Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Thierry Koblentz wrote: height:1% or height:0 or whatever height you set gives layout to an element, which is not the case with display:inline. Making sure an element hasLayout is a big tool in the box when it comes to fix IE bugs. Just FYI, over on CSS-D there was a thread today about a web chat with the MS IE7 developers, in which hasLayout was mentioned and I thought this specific point was quite important: IE7 will respect height: 1%, which if not filtered away from it could break many layouts. They are retaining hasLayout as an internal property and recommend using zoom: 100% for inducing hasLayout as a replacement technique for height: 1%. More here http://sltclan.com/images/cj/ie7.html Cheers Ian -- _ zStudio - Web development and accessibility http://zStudio.co.uk Snippetz.net - Online code library File, manage and re-use your code snippets links http://snippetz.net ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Ian Anderson wrote: IE7 will respect height: 1%, which if not filtered away from it could break many layouts. They are retaining hasLayout as an internal property and recommend using zoom: 100% for inducing hasLayout as a replacement technique for height: 1%. Which W3C standard/recommendation for CSS defines the zoom property? I don't see it in the CSS 2.1 spec. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/propidx.html If indeed it's not defined in any CSS standard/recommendation, are MS effectively saying: We recommend you write invalid CSS so things work in our new browser which has better support for standards? Regards -- Bert Doorn, Better Web Design http://www.betterwebdesign.com.au/ Fast-loading, user-friendly websites ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Bert Doorn wrote:
Which W3C standard/recommendation for CSS defines the zoom property?
I don't see it in the CSS 2.1 spec.
http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/propidx.html
Look in MS special non-standard instead.
If indeed it's not defined in any CSS standard/recommendation, are MS
effectively saying: We recommend you write invalid CSS so things
work in our new browser which has better support for standards?
Yes. That's exactly what they are saying.
style
.gainlayout {zoom: 1;}
/style
...
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/IETechCol/cols/dnexpie/expie20050831.asp
...
Remember: avoid all hacks that aren't approved by Microsoft, and you'll
be fine ;-)
Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
From: Bert Doorn [EMAIL PROTECTED] Which W3C standard/recommendation for CSS defines the zoom property? I don't see it in the CSS 2.1 spec. http://www.w3.org/TR/CSS21/propidx.html If indeed it's not defined in any CSS standard/recommendation, are MS effectively saying: We recommend you write invalid CSS so things work in our new browser which has better support for standards? Yes. Good analysis :-) -- Al Sparber PVII http://www.projectseven.com Designing with CSS is sometimes like barreling down a crumbling mountain road at 90 miles per hour secure in the knowledge that repairs are scheduled for next Tuesday. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Does this mean we're supposed to make all the sites we've ever made useless in IE5 and IE6?Maybe it's time we just give up on Internet Explorer and design for standards compliant browsers instead?The sad thing is that of course everyone who's using Explorer will blame the designer of the site and our clients will rip the hair out of their heads because most people use IE anyway. If you ask me we're all properly and royally fd by Microsoft. Why won't they play ball with us (and their users)?On 2/10/06, Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Cade Whitbourn wrote: The compatibility issue is caused by our use of CSS filters. They specificially highlight our use of Star HTML Hack, Selector HTML Hack and the Holly Hack. Although they don't say it explicitly, the implication is that we should remove these from our CSS as the use of these filters fails in IE7.Hi, this is the MS IE Team. We've removed the bugs that were exploitedfor CSS filters, but didn't actually fix the fundamental problems that caused people to use filters in the first place. We decided that youshould use conditional comments instead...--Patrick H. Lauke__re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.]www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com__Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Forcehttp://webstandards.org/ __**The discussion list forhttp://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help**
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Vincent Hasselgård wrote: Does this mean we're supposed to make all the sites we've ever made useless in IE5 and IE6? No need to dump earlier versions. IE7 has some bug-fixes and somewhat better selector-support. Apart from that it's just an IE6 which is slightly harder to make behave like a standard-compliant browser, since it is indicated that IE7 won't support all that much more CSS2/2.1 than its predecessors. No big deal, really. Maybe it's time we just give up on Internet Explorer and design for standards compliant browsers instead? Are we not doing that..? Do anyone on [WSG] really /design/ for Internet Explorer? The sad thing is that of course everyone who's using Explorer will blame the designer of the site and our clients will rip the hair out of their heads because most people use IE anyway. Don't panic... Sit down - relax - and wait for the final MSIE7 release. There are no real problems ahead, just the same old fixing of weak CSS support. If you ask me we're all properly and royally fd by Microsoft. Why won't they play ball with us (and their users)? Mind your language, and ask them :-) ...or study some of their responses so far: http://sltclan.com/images/cj/ie7.html ...interesting ;-) regards Georg -- http://www.gunlaug.no ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
On 2/10/06, Gunlaug Sørtun [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Vincent Hasselgård wrote: The sad thing is that of course everyone who's using Explorer will blame the designer of the site and our clients will rip the hair out of their heads because most people use IE anyway. Don't panic... Sit down - relax - and wait for the final MSIE7 release. There are no real problems ahead, just the same old fixing of weak CSS support. Actually, I would say that the lack of max-width support in IE 7 is a real problem. MS doesn't even think it's important. I'm just hoping they get it in before IE 7 launches. -- -- Christian Montoya christianmontoya.com ... rdpdesign.com ... cssliquid.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Have other site owners received any similar contact from the IE7CPTTM yet? no can you share yours? best kvnmcwebn ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
On 10 Feb 2006, at 10:49 AM, Cade Whitbourn wrote: Wow. Microsoft are taking very pro-active measures to assist the developer community in fixing sites for IE7. I received an email from someone on the 'IE7 compatibility team' with a screenshot of our site in IE7 and a list of all our stylesheets with all the filters and hacks identified that we may need to modify. I'm impressed. Have other site owners received any similar contact from the IE7CPTTM yet? C a d e W h i t b o u r n Web Designer - Web Projects and Business Development Australian Stock Exchange www.asx.com.au Hmm. ASX, hey? Well, they sure know where the money is... Maybe they're starting at the top and working their way down? Or maybe they just have a vested interest - ? N (Cynical? Me? Naah...) ___ Omnivision. Websight. http://www.omnivision.com.au/ ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Cade Whitbourn wrote: Wow. Microsoft are taking very pro-active measures to assist the developer community in fixing sites for IE7. I received an email from someone on the 'IE7 compatibility team' with a screenshot of our site in IE7 and a list of all our stylesheets with all the filters and hacks identified that we may need to modify. I'm impressed. Have other site owners received any similar contact from the IE7CPTTM yet? I would send them back a list of the css bugs they should fix so the filters and hacks that no longer work in IE7 won't be needed anyway. Geoff. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Why would you hack standards compliant code for Microsoft. Ask if they would like to foot the bill or if they had considered writing an application that was standards compliant. Forget that as it may not have all the bugs and vulnerabilities that we have come to know and love. Yours Sincerely, Alastair Steel On 10/02/2006, at 11:40 AM, Geoff Pack wrote: Cade Whitbourn wrote: Wow. Microsoft are taking very pro-active measures to assist the developer community in fixing sites for IE7. I received an email from someone on the 'IE7 compatibility team' with a screenshot of our site in IE7 and a list of all our stylesheets with all the filters and hacks identified that we may need to modify. I'm impressed. Have other site owners received any similar contact from the IE7CPTTM yet? I would send them back a list of the css bugs they should fix so the filters and hacks that no longer work in IE7 won't be needed anyway. Geoff. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
RE: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
To clarify just a little more: The purpose of their email to us was to make us aware of a 'compatibility' issue that our site has with the beta preview of IE7. The compatibility issue is caused by our use of CSS filters. They specificially highlight our use of Star HTML Hack, Selector HTML Hack and the Holly Hack. Although they don't say it explicitly, the implication is that we should remove these from our CSS as the use of these filters fails in IE7. (I would like to just quote the email verbatim but it's headlined **Microsoft Confidential** which makes me nervous - even though there's no confidential information in the email that I can see). Cade. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Alastair Steel Sent: Friday, 10 February 2006 11:53 AM To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Subject: Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team Why would you hack standards compliant code for Microsoft. Ask if they would like to foot the bill or if they had considered writing an application that was standards compliant. Forget that as it may not have all the bugs and vulnerabilities that we have come to know and love. Yours Sincerely, Alastair Steel On 10/02/2006, at 11:40 AM, Geoff Pack wrote: Cade Whitbourn wrote: Wow. Microsoft are taking very pro-active measures to assist the developer community in fixing sites for IE7. I received an email from someone on the 'IE7 compatibility team' with a screenshot of our site in IE7 and a list of all our stylesheets with all the filters and hacks identified that we may need to modify. I'm impressed. Have other site owners received any similar contact from the IE7CPTTM yet? I would send them back a list of the css bugs they should fix so the filters and hacks that no longer work in IE7 won't be needed anyway. Geoff. ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help ** ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Cade Whitbourn wrote:
The compatibility issue is caused by our use of CSS filters. They
specificially highlight our use of Star HTML Hack, Selector HTML Hack
and the Holly Hack.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Selector HTML Hack.
The problem with the * html filter is that they removed it without
solving all the limitations it's required for. However, removing it was
the right move to make, because now that * html is removed from IE7, it
does make it completely safe to use for targeting IE6 and earlier, you
just need to sort out which limitations are still present, and thus
which patches are still required to be applied and find an alternate
filter to use.
Personally, I rarely use anything but the holly hack:
* html foo { height: 1%; }
And it turns out that for the one site I've fixed up, all I had to do
was remove most occurences of it from throughout my stylesheet and move
them all to an additional stylesheet which is now imported using a
conditional comment
!--[if lte IE 7]link rel=stylesheet type=text/css
href=/style/iehacks.css![endif]--
For example, I had many occurrences like this scattered throughout:
* html foo { height: 1%; }
* html bar { height: 1%; }
* html baz { height: 1%; }
Now, in iehacks.css, I have:
foo, bar, baz { height: 1%; }
It does make it a little cleaner and effectively makes the other
stylesheets hack free (except for the display:inline; patch to fix
double-margin float bugs and 1 or 2 IE6 only bugs applied with * html)
(I would like to just quote the email verbatim but it's headlined
**Microsoft Confidential** which makes me nervous - even though there's
no confidential information in the email that I can see).
Such things are thrown into many corporate e-mails for no other reason
than unjustified paranoia, I'm sure no-one would mind if you quoted it
fully. It sounds like they're probably sending the same template e-mail
to hundreds of sites (just customising it to mention specific hacks).
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Greetings,
From my experience when I run into an IE bug (double-margin / 3 pixel
jog) that could use height: 1% to fix it, I use display: inline as an
alternative and it saves a hack in your code or one less reason to use a
conditional comment. I haven't noticed any problems with other browsers
using this and I test on around 10 of them. Perhaps I haven't seen the
particular scenario yet but I think the height: 1% fix can safely be
tucked under a rug.
Later days,
Kenneth
Lachlan Hunt wrote:
Cade Whitbourn wrote:
The compatibility issue is caused by our use of CSS filters. They
specificially highlight our use of Star HTML Hack, Selector HTML Hack
and the Holly Hack.
I'm not sure what you mean by the Selector HTML Hack.
The problem with the * html filter is that they removed it without
solving all the limitations it's required for. However, removing it
was the right move to make, because now that * html is removed from
IE7, it does make it completely safe to use for targeting IE6 and
earlier, you just need to sort out which limitations are still
present, and thus which patches are still required to be applied and
find an alternate filter to use.
Personally, I rarely use anything but the holly hack:
* html foo { height: 1%; }
And it turns out that for the one site I've fixed up, all I had to do
was remove most occurences of it from throughout my stylesheet and
move them all to an additional stylesheet which is now imported using
a conditional comment
!--[if lte IE 7]link rel=stylesheet type=text/css
href=/style/iehacks.css![endif]--
For example, I had many occurrences like this scattered throughout:
* html foo { height: 1%; }
* html bar { height: 1%; }
* html baz { height: 1%; }
Now, in iehacks.css, I have:
foo, bar, baz { height: 1%; }
It does make it a little cleaner and effectively makes the other
stylesheets hack free (except for the display:inline; patch to fix
double-margin float bugs and 1 or 2 IE6 only bugs applied with * html)
(I would like to just quote the email verbatim but it's headlined
**Microsoft Confidential** which makes me nervous - even though there's
no confidential information in the email that I can see).
Such things are thrown into many corporate e-mails for no other reason
than unjustified paranoia, I'm sure no-one would mind if you quoted it
fully. It sounds like they're probably sending the same template
e-mail to hundreds of sites (just customising it to mention specific
hacks).
**
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list getting help
**
Re: [WSG] IE7 Compatibility Team
Kenneth Fraser wrote: Greetings, From my experience when I run into an IE bug (double-margin / 3 pixel jog) that could use height: 1% to fix it, I use display: inline as an alternative and it saves a hack in your code or one less reason to use a conditional comment. I haven't noticed any problems with other browsers using this and I test on around 10 of them. Perhaps I haven't seen the particular scenario yet but I think the height: 1% fix can safely be tucked under a rug. height:1% or height:0 or whatever height you set gives layout to an element, which is not the case with display:inline. Making sure an element hasLayout is a big tool in the box when it comes to fix IE bugs. Thierry | www.TJKDesign.com ** The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/ See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm for some hints on posting to the list getting help **
