could implement and which simply must be filled with "illegal" hooks. I take it this is more about of user applications and not stuff like SQL Server and Exchange, but on the other hand I've not seen Oracle crying that high over this, although Windows is not a main platform for their offerings.
Response from Microsoft's PR blogger (Score:5, Informative)
Apparently, they are working hard to fix it in IIS 7.0 and the next version of ASP.NET.
Apparently.
Undocumented NT/2000 native API (Score:2, Informative)
Re:The smell of rot... (Score:2, Informative)
.Net refuses to serve same HTML ... argh! (Score:5, Informative)
As we started digging, we started finding lots more stuff like this; for example, tables get a style of "border-collapse: collapsed" by default in IE, which is a tag that IE uses to tighen up table structures (into non-standard measurements) while other browsers ignore the tag. There's no reason for this tag to be there, except to guarantee that tables will look different in IE as compared to other browsers.
The punch line, of course, is that this "feature" can't be turned off. So now we either have to burn a lot of extra effort to validate multiple sets of rendered HTML, or we have to give up alternative-browser compatibility -- which I am sure was the point in the first place.
(few things microsoftie make me seethe, but this one does...)
Re:.Net refuses to serve same HTML ... argh! (Score:2, Informative)
forget webforms
and you will get what you want.
Re:Interoperable.. (Score:1, Informative)
Re:Use sans-serif, don't hardcode fonts (Score:2, Informative)
http://www.bitstream.com/font_rendering/products/
Re:You Dad Sucks Syndrome (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Serif vs. sans-serif (Score:3, Informative)
Thank you for the review of chapter 1 of the typography textbook. However, if you turn to chapter 2, I believe you may find some surprises...
The conventional wisdom that serifs are far superior for blocks of text has been challenged by several recent studies. This [sfasu.edu] was the first article I found on-line in a quick search, and seems to cite several relevant studies if you're interested.
You might also like to know that since adults generally read by recognising word shapes rather than individual letters, the fact that some sans-serif faces barely distinguish a capital I and lowercase l makes surprisingly little difference to the readability (as opposed to the perceived legibility) of a body of text. In fact, extra features as found on, say, a serifed letter C can actually make the word shapres harder to distinguish than the sans-serif equivalent, reducing clarity in word forms and ultimately compromising reading speed.
Re:What about google? (Score:3, Informative)
Last time I checked (like 5 seconds ago), maps.google.com said this:
Now I don't know about you, but that doesn't seem to be claiming anything about interoperability. In fact, it's quite up front and polite about not being so.