How IE8 claims full CSS support is beyond me.(jhop.me)
jhop.me
How IE8 claims full CSS support is beyond me.
http://jhop.me/browsers/ie8-browsers/update
3 comments
In comparison to IE6, sure it does! In all honesty though, IE8 has many less issues than IE6 and even IE7.
Going through the list of bugs (http://jhop.me/ie8-bugs) I'm surprised at how many Microsoft has stated they have no plans on fixing.
I sincerely wished that 'wontfix' is a thing that only applied to closed source software. The number of 'wontfix' known bugs out there in the open source world is beyond counting, and in some pretty popular applications too. I don't really understand the rationale behind the whole 'wontfix' thing, essentially it is giving the finger to the user that took the time and trouble to report a bug.
Another pet peeve is to relable things that are clearly bugs as 'request for enhancement'.
The degree to which users have become conditioned to accept the presence of bugs in production software is no doubt a part of this, but there is also a serious lack of pride in workmanship on the part of the coding community.
No doubt every piece of software I ever wrote contains bugs, but if you point one out to me I won't rest until it is squashed.
Another pet peeve is to relable things that are clearly bugs as 'request for enhancement'.
The degree to which users have become conditioned to accept the presence of bugs in production software is no doubt a part of this, but there is also a serious lack of pride in workmanship on the part of the coding community.
No doubt every piece of software I ever wrote contains bugs, but if you point one out to me I won't rest until it is squashed.
I don't really understand the rationale behind the whole 'wontfix' thing
There are lots of legitimate reasons for labeling something "wontfix": backward compatibility, conformance to standards, not actually or unambiguously wrong behavior, and so on. Whether the majority of "wontfix" bugs fall into these categories isn't clear, but it's not all a matter of giving the user the finger: in my experience, most reported issues are not actually bugs.
There are lots of legitimate reasons for labeling something "wontfix": backward compatibility, conformance to standards, not actually or unambiguously wrong behavior, and so on. Whether the majority of "wontfix" bugs fall into these categories isn't clear, but it's not all a matter of giving the user the finger: in my experience, most reported issues are not actually bugs.
There is another reason to label something wontfix: If it falls too low on the priorities. If you know that you do not have sufficient time to do everything, and that you have issues that are far more important, you might as well just mark the punted issues wontfix.
I'm not sure this Microsoft answer on at least one of those bugs doesn't fit any of those categories:
"At this time we do not plan on fixing this issue. We appreciate the report, but unfortunately we are at a stage where need to choose what we work on to maximize the value for customers and web developers."
"At this time we do not plan on fixing this issue. We appreciate the report, but unfortunately we are at a stage where need to choose what we work on to maximize the value for customers and web developers."
Seriously, folks, making a standards-compliant browser is a critical path item to not losing the 21st century to Google. Hop on it, Redmond.