what you are proposing seems
BROWSERS -> COMPLIANT STANDARDS -> DEVELOPER HAPPY cause he doesn’t need to code 500 extra lines ( developer isn’t always the end-user )

so my question is simply … have you forgot who you develop content for ? last time i checked was for the user and not for yourselves.

with all do respect, I do appreciate standards, it makes it easier do develop and deliver content to the end user, but really you ought to stop bashing every other company in the face because of their implementation or lack of something that makes our lives easier.

but answering in context, Microsoft still has a lot to go for regarding web standards, they are finally trying to catch up, don’t know why and honestly i don’t even care why they are trying to catch up only now , yes 1998 was twelve years ago like someone said, but

“Safari and Firefox only support CSS borders and backgrounds 27% of the way, whereas IE9, of course, supports it 100%. Why? They’re happy to tell you in a footnote, which is good because you can see it coming from three miles away: “Mozilla Firefox 3.6 and Apple Safari 4.0 do not support non-prefixed versions of the ‘border-radius’ property.”

Interesting. I read that as a note to web developers, like “if you try to impliment border-radius on these browsers, note that you will have to use prefixes,” rather than “the reason this test fails is because we ignored prefixed properties.”

That is, you’d get these results even if you used the prefixed properties.

He should’ve taken a step back and a deep breathe before hitting the submit button..

What a goose! Talk about shooting from the hip!

Me or Ed?

But, even last November, the major outlines were pretty clear. Support for CSS3, HTML5, SVG. And acceleration via GPU. Everybody should have known the JavaScript had to speed up as well. All of this is good news.

The details on the improved font rendering is certainly interesting, bot not even Ed Bott found time to talk about this, and that seems like one of the significant new items of the presentation. The Direct2D vs. DirectWrite issue has been quite enlightening to me, and that came from the comments on you blog and from digging around a little with my friend, Google.

Ed Bott seems to think that MIX was a game changer. Are there changes that I missed?

My piece was poorly timed, I agree — but not by choice.

I had no idea as I sat down that morning to write a post after reviewing the then-most-recent IE9 update at a reader’s request that Microsoft would have major IE9 changes to announce hours later that same day.

Although I had been invited to Mix to preview IE9 before others saw it, I turned down that invitation because it conflicted with SXSW Interactive, which I attend annually, and where my company throws an annual party, and where I was already scheduled to lead a panel, sign books, etc.

And, as I’ve already mentioned, the updated IE9 news came out while I was in a jet flying across the country.

Firefox and Safari should support border-radius, now, so it’s a valid point to put in the use-case. I think Chrome does, already.

At any rate, Mozilla and Apple will implement those use cases as soon as possible, and everyone will have 100%. That’s how progress is made.

Er… is that not the case with pretty much everything else everyone complains about too? Is CANVAS final?

Concerning the forced bit of rah-rah: the thing that stuck out to me, going over the test-drive link Tim Sneath provided on the previous post was the claim that Safar9 and Firefox only support CSS borders and backgrounds 27% of the way, whereas IE9, of course, supports it 100%. Why? They’re happy to tell you in a footnote, which is good because you can see it coming from three miles away: “Mozilla Firefox 3.6 and Apple Safari 4.0 do not support non-prefixed versions of the ‘border-radius’ property.”

Wow, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that a marketing person forced that “benefit” against the wishes of the engineering team (no offense to marketing people in general).

As you and everyone reading this knows, there’s a reason that the other browsers only support prefixed versions of border-radius: it’s because the spec isn’t final and may change. The prefix is their way of supporting an emerging standard while also offering backward compatibility to future browsers if the spec should change. Viewed in this light, prefix-less support could be a drawback, although it sounds like a benefit. (And it does have a benefit the prefixed versions lack: it validates.)

Nevermind that they’ve been driving developer awareness and experimentation by releasing their prefixed rules, and nevermind that this is a comparison between a browser that’s not even in beta yet vs. browsers as they exist now. Slap a big red fail on that and tout 100% vs. 27%. How is someone supposed to look at that and say, “Yes, this is the sort of transparent, non-manipulative reporting that I trust”? I mean, come on, it’s as near as you can get in this sort of thing to a ‘products which have our patented formula’ move.

Not that I’m not excited about IE9 being good–I’m hopeful. But your point in this case is backed up right in MS’s rebuttal. (And my hope is somewhat dampened by IE9 not running on XP at all.)