Microsoft added a couple of new Christmas themed HTML5 demos to their IE9 test drive site which included Vorbis audio in addition to the AAC audio in the audio tags. They’ve since modified both demos to remove the Vorbis audio. It seems Microsoft is happy to use Vorbis in HTML5 pages internally, just not publicly.
… they focus on 2D graphics speed because this is about the only area where, thanks to Direct2D, they have a speed advantage over most other browsers/platforms; and showing fancy graphics demos done with canvas/2D helps draw attention away from the fact that most of these demos would be better done (would be much more consistently accelerated on all platforms) with canvas/WebGL, which they are the only next-gen browser *not* to support.
I still don’t consider IE9 a next-gen browser. I think it is more like the new IE6.
I’m just glad with anything new they support.
Although all those Windows XP IE-users are still stuck on IE8. So who really cares at this point in time.
IE9 is to be released somewhere in 2011 I think.
Maybe Windows XP users will be less then 50% by then. Although not all are using IE ofcourse.
Edited 2010-12-28 23:42 UTC
You’ve never had to support IE6 then.
I did, still do.
What I meant is, IE9 will be behind the rest again. Just like IE6 was and it will prevent developers from implementing things they can already do with other browsers.
Like draft standards that the W3C has said are not ready for production?
http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/w3c_html5_not_ready_for_produc…
Yea that really compares to not being able to display png images properly and requiring endless CSS hacks. Or having the browser constantly crash when testing it.
It’s IE7/8 users that will hold back HTML5, not IE9.
Edited 2010-12-29 20:11 UTC
That’s the other problem, no IE9 for Windows XP.
I know! All the time I am running into sites that use advanced 3D graphics and it upsets me that they aren’t trying to support this. I mean 80% of all sites on the web require WebGL right?
IE9 is supposed to support canvas, and WebGL is hardly a fully defined standard right now. If they add it in its current incarnation people will be mad that they “broke” it when it is standardized later and people don’t upgrade to the latest version.
It should be pretty obvious that web designers design for common features of web browsers. The websites that could benefit from advanced 3D graphics ( as opposed to basic 3D graphics??) can’t use it because IE doesn’t support it. This is why they ( web developers) bitch about Microsoft Internet Explorer.
And as always there are standards, and they there are standards. If every Browser supports a non- finialaized standard in the same exact way … Then it is standard and no one can complain because it works the same across all browsers. If every other browser except IE has done web GL, then there is no good reason not to do it in the same way. I promise you, no one will complain.
Its strange. MS had no trouble forcing media support on firefox even that that media support is not written into the standard. IE supports playing html5 video out box yet no codec has been agreed on. MS is already going outside fully defined standards.
Yes vorbis almost made it threw the standard process.
MS is a master of the double standards. When its in there favor to break what is written in standards they do.
Some how I don’t think they are going to change.
Any one play with IE on windows 7 phone? Yikes! tapping on the IE tile felt like I was about to regret it, and man did I ever. It really brought back memories of early 2000 pocket pcs. Everything else on it is nice and new and exciting. IE is just wrong. It feels old. Maybe its 90% in my head, but I would seriously just change the name.
Like they changed the name of frontpage so developers could use it without having to admit to people they were using frontpage.
Except they haven’t.
Yes, they did.
Frontpage 2003 was the last version of frontpage Microsoft’s HTML design program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_FrontPage#Versions
Microsoft Expression Web was first released in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Expression_Web#Version_histo…
Granted, they also changed lots of stuff, no doubt. But, at the end of the day their old web page designer was called frontpage, and the new one was called Microsoft expression Web.
Yes, they did. But not in the way you just explained. The Frontpage line of programs has been splitted.
SharePoint Designer 2007 was basically Frontpage with a lot of extras functionality to make it a useful program with regards to SharePoint. SharePoint Designer 2007 still looked like Frontpage, but SharePoint Designer 2010 does not. It’s a completely different program.
Microsoft Expression Web was designed and developed as a web design program worthy of its name. I have no experience with this program, but I expect it to be a better and more usabile program then Frontpage 2003 ever was (not that difficult
).
Ok, I stand corrected. I’ve managed to avoid sharepoint so I didn’t know about that.
No, the first SharePoint Designer and first Expression Web were identical programs! The only thing that was different were the included web-templates/themes (for EW) and the SharePoint functions (for SD).
If you ever saw the installation files or opened these programs up at the same time you would see they are entirely the same program.
FrontPage was never a bad program, but it wasn’t good either. It got famous for producing IE-only HTML and for requiring serverside, IIS-only extensions for almost everything interesting.
EW/SD were continuations of FP that were really modern, standard compliant. Although still with a lot of integration for MS-technology (can’t blame them for that)
SharePoint Designer became free, and changed a lot with the 2010 version
Expression Web developed with other tools into a “office for media” suite, competing with Adobe (and more with the former Macromedia Suite)
I think it’s in your head. I use IE on WP7 frequently. It feels fine for a mobile browser. It isn’t IE9, but it’s fine for the kind of websites I visit on my phone.
Take a look at cnn.com in IE on windows 7 phone vs Android’s stock browser.
In Android it has formated the page to make it easy to click on the links with your finger. Each link has an increased target zone that will activate the link. The web page acts as if it were really an app.
On IE, the mobile page is rendered like it would be on a desktop. Its more difficult for me to click on the stories, due to their decreased target area, and I’ve got the smallest hands out of everyone I know.
This is a mismatch between engineers, middle management, and upper management. I can see how each of them would have a different take on Vorbis support. Engineers always believe that it’s easier to implement than it appears. Upper management always believe that it’s harder and more costly to support – so all that they can do is pony up a solution that would have the least amount of impact to their bottom line, yet open enough to empower users to add-on functionality.
I’m willing to bet that there are even some engineers who believe they should go to a Webkit browser engine.
To have not included vorbis audio at all could have been ignorance or just plain laziness…
To explicitly remove it after the fact when it clearly does no harm to have it there is just evil. They have gone out of their way to do something that provides no benefit whatsoever to users.