Shop Mobile More Submit  Join Login
What Can Be Done About 3 Gotchas in IE9 Beta


I just spent the past couple of days porting and debugging DeviantArt muro in Internet Explorer 9 beta.  Microsoft announced with much fanfare that they included support for <canvas> in IE9.  Unfortunately I took their word at face value and assumed that my existing HTML5 code would seamlessly start working once I changed X-UA-Compatible.  Alas, I instead stared in horror at my application that appeared to be possessed by some insane daemon.

I remember taking a C class when I was 14 years old, and the teacher went on about how great C was because it was portable.  I spent a week doing my first assignment on my PC in Turbo C++, and then showed up at the computer lab full of NeXT workstations the morning the assignment was due expecting it to just work.  One would think I would have learned from the ensuing traumatic experience, but here I am 20 years later still believing vendors when they say their implementations fit a standard.  In my defense, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari did an amazing job of coding to the HTML5 spec.  I don’t know why Microsoft couldn’t as well.

The following is a list of several IE9 gotchas that I ran into.  I am sure that there are more - this is only the result of kicking the tires.  It is also just the stuff that I ran into with DeviantArt muro, other applications will care more about other parts of the canvas feature set.


globalCompositeOperation

The Problem
IE ignores changes to context.globalCompositeOperation, always behaving like it is set to “source-over.”

Why This Matters
This is the biggest problem I have run into.  A canvas implementation without globalCompositeOperation is like having a salad bar with no lettuce.  There must be a million uses for globalCompositeOperation.  Set it to “destination-out” and you have an eraser.  You can use it to mask out shapes, or combine it with a pattern to create textured lines.  I would hope that Microsoft plans to implement it by the time they make a final release, to claim to have support for canvas without it would truly be an embarrassment.

Test Case

ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(255, 0, 0, 1)';                                                                                        
    ctx.lineWidth = 10;
    ctx.globalCompositeOperation = 'source-over';                                                                                  
            
    ctx.beginPath();                                                                                                               
        ctx.moveTo(0, 0);
        ctx.lineTo(100, 100);
    ctx.stroke();                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                   
    ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(0, 255, 0, 1)';                                                                                        
    ctx.globalCompositeOperation = 'destination-out';      
                                                                             
    ctx.beginPath();                                                                                                               
        ctx.moveTo(0, 100);                                                                                                        
        ctx.lineTo(100, 0);
    ctx.stroke();



Workaround
There is not a good workaround for this.




Canvas Resizing

The Problem
When a canvas is resized by changing the style.width or style.height, IE9 clears the canvas and resets the context.  Note that style.width is not the same as the width attribute of the canvas.  Having <canvas width=”50” height=”50” style=”width: 100px; height:100px”></canvas> would be equivalent to having a 50x50 pixel image that you stretch to 100x100px in a browser.  All browsers reset the canvas when you change the width or height attribute, but only IE resets the canvas when style.width or style.height is changed.

Why This Matters
Applications can zoom in and out of certain areas of a canvas by leaving the drawing as is and changing the style.width and/or style.height.

Test Case

// Start with a canvas that is 100x100px
ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(255, 0, 0, 1)';                                                                                        
ctx.lineWidth = 10;
                
ctx.beginPath();
    ctx.moveTo(0, 0);
    ctx.lineTo(100, 100);
ctx.stroke();
                
jQuery('#testCanv').width(101).height(101);
                    
ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(0, 255, 0, 1)';                                                                                        
ctx.beginPath();                                                                                                               
    ctx.moveTo(0, 100);                                                                                                        
    ctx.lineTo(100, 0);
ctx.stroke();



Workaround
Grab a copy of all the data in your canvas before you change its size, and paste it after you are done resizing.  All context settings must also be saved and reset.  We would have to change our test case code to:

// ... snip
ctx.stroke();
           
var tmpData = ctx.getImageData(0, 0, 100, 100);     
jQuery('#testCanv').width(101).height(101);
ctx.putImageData(tmpData, 0, 0);
ctx.lineWidth = 10;
                    
ctx.strokeStyle = 'rgba(0, 255, 0, 1)';
// snip ...





Limited Shadow Offset

The Problem
IE9 places an arbitrary limit on how high you can set shadow offsets using shadowOffsetX and shadowOffsetY.  Brief testing shows that the limit seems to be dependent on various random factors.  I have not yet reverse engineered the algorithm for how the limit is determined, but so far I have usually seen it to be a couple thousand pixels.

Why This Matters
I am sure that many people reading this think that I am complaining about an inconsequential implementation detail, but it actually does matter.  For all of the great things that canvas has to offer, it lacks in its ability to create soft lines.  Fortunately though, it can do a lot of fancy stuff with shadows, so you can draw with soft lines by drawing out of the canvas’ viewport and casting a shadow over to where you need the soft lines.  If you plan to make complex drawings on a large canvas, and you do not want to worry about your fake lines that are casting shadows coming into view when you pan and zoom, it is helpful to be able to set the shadow offset to a really large number.

Test Case

ctx.lineWidth = 10;                                                                                                            
    
ctx.shadowColor = 'rgba(255, 0, 0, 1)';
ctx.shadowBlur = 40;
ctx.shadowOffsetX = 10000;
ctx.shadowOffsetY = 0;                                                                                                         
    
ctx.beginPath();                                                                                                               
   ctx.moveTo(-10000, 0);                                                                                                     
   ctx.lineTo(-9900, 100);
ctx.stroke();



Workaround
You can use smaller versions of shadowOffset (though until the algorithm for how the limit is determined is discovered, you will never know for certain if you are safe).  At times you might have to change the offset and split up your strokes to make sure that things that are supposed to remain offscreen stay offscreen.

Edit:
Please see this blog article for further discussion between the author and a Microsoft Technical Evangelist: blogs.msdn.com/b/giorgio/archi…

Add a Comment:
 
:icondarthobiwan:
DarthObiwan Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2011
Hmm.. I just tried all the test cases in IE9 RC with the the IE Test Drive canvas test pad
[link]
The first two are now working as expected.
The third was is pretty close but looks like the blur effect levels are a bit different.
ctx.shadowBlur =8; instead of ctx.shadowBlur =40;
Reply
:icondarthobiwan:
DarthObiwan Featured By Owner Feb 17, 2011
Any updates on the IE9 RC, were the issues fixed? I see that global­Composite­Operation was updated.
Reply
:iconfrancoisdewynter:
FrancoisDeWynter Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2011
Because of some serious performance issues with Google Mail (business version of email) and dA, I was forced to upgrade from IE 8 to 9. The performance problem is fixed however, I cannot click on the link to submit a photo to a group - or any other embedded link on the right side of a page. This is a serious problem because I am a co-founder of a group. I have tried compatibility mode - I turned it on for every site - but the problem remains. I did get the link to work once but it hasn't since. Ideas? Solution?
Reply
:iconfrancoisdewynter:
FrancoisDeWynter Featured By Owner Jun 18, 2011
It is worse than I thought....... I can't select a category for an image I want to upload nor can I use any of the buttons associated with uploading.
Reply
:icondenisdlugas:
DenisDlugas Featured By Owner Jun 21, 2011   General Artist
I have the very same problem... do you have any solution yet? If so please let me know... thanks in advance!!! :aww:
Reply
:iconmrluigifreak101:
MrLuigiFreak101 Featured By Owner Jan 30, 2011  Hobbyist Interface Designer
IE overall needs to get its act together, it's just a pain to code specifically for IE >_<
Reply
:icontimacheson:
timacheson Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2011
IE9 is currently the best web browser for HTML5, as confimed by the W3C:


[link] (Slashdot)


[link] (ZDNet)


Of course, no browser is 100% compliant with HTML5, and furthermore version 5 of the HTML specification is still a draft document and subject to change.



However, the "developer" in question has gone to tremendous lengths to find excuses to criticise IE9 Beta (note that IE9 does indeed remain a beta release; it's not the finished product yet). It's quite a piece of work, and I'm impressed -- it must have been an extraordinary project to encounter the points raised all at once. He does a professional job of producing what resembles a serious piece of negative viral marketing.


It doesn't take much imagination to guess about who might be behind this "developer" and his findings. Unfortunately, corporate propaganda is often reported as news, even when it is often misleading and serves no constructive purpose.
Reply
:icontimacheson:
timacheson Featured By Owner Jan 17, 2011
IE9 is currently the best web browser for HTML5, as confimed by the W3C:


[link]


[link]


Of course, no browser is 100% compliant with HTML5, and furthermore version 5 of the HTML specification is still a draft document and subject to change.



However, the "developer" in question has gone to tremendous lengths to find excuses to criticise IE9 Beta (note that IE9 does indeed remain a beta release; it's not the finished product yet). It's quite a piece of work, and I'm impressed -- it must have been an extraordinary project to encounter the points raised all at once. He does a professional job of producing what resembles a serious piece of negative viral marketing.


It doesn't take much imagination to guess about who might be behind this "developer" and his findings. Unfortunately, corporate propaganda is often reported as news, even when it is often misleading and serves no constructive purpose.
Reply
:iconyeomeu:
yeomeu Featured By Owner Jan 16, 2011
Microsoft has been saying "it'll all be fixed in the next version" since Windows 1.03, their DOS "runtime environment". Some skepticism of their chorus of fanbois who repeat this refrain is warranted.

Second, recall this article's framing and place in the overall dialog: MS has been saying "we're ahead of the industry," and this article says, "no, you're not."

Third, now that we have two competitive open source rendering engines (WebKit and Gecko), is it really a high enough bar that the standards be open? I think in 2011 the implementation needs to be open as well. Raising that bar could help a bit to avoid balkanizing open standards through crappy implementations. "Open implementations" blocks some of the cheating they've been doing on benchmarks, too.
Reply
:iconmarkaja:
MarkAJA Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2011
By 'Every Other Browser' I assume you are referring to browsers built using Netscape code
and 'IE9 only' you are referring to browsers build around IE9 code.
There should be a green line in your demo as you have included code to draw a green line?
Netscape has converted 'rgba(0,255,0,1) to 'rgba(0,0,0,1)
Very strange.
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2011
As another user has pointed out, I tested with the other major HTML5 browsers (Firefox, Opera, Chrome, and Safari).

When you say that the other browsers "converted 'rgba(0,255,0,1) to 'rgba(0,0,0,1)" I assume that you are talking about the first test case. What happens is that I set globalCompositeOperation to "destination-out", which is a way of saying, "subtract everything that I am about to draw from what is already drawn." When you are drawing with destination out the rgb values are ignored, since you are erasing and not adding they are meaningless. I set the color to green so that it would be clear what was happening when IE9 drew an extra green line, it was ignoring the "destination-out" and drawing as if globalCompositeOperation was still set to "source-over".
Reply
:iconmarkaja:
MarkAJA Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2011
Opera upto version 8.x used IE code but could ID as IE, Netscape or Opers.
(You could run VBScript in Netscape and Opera modes!)
From 9.0 it used Netscape/WebKit but would not run VBScript in any mode.
You can now only run Opera in Opera mode.
I used the name Netscape as it's easer to remember.
Netscape was sold to AOL who closed down the company. Then some of the staff started SeaMonkey.
I only looked at the first test quickley.
Reply
:icondavince21:
DaVince21 Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
Netscape? Chrome and Safari use WebKit as the renderer, Opera uses its own thing (I forget the name), Firefox uses Gecko and IE also uses its own renderer.

Using the name "Netscape" is only still applicable to plugins in modern HTML. It doesn't have anything to do with Canvas or any of the new HTML5 features.
Reply
:iconzinnia-aster:
Zinnia-Aster Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Oh, IE, how annoying thou art. Lol. Coding sites to work with it can be a pain sometimes. Sometimes I love it and sometimes I cannot stand it. I use all of the major browsers, IE, FF, GC, Safari, and Opera.

Hopefully they get everything worked out for the final version, once out of beta I mean.
Reply
:iconkplcjl:
KPLcjl Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Sorry about the double post. Newbie. Signed in - I had posted 0 comments according to my stats. When I went back in after verifying I didn't see my comment, posted a second one.
Reply
:iconkplcjl:
KPLcjl Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
The point of beta is to find bugs. The point of beta is to get testers really cheap. Complaining about people who publish bugs they found in beta are the ones who are missing the point of this post.
If Microsoft paid you $40/hr to find these bugs then I am really impressed with your marketing skills. If you got $0/hr like I expect, thank you for posting your results.
Not posting a PARTIAL release of a new feature means either Microsoft blew it by not properly qualifying something they knew they were releasing with bugs or you did a great job finding the bugs.
Glory in the thanks Microsoft gave you, pity the ones who have no concept of the true nature of BETA.
Reply
:iconkplcjl:
KPLcjl Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Complaining about you complaining indicates the posters don't know what beta is about. Reporting "I took 3 minutes to look at the code, everything looks great." is a disservice to Microsoft.
The point of Beta is early release. The point of early release is that you as the releaser get a chance to correct bugs before you get egg thrown into your face. The benefit to the company doing the releasing is that you get a LOT of inexpensive testers.
When you release, you already have a list of bugs for things you expect to fix. So, you get a lot of confirmation of "Yea, I've got a bug there". You also get "Wow, I didn't know about that! THAT now gets top priority."
There are two reasons for the first. YOU didn't properly publish the known bugs. (Shame on you.) The tester didn't read the caveats. (For the rate you are paying, what do you expect?)
Complaints about a beta product aren't desired, but that is the point of putting out a beta. Microsoft is well known for rushing to release. Complaining about complainers is sour grapes.
Rushing to release has made Microsoft the premier software vendor in the world. Rushing to release AFTER your competitors have released a better/cheaper product is just sad. (Note that IE9 isn't released, so it isn't a sad product. Yet.)
Reply
:iconelectricjonny:
electricjonny Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Hmm, well that's not too surprising, really.

Also, I remember some //comments on a /jms/ brush page, saying how you are actually drawing way off in the distance, but the shadow (if I remember right) is actually making the brush stroke. Pretty cool :)

Can't you guys, just, freaking disable muro for IE users? Is it really that worth it to make it work in IE? I'd say it isn't, but then I'm not a person that knows much about websites and compatibility and whatnot :hmm:
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
I wish we could, but I don't think that will ever fly. Thankfully though, when IE9 makes its final release we can probably give up on the VML nonsense that we are currently doing. You do not even want to know how many hours have been dumped into making some things work in IE8 (when it launched we even supported IE6!)

The shadow brush trick you mention is the one that doesn't work so well in IE9 beta because it limits how for in the distance we can draw. I definitely think it is a cool trick though, having the option of making soft lines is a huge bonus.
Reply
:iconelectricjonny:
electricjonny Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Ah yeah, I remember the headache that was IE CSS (I'm doing beta stuff at #devBUG), so the IE7/8 and compatibility/normal stuff is just, well, a mess.

It just seems that with IE being so different and not following any sort of standard, they deserve to have no support from some sites. I did a poll a while back on that, but it seems people are picking to support it and it's funky tricks of getting things to work :hmm:
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
deviantART is actually taking a different tactic than most companies (which is why we are one of the earlier ones to have a large HTML5 app). We say that we will make a best effort at getting IE to work, but if there is something that just can't be done we are not going to make the other browsers suffer for it. Most everywhere else they code to the lowest common denominator, so IE users cannot understand why everybody complains about their browser (from their perspective everything looks just fine).
Reply
:iconelectricjonny:
electricjonny Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Ah yeah, I'd say that's a good way to do things, at the very least. It seems that coders and web site designers just have to bend over backwards and do some pretty crazy things, just to get something working in IE.

I say, if IE has to be coded that differently, then don't support it. Everyone is able to use a better browser, and seeing sites work better in a better browser should be the standard.

Although, that cuts down on a lot of viewers, since IE is still the most used browser. But, I think that's an understandable and worthy downside, if it forces IE to get into shape.
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Actually on dA Firefox has significantly more marketshare than IE. Chrome has nearly caught up with IE (and will probably pass it in a month or two if it continues to make gains at the same rate). We have also managed to get quite a few IE users to install Chrome Frame, so if you count those users as having Chrome, IE might be in third place!
Reply
:iconelectricjonny:
electricjonny Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
Ah awesome :D

I always wonder what the browser usage is here. And things like the resolution of monitors.

But I'll always be a Firefox fan. Chrome is sort of interesting, but it seems it's only popular because it's fast. I actually get a bit annoyed/confused when I write scripts for Chrome and it just fails to work how it does in Firefox. Then I really like how Firefox does the chrome:// URI's.

Anyway, yeah I am not surprised IE is used less here. I think a large part of that is due to all the scripts (and Stylish things) people have created here.
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Yeah, that and the fact that deviantART has a younger and more tech-savy user base than other sites. I don't doubt that sites aimed at corporate users probably have a large majority of IE users.
Reply
(1 Reply)
:iconuae4u:
uae4u Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
"In my defense, Chrome, Firefox, Opera, and Safari did an amazing job of coding to the HTML5 spec. I don’t know why Microsoft couldn’t as well."

It's very weird :hmm:
Reply
:iconrealcoldacid:
realcoldacid Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
How surprising, yet another anti-MS circlejerk on the internet. Now, if IE9 is missing this at final release, you may have a leg to stand on, but bitching about it now just comes off as looking for a reason to get some kicks in.
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Developers cannot wait until the final is released before addressing incompatibilities. We get a lot of flak from our IE users if our apps don't work the day the final release comes out. In fact, deviantART was already getting complaints from IE9 beta users when they didn't get the full HTML5 experience right out of the door. Developers have no choice but to prepare their code using beta releases as a preview for what to expect. I wrote this article so that other developers would have an easier time getting their HTML5 apps ready for the IE9 release.

The tone of the article is snarky because web engineers already spend a ridiculous amount of effort supporting their IE users.
Reply
:icon20after4:
20after4 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Photographer
a disproportionate amount of time considering how IE users are now dwindling :)
Reply
:iconoakden:
Oakden Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
What part of 'Beta" don't you understand? Was there any reason for this article other than you seeing a chance to trashtalk Microsoft?
Reply
:iconknightar:
KnightAR Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Professional Artist
The reason was to get Microsoft's attention to bugs as soon as possible, And it paid off: [link]
Reply
:icongisardo:
gisardo Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Hi Vivian,

thanks for your feedbacks. You made very interesting observations. I'd invite you to read my comments here:
[link]

The IE9 journey has been great so far and we are getting a lot of positive feedbacks from the community. We didn't complete IE9 yet - and that's why your feedbacks are highly appreciated! Please keep them coming (possibly on Microsoft Connect).

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you have further questions.
Best regards,

Giorgio Sardo
IE Sr. Technical Evangelist - Microsoft Corporation
Reply
:icongisardo:
gisardo Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Ops, I confused your avatar/name. Thanks Mike!
Reply
:iconiqnine:
iqnine Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Why is MS burning dev costs on things that have long been invented, perfected, and exist to them free of charge? I'm talking about the open-source KHTML and WebKit rendering engines. Do like Google did, and fork the best free rendering engine that exists [KHTML or WebKit], drop it into your browser, slap an pretty MS logo on it, and instantly bring IE up to snuff with the rest of the world. After 15 years of failure, man up an admit you can't build a browser. I don't get it.
Reply
:iconjo-i:
jo-i Featured By Owner Jan 15, 2011
(a) Competition is good and makes every participant better

(b) As if there weren't any NIH or needless project duplication in the Open Source world ...

(c) Around 2000 IE was the best browser available. Netscape died a messy death (parts of the IE-needed fixes, kludges and workarounds come from that era and nearly every browser back then had those issues). Of course, it was a management failure to not develop it further and that's what gave rise to Firefox and Chrome (Opera never really played a large role in market-share terms, but they are quite active in spec development, such as SVG). Scrambling to catch up a few years of lost time takes, well, time. No surprise there.

(d) Back to (a): You probably know how web standards come to be: There is a long phase of specifying, then some early-adopting so that issues in the spec can be ironed out until it finalizes and vendors can implement it in earnest in their browsers. If there would be exactly one rendering engine (and thus, implementation of a standard) you have the problem that you invariably rely on bugs in that single implementation and in the worst case, bake them into a specification as intended behavior. Another reason why having multiple implementations is good is that more errors in the specification can be found and it can be implemented faithfully. Just as monoculture is bad in acriculture it has similar problems in software. Also remember that canvas started out as a webkit-only implementation (at Apple, I think) and only slowly went the standards route. The specification did change a few times during the time it was turned into a W3C recommendation (and I just notice that it still is an Editor's Draft – so there are still things being changed probably).

(e) Just plugging WebKit into IE isn't going to help. For one, Microsoft's largest and most paying customers are corporations. Second, many of those have in-house intranet applications that oft-times only work with IE (I had to deal with such a thing in my internship; it wasn't pretty but for other reasons than browser lock-in). Whether that's a desirable or good state of affairs is another matter, but it is reality and wishful thinking doesn't change it. So a large problem Microsoft has is that old things need to continue to work. If they ship an upgrade breaking an important part of someone's infrastructure it's quite a big deal and lawsuits could follow. The fallback with all IE rendering engines in current browsers is a testament to that fact – and not everyone is going to upgrade their HTML 3.2 w/ CSS 1 page so it complies with the current standards. Believe me, the engineers at MS don't love being forced to be backwards compatible. In many cases this has really ugly implications. But the real world is more important than some vague ideal and that's what we all have to deal with.
Reply
:iconthx1200:
thx1200 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Kudos to mudimba for discovering these issues, submitting his feedback to the IE 9 team, and then providing workarounds for others to use in the interim. I'm sure this was a lot of work and it is appreciated.

mudimba - Have you tried these tests against the latest Platform Preview? The previews don't have the IE UI, but they do have the latest rendering engine, so it would be a good test to see which of these issues, if any, are already fixed. [link]

It seems there are a lot of people in the comments that don't understand the concept of a beta release. Microsoft wants people to find these bugs and report it, they are very responsive, and I'm sure most issues wll be resolved by release. I know it's fashionable and cool to bash Microsoft, especially IE, at every turn, but the truth is that IE9 is shaping up to be a pretty awesome browser and the majority of users that visit your site will use it shortly after its release.

I know this will come as a shock to many people here, but Firefox and Chrome betas had rendering issues too. No, seriously! They did.

I hope the author returns and posts another set of tests against the RC when it comes out.

Thanks again.
Reply
:iconwildtyphoon87:
wildTyphoon87 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
If you havent already why not report these bugs with test cases at [link]

Tom
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Yep, already did. That was part of the reason why I made those test cases, so the IE engineers could easily reproduce the issues.
Reply
:iconflintsone:
Flintsone Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
You do understand that IE9 is in Beta, it's not a finished project. As somone else said, pass on your findings to MS and then complain if they don't fix it. Jeesh.
Reply
:iconkplcjl:
KPLcjl Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Generating comments on your own brand gives you author creds.
This is public, more people can see the problems encountered. You are getting a custom report of custom problems found by one person.
From Microsoft, this MIGHT be public, guaranteed to be buried in a morass of bugs found with no personal credit or humor passed on as well.
You better believe Microsoft knows about this now. They even give Mike credit for his humor.
It IS funny to find a bug. Charlie Chaplin and banana peels proved that as a well established humor venu(sp?). (Note, no Microsoft employee was physically harmed in this pratfall.)
Reply
:iconiesuz:
iesuz Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Two other show stoppers for making advanced vector web apps working in IE
1. Can't set scrollLeft and scrollTop simultaneously on any element. Makes it extremely ugly to do any kind of drag-and-pan or smooth zooming.
2. GetComputedTextWidth on text elements does not work at all in SVG, have to do really nasty workarounds/approximations to get a proper bounding box for text. (Or totally custom text rendering.)
Reply
:icondavecheesefish:
Davecheesefish Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Artist
IE Tries to Implement HTML - Hilarity Ensues
Version numbers are irrelevant where IE is involved :iconsadtardplz:
Reply
:iconmudimba:
mudimba Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
lol :-)
Reply
:iconstuaxo:
stuaxo Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
Please contact the IE Team via their blog or something and let them know, @ least give them a chance to fix this before were stuck with it forever!
Reply
:iconelandria:
Elandria Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Professional General Artist
Internet Exploder

Nuff said. I'm glad I'm sticking to absolute basic code on my portfolio site and warning people not to view it in any version of IE. I hate hate hate having to hack perfectly acceptable code just because MS is incapable of getting their browser to be standards compliant. Its ridiculous.
Reply
:iconsatania:
SaTaNiA Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
They are still some people using IE ? :ohnoes:
I know it's a real shame from Microsoft (which claim to be the best for all...) to don't be able to implement features with standard codes ... IE_hacks my friends ...
Reply
:iconmattd-6:
mattd-6 Featured By Owner Jan 13, 2011  Hobbyist Digital Artist
I don't know if IE9 ever had good results with acid3.
Reply
:icondrfrankenstein90:
DrFrankenstein90 Featured By Owner Jan 14, 2011
It scores a 95. But acid3 is not an HTML5 test.
Reply
Add a Comment:
 
×

More from DeviantArt



Details

Submitted on
January 13, 2011
Link
Thumb

Stats

Views
10,638 (3 today)
Favourites
0
Comments
74
×