Compartir a través de

Rules for Comments on the IEBlog

  • Artículo

I am glad to see what got lots of feedback and discussion around our posts from yesterday. I am still digging through all the comments from yesterday and today, but I did notice some profanity. As people get more engaged with IEBlog, we want to set down some guidelines on how we are going handle comments in general. Our primary goal is for this to be a place for open discussion about IE, so we don’t want to have lots of overhead and process.

Things we want to see in comments:
Lots of good interesting responses on IE and the posts on IEBlog
Keep it on topic
Keep it respectful
Keep it fun

Things that will get comments edited/deleted:
Offensive or abusive language or behavior
Misrepresentation (i.e., claiming to be somebody you're not) - if you don't want to use your real name, that's fine, as long as your "handle" isn't offensive, abusive, or misrepresentative
Blog-spam of any kind

We hope these rules will keep the discussion lively and on topic. 

Scott Stearns
Test Manager, IE

Comments

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Maybe they really tried to help you...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    excuse me, but what exactly is fun about IE not respecting standards and being the worst thing that EVER happened to the world wide web?

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Yeah, isn't it funny that you guys have started a blog to cover the development of a new standards-compliant browser, yet cannot actually make the blog validate ( http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A//blogs.msdn.com/ie )

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    i've just checked this page - 13 font tags and 3 tables, all of which are deprecated elements in HTML 4.01. in fact, this pages don't even validate as HTML 4.0 transitional :)))

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "these pages", my bad.

    anyway, our beloved IE development team, you're only making fools of yourselves on this blog. it's clear you're at fault, people (and especially web developers) hate your so-called browser, and you're just throwing sand in our eyes. you're perfectly aware what people think of IE and what needs to be done to improve it, and this "OMG LOL WE <3 U DEVELOPRZ K BY" blog which tries to show that you actually listen doesn't fool anyone, except maybe your bosses.

    "either put out or shut up", if i remember the saying correctly.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    True, 'not important'. Double-entendre.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Well JC, I would like to see a release soon. At least a 6.5 with PNG transparency, better CSS 2.0 support, and Dom/JavaScript support and most of the non-xp dependant security enhancements. And backwards compatable to atleast 98/ME/2000. I just don't think it will happen. Shouting about that won't help, and that's a decision probably from above the IE team. But I would very much like for that to happen.

    If they put their time/money anywhere it should be into the render while continuing to lock down the browser. HOPEFULLY, they followed their on security guidence and maybe - maybe, IE security can turn the corner.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Nameless - I think you got it just about right. If they want to avoid critics they are delusional.

    I've been hyper critical at times - I practically abused the IE team on Scoble's blog and other places. I might have even called them 'girly-men'. But this blog is a MAJOR STEP FORWARD - and since they are willing to talk I am willing to back off, mainly for my own sake. As a former teacher, I appeciate a step forward, even if it's a small one. That's the right thig to do.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "I just don't think it will happen. Shouting about that won't help, and that's a decision probably from above the IE team. But I would very much like for that to happen. "

    No kidding, they already said it won't. That's the problem. And I also know that no one on the IE team can make a decision. So what's the point?

    The SP2 fixes are useless to Win2000 and earlier users. Longhorn is at least 2 years away. They've abandoned standalone versions of IE. They've abandoned IE for the Mac. They have stated that they need input (although the problems have been rehashed a million times) but they won't be getting to new features for many months and they have no idea if or when it will result in a new product.

    Don't you see any hypocrisy in this blog? They can certainly expect me to be posting, insulting them, going off topic, being abusive, being disrespectful, and not having fun. They've been doing the same to me for quite some time. You get respect only upon earning it.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I hate to be offensive, but I don't know how to say it any other way: I wish Internet Explorer would die.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "No kidding, they already said it won't. That's the problem. And I also know that no one on the IE team can make a decision. So what's the point?"

    To encourage them to make the longhorn browser 'kick a**'.

    I cannot argue the facts with you - your correct in as far as must of us know. Dropping IE on the Mac is totally understandable. Safari and Firefox will most likely do very well there.

    "The SP2 fixes are useless to Win2000 and earlier users." The security fixes that leverage WinXp API's are - fixing things such as buffer over runs are not useless. I bet sorting it all out is a mess.

    "They have stated that they need input (although the problems have been rehashed a million times) but they won't be getting to new features for many months and they have no idea if or when it will result in a new product."

    How we all respond from this point forward is important. Note to IETeam: we need a concise road map, and we needed it yesterday.

    "You get respect only upon earning it."

    "Don't you see any hypocrisy in this blog?"
    Not yet.

    "They can certainly expect me to be posting, insulting them, going off topic, being abusive, being disrespectful, and not having fun. "
    This would be a waste of YOUR time.

    "They've been doing the same to me for quite some time."
    It's not a personal conspiracy. These are business decisions.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Maybe I'm in the minority here, but not everyone following this blog is a developer. I'm just an interested technical support person that supports 10,000 users in an enterprise that rely heavily on IE and activeX. I like the fact that you are here providing some insight into the development of IE. Personally, I'm content with using a browser that I can depend on to patch the problems as they are found. Some day the folks that abandon IE strictly for security reasons will get hit with something (if they have not already) that will not get discovered or patched in a timely manner. IMHO some of the "security experts" have over reacted in their recommendations. They have their heads stuck in the sand when it comes to the vulnerabilities in the alternative browsers that are sure to be discovered when attention is focused on them. While I'm here, let me put my plug in for tab browsing and group favorites for IE. I'd love that. Thanks...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Hey, Lynne, just consider ourselves a little Tag Team...

    You can be Good Cop, and I'll be Bad Cop.

    Our goals are the same; our methods different.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "No. I find my protests have been affective."

    I agree.

    "My goal is to make the IE team to look like complete fools... If I'm loud enough, others will hear and agree. Besides, I find this quite amusing. Amusing myself is always worthwhile."

    I disagree.

    "Are you claiming that IE's problems haven't affected you both personally and in your business?"

    They haven't affected me personally, and not much my business. Things were far more difficult before ASP.net and Firefox.

    "All I am doing is speaking for myself, thank you."

    True. You should remember this then JC.

    "Everything is Permissble ... but not everything is benifical ... [or] construcive".

    How we say what we say is of equal importance.

    We agree on the facts and the desired outcome. We disagreee on process.

    Take care, and don't let this all get the best of you. You do care about IE - you wouldn't be here if you didn't.

    NOTE TO IETeam: take the next step, do what is right - and make an interum release between SP2 and longhorn. If not - why not?

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    True Story: In order to get a little modern with their development, the Microsoft Internet Explorer Development Team has opened their own team blog. In one of the most entertaining MSIE related blog posts I&#8217;ve seen in quite a long...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "Amusing myself is always worthwhile."

    'I disagree.'

    What ARE you? A robot?

    ;-)

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Well, it's good to see that 3 people have some sort of opinion that they wanted to share here. What is sad that they have nothing better to do than fill this space with useless banter about whose opinion is right and wrong. I do not currently use IE and think it is a terrible browser but I still am willing to give it another chance if it gets better at some point. So to all 3 of you who are just bantering back and forth... please stop. I don't care and I'm sure that there are only 2 other people that care as much as you do.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    LOL... Man I hope everyone on the IE team has a thick skin.

    As I commented yesterday... You're a brave team... Don't let all the negative vibes turn you away from blogging.

    Once the dust settles a little, I think this will be a good way for you to communicate with the community...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    what a joke

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Um, Alex, you're making a lot of assumptions here. OK, so alot of people here think IE isn't the best browser around anymore, are suspicious of this blog (read that IE chat and you'll see why--no actual answers, what's the point?), and that makes them Linux/Mac zealots?

    (using Firefox on WINDOWS.)

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I think that most bloggers understand that when users can comment on your website, you either have to take the good with the bad, or set up some kind of automatic filter to remove words you simply cannot abide. There's a pretty good chance that people will say things you won't like. You could also just not take comments, but you certainly can't have it both ways! Can you? Microsoft, characteristically, thinks that it can with it's new Internet Explorer...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Why get upset? Just download Firefox from http://www.mozilla.org/products/firefox/ -- it's better, and it's free!

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I can't say I really appreciate IE either, but I know that the transfer of ideas or complaints about a product can be made without insults and such. I feel that IE is a half-way there sort of product, with a lack of customizablity and support for web standards.

    once thats taken care of, it's all good in my books.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Lazycoder weblog &raquo; IE blog and commenting

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    > IE does support ECMA standard javascript. Just because you say it doesn't, doesn't mean that they don't. Its ECMA standard support is the best in the browser world.

    > As you just proved previously with your javascript comment, you are not a developer. Probably you are a cheap web designer. I am a developer

    I wouldn't be so hasty to criticise The Wolf for his lack of knowledge regarding Javascript, as it is clear that he knows more than you about the matter.

    As The Wolf attempted to explain to you, Internet Explorer doesn't support Javascript. It supports JScript, which is an implementation of ECMA-262. Javascript is another implementation of ECMA-262. Internet Explorer doesn't support Javascript, only JScript.

    So it's quite clear that The Wolf understands the issues. You, on the other hand, seem to have Javascript, JScript and ECMA-262 confused with each other. They are three separate things.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    If the idiots hate you, it proves you're not one of them.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I'm with Wise Guy.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Oh yeah, " The Wolf, you are already caught lying over and over again, I don't see with what kind of a face you can deny all that. " Where exactly did you read something to justify that?

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Ah and yet another thing, thanks for spamming the reactos forum Alex: http://reactos.pixelcarnage.com/viewtopic.php?pid=37#37

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    @ Wise Guy:

    2 and 3 sound like really bad ideas to me but I have always been against colouring the scroll bars and animated backgrounds ;)

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The Wolf, if you are serious about discussing about IE, let's discuss real issues. Stop saying or repeating lies, like IE doesn't support Javascript and stop playing with the words, like Microsoft calls it JScript whereas we generally refer to it Javascript. You clearly try to confuse people about issues. Your goal seem to spread the FUD and lie over and over again. Wise Guy, Jim, Jesus_Christ and every other offending people have the same theme and goal here, instead of sticking with the topic they all want to tell us how much they hate Microsoft. They promote other browsers, which is nonesense. I think it will help IE team to know that, there are enough number of people who don't take Wise Guy etc.. seriously and sick of such people. We want to have a better browser from Microsoft, period. I think Microsoft should adopt Slashdot's tactics. They do ban ip numbers when they don't like ip numbers. Also a rating system along with strong moderation will help people to stay on the topic and eliminate Jim, The Wolf, Wise Guy and so on. This way, more people who want to discuss real issues will come forward, and people either end up growing up or just stay with Slashdot and continue to be irrelevant.

    Channel 9 is also a good place to discuss. I think more or less every topic is covered there.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Alexs IP: 128.111.200.162 @ FSH200162.resnet.ucsb.edu

    If any one wants to harm him, don't let me stop you.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    ...whoops.

    They have as much right to be here, as you.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    So you would have any comments related to IE problems removed and their posters banned? Good thinking, that way MS will never know why people don't like their product.

    Right now the only offensive person here is you Alex.

    You said I lied about a few things yet you never said anything to prove me wrong.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Alex, you don't have a clue do you?

    "The Wolf said:

    "1. IE doesn't have JavaScript support. Zip, none! On the other hand t has 'JScript' support... inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don't have to (and never will) follow the standards. "

    Now, he says that "inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don't have to (and never will) follow the standards."

    Again, why are you lying Jim? It is not that you don't know the difference, but you seem to be so keen on bashing Microsoft even if that means lying about facts."

    JScript is not JavaScript, it's microsofts alternative, while some of the code can be used under both not all of it can. Microsofts solution doesn't follow the standards whereas JavaScript does.

    "Hehe, you didn't correct anything as I just proved. If you claim that all the javascript books are actually covering the Netscape's implementation Javascript, and not JScipt because their name is Javascript, you are a liar. The fact that you are a liar is not about calling you a name, it is pretty obvious. I urge anyone to go and pick up a javascript book and see what they say about this blatant attempt by Jim and his friends to confuse you about the situation. Again, is it better to trust such liars, or just to stick with people who are honest and direct about their comments? Jim, you are not a match to me in this issue. All you did is repeat the obvious facts just to put credibility to a lie. I don't see how being a liar will help your cause, whatever it is."

    Apart from the fact that neither of us have told any lies... I don't see how being an ahol helps your 'cause' Alex.

    "Also read the topic, the topic clearly says if you say offending stuff you will be banned. You are exactly lying here. Maybe you learned that it is not so easy to lie and get away with it. You can do that on Slashdot, but that's because people there like to hear lies. I think people should know how irresponsible mozilla developers really are. The bug report in 2002 is marked as not-fixed the last time I checked it out, and Mozilla developers argued actually fixing such problems is not their duty."

    You have not been banned yet so I don't think they are moderating it as well as they should.

    "In other words, according to mozilla developers there is nothing wrong to let third party sites to run anything they want on your own computer"

    Funny, I thought that was an Internet Explorer motto.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    > People use the "Javascript" in general to mean the ECMA 262, whether the specific implementation is really javascript or not. That's what people refer to it everywhere.

    Well quite obviously that isn't true, as now three people have tried to correct you on the issue. Plenty of people differentiate between implementations, as this page makes perfectly clear. Microsoft themselves do so.

    > Now, he says that "inother words Microsoft called it something else so they don't have to (and never will) follow the standards."

    I didn't see that comment before, so I concede that point.

    > If you claim that all the javascript books are actually covering the Netscape's implementation Javascript, and not JScipt because their name is Javascript, you are a liar.

    You seem awfully keen to put words in my mouth. Since they are both implementations of the ECMA-262 specification, books talking about Javascript will also be broadly applicable to other ECMA-262 implementations such as JScript and QtScript. As any technical publisher will tell you, "Javascript" is much more marketable than "ECMA-262". It doesn't matter if they include content on JScript as well - just think how many "HTML" books have information on scripting and stylesheets.

    You posted this earlier:
    > There are enough zealots around to pose as they like just to disrupt others' work. So stop telling me to be suspicious for the facts, when these zealots are disrupting the positive energy going on.

    I only started responding to your comments because you unjustly attacked somebody for not knowing what they were talking about. Since then, you have actually done a 180 degree turn and agree that The Wolf was correct in saying that Javascript and JScript are different implementations of ECMA-262, and yet you haven't retracted your accusation that he is a liar for differentiating between them.

    If anybody here is "disrupting the positive energy", it is the person slinging insults to practically everybody mentioned on this page apart from Microsoft. Namely, you.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Oh and btw Alex, is this what you consider a developer?

    "Someone with a complete disregard for the standards and the productivity gain from following the standards who writes for one platform ignoring the other viable platforms and front end solutions."

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Oh and I chose my alias "I Hate It" purely to counter the silly "I Love This Browser!" post. Though I think there's been enough discussion about that in that post's comments.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    One other thing Alex.

    "My book is not published yet."

    If thats the case you might want to be a bit more tight lipped. I don't think your current comments will be helping your sales any.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I think any blog should have the reasonable expectation that the comments be polite, and the power to delete comments that do not follow the rules. That's what makes a blog different than other mediums. Disagreement is fine; swearing and insults are not. That's all that they are asking for. Notice that it doesn't say not to criticize Internet Explorer, but to be respectful. I'm not really sure what they mean by keep it fun, however. This should be serious discussion.

    I'm very much a Firefox advocate. I use Linux and love open source. I've often wished that IE would disappear from the face of the earth. That said, if the developers are offering a chance, however slim, to communicate fairly directly with them, I'm not so spiteful as to try to sabotage it for everyone. While the business people might have insiduous plans for IE, I really doubt that the programmers do.

    As for JavaScript versus JScript, I'm not sure why Microsoft should be forced to follow someone else's implementation of a standard when theirs is compliant as well.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I would be worried about the poor content in the book first before you worry about the effects your comments have.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Alex, you sound like a friking psycho....

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "As for JavaScript versus JScript, I'm not sure why Microsoft should be forced to follow someone else's implementation of a standard when theirs is compliant as well."

    Agreed. I think many folks are interested in better support/compliance for later DOM standards rather than changes in JScript or support for the JavaScript standard. Although being able to use a cross-browser scripting language would be nice.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "Agreed. I think many folks are interested in better support/compliance for later DOM standards rather than changes in JScript or support for the JavaScript standard. Although being able to use a cross-browser scripting language would be nice."

    It would be better if they did follow the standards closer for exactly that reason :)

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    And I said I wouldn't respond to you any more but to...

    "...read the first page "Introduction to Javascript""

    Actually read the cover. When it says "Covers Javascript 1.2" they are specifically talking about the Netscape/Mozilla standard. And if you continue to read beyond page 1 into section 1.2 you see they spend some time discussing that different browsers have different implementations of the language, and that "The name JavaScript is owned by Netscape", while "Microsoft's implementation is officially known as JScript".

    So it's fairly clear that book doesn't support your points at all.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "I Hate It", your nick is pretty much giving you away.


    "Actually read the cover. When it says "Covers Javascript 1.2" they are specifically talking about the Netscape/Mozilla standard. And if you continue to read beyond page 1 into section 1.2 you see they spend some time discussing that different browsers have different implementations of the language, and that "The name JavaScript is owned by Netscape", while "Microsoft's implementation is officially known as JScript".

    So it's fairly clear that book doesn't support your points at all."

    I can prove right here that you are a liar. Here is what the book says about javascript 1.2:

    Right after "The name JavaScript is owned by Netscape", while "Microsoft's implementation is officially known as JScript". it continues and says "The versions of JScript are more or less compatible the equivalent versions of Javascript, although JScript skipped a version and went directly from JavaScript 1.0 compataibility to JavaScript 1.2 compatibility"

    The book clearly defends my view. The book says that they are the same. They talk about that difference only in Versions of Javascript section and that's where they have to explain you where does the names come from. They don't use the term Javascript as if it only refers to Netscape's implementation.

    Here is how the book defines the Javascript "Javascript is a lightweight interpreted programming language with object-oriented capabilities." The book doesn't say that Javascript is Netscape's own name, until the Javascript versions, and nowhere in the book it says it is specifically talking about Netscape's implementation, since Netscape doesn't exist anymore as a browser anyway. So you are actually lying, as you did so far. I recommend people to ignore such liars.

    Now another lie. In the book, they list the javascript from two browsers. In a table it lists javascript versions supported by various browsers.

    Browser Version | Netscap Navigator | Microsoft IE
    ---------------------------------------------------------
    2| Javascript 1.0 |
    3| Javascript 1.1 | JavaScript 1.0
    4| Javascript 1.2 | Javascript 1.2
    | not fully complaint | Fully complaint
    | with ECMA-262 | with ECMA-262
    ----------------------------------------------------------

    In other words, IE supported the standards before Netscape did. It also doesn't say JScript there, it says JavaScript 1.0 and JavaScript 1.2. Anyway, enough with dealing with liars. However, I do want people to notice that when you see one of these slashdot type of anti-Microsoft bashers you shouldn't trust them at all. They are flat out lying about facts, even in the book case, they are lying, because it is far more easier for these people to lie about facts rather than do something, be positive.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Just another quire note from the book: The book has a chapter named "Compatability Techniques" and section 19.3 named "Compatability with non-JavaScript browsers". Guess what. The book is not talking about IE. Anyway, don't think that I am taking Jim, I Hate It etc... seriously. I am just trying to point out that there are some online vandals, some kids, some grown up losers, etc... ready to lie about facts just to confuse you and hurt Microsoft. Dismiss such claims instantly. Almost 95% of slashdotters have no clue at all. Just learn your stuff from books, instead of online net thugs. They are always going to give you wrong information, and there will be always enough of them to give you the impression that they are in fact telling the truth and as I just proved they will always lie, no matter what.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Sjeez, this site doesn't even work right in Opera :P
    Now I REALLY trust the M$ IE-team

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Before you make new functions to the browser make it conform with Standards (JS, CSS, W3C) (KOMPLETELY PLEASE).

    And don´t forget the security again. And do somethin´ making the people can trust in IE.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Jim:
    "I missed that, and erroneously stated that nobody had claimed such a thing."

    I rest my case even though you deny your other intentional mistakes.

    Clearly Javascript book authors have more authority than you on this issue. You are not the first slashdotter who doesn't know what he is talking about. When challenged every one of them concedes like you.

    "You insult other people, use abusive language, and try and bash anybody who is not a fan of Microsoft. Does that make you a Microsoft zealot? "

    No, as you admitted, you lied several times, and that's what is important here. Being a fan of Microsoft is not an issue at all, since I am not a Microsoft developer, not even a Windows developer. I develop mostly for Linux and on Linux. You are ready to bash Microsoft no matter what, and that's just wrong. You can't claim that Microsoft developers here are stupid, doesn't know what they are talking about, you can't disrespect them and at the same time demand them to be tolerant against you. Probably they will be tolerant because either they are really nice guys, or that that's their policy, but I can point out that you are a liar so that we can have a more positive discussion. Because I don't owe anything to microsoft nor do I owe anything to you. I am independent, your bashing me as a Microsoft zealot has zero effect on me, because I develop for Linux. I can list many more personal thoughts against Microsoft maybe, but this is not the place to discuss your stupid anti-Microsoft bashings. You think that you have some natural right to bash Microsoft and confuse other people intentionally.

    At the end I am happy to prove that IE is great with Javascript. Your other absurd claims about the use of the Javascript term is totally irrelevant. Anybody who buys a Javascript book will get it anyway. The important thing now is that we don't have to deal with the Javascript support. We can move forward.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Oh woopee look how off topic we are :D

    BTW Alex I suspect you use & develop for Windows & are using your Linux development crown as a decoy! After all you continually bash Slashdotters and everyone knows 95% of Linux users are hippie-lovin, groupthinking Slashdotters!

    (who says MS doesn't need its own personal Rottweiler?)

    *wipes mouth and munches on a Beowulf cluster of chocolate cherries.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    I demand they stop reading! They need the time to develop the poor, malfunctioning Internet Explorer Browser.

    Well, if they read all of this, they'll never come up with a better browser.

    Joerg

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The people over at Microsoft have created a blog to...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "We know you don't know much about html other than closing tags, but I wonder how much really you know about Linux or Unix since you think Slashdot represents open source. It is sad that open source is associated with idiots."

    Open source = slashdot??

    Where did I say that???

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    What ridiculous thread! Maybe I am not a very bright web developer (I am definitely not a designer), maybe I don't use Windows, but I have some mailing lists, and I know very well that what these wise person from the nursery school do: flame war. Flame is their Holy Grail. No one can argue them. The only solution is to ignore.

    BTW in some cases Slashdot does the Right Thing: meta moderation. Commenters moderate commenters.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    May I remind that CSS, HTML etc are NO standards, highly de facto standards. Only a few organizations can define standards, the W3C is not one of them. The W3C releases "recommendations", no standards and therefore it's not obligatory to do a full and/or correct implementation of any recommendation. It also would be sheer undoable to fully implement all of these recommendations and honestly I don't think there is a browser which does.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Hey, look, this place is Troll Central. No wonder the IE team is silent. They can't get a word in edge-wise with all the "I'm right, you're wrong, my religion, not yours" whining. You people do <em>not</em> represent the professional users/developers who use these products to conduct business and have the most at stake here.

    I use Firefox on Windows (I love XP, actually), have never installed Linux, and never had a Mac. Couldn't care less about them. But I still think IE is a horrid product, and I only use it for compatibility testing.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    "Hey, look, this place is Troll Central. No wonder the IE team is silent. They can't get a word in edge-wise with all the "I'm right, you're wrong, my religion, not yours" whining. You people do <em>not</em> represent the professional users/developers who use these products to conduct business and have the most at stake here. "

    Oh here I go off topic again so flame me (you have the right ;)) but I don't think the discussion was anything like a religious debate. It was just a dicussion that began out of...well..I don't know where actually..lol.

    And ot be positive- maybe this is on topic- the OP is laying out the rules, we're discussing em! ;)

    Plus if MS wants a private blog they could make it accessible only to MSDN subscribers...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Well Alex, Channel9 does let the users create the threads. 3 blog posts by MS so far w/ over 300 comments=lots of off topic.

    BTW I'm wondering if you post on C9. I have a suspicion of which user you would match if you do ;)

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Wow I'm a Mac/Linux zealot because I am not bowing down before the gods of IE development. Even though I used (and supported IE) for years and made no mention of what I use. Oh well no loss. You know what they say about assumptions and there are a lot of them going on here from all angles while the point of the conversation seems to have flown out the window.

    Sure people edit blogs and ban IPs when they are getting trolled or the problem posts are disrupting the conversation. Editing a blog's comments to doctor the conversation, however, is really not acceptible. If the IE team edited this conversation, half of the posts would be gone and it would defeat the purpose of having a blog in the first place. That was the point. If you want clean happy conversation, force registration. It's that simple.

    Just because someone speaks about about the resistance to standards compliance in IE development over the years doesn't mean they are a Mac/Linux/Opera/etc zealot. It just means they're informed about the reality of IE development and have moved on to other browsers because of it. There are a lot of Windows users here who have moved to other browsers and they've been branded as "Microsoft Bashers" because they voiced an opinion. It's unfortunate. Those are the people MS should be listening to the most yet their opinions will get overshadowed by a couple of attention seekers. Oh well.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    all I have to say is 1 thing: Alex, you are an idiot, and I hope you get hit by a moving vehicle, preferably one with 18 wheels, while on a highway.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Please don't implement tabbed browsing. I like the current trend of people moving away from IE due to its lack of this feature (and security holes, obviously). So if you implement tabbed browsing, I'm afriad I might spend more time in IE and I don't want to see that happen to others.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    To help keep flaming do a minimum, heres a Bookmarklet to dissapear any comment by Alex.

    javascript:(function(){var l=document.getElementsByTagName('a');for (var x=l.length-1;x--;){if (l[x].innerHTML.indexOf('Almeroth')!=-1) l[x].parentNode.parentNode.style.display='none'}})();

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Listen up I Hate It, is that standards compliant code according to W3C regulation 232 section 5, & does it work across all browsers, Mosaics, and Lynx?

    swats fly with measuring stick Need to take out garbage........... ;)

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Off course we need better PNG support (Transparency). A better download manager will be useful (with resume functionality and so). Maybe two modes, one legacy IE6.x mode and a new IE7.x mode. Where the new version supports all the standards more correctly and is stricter when there are errors on the page. The IE6.x-mode should disappear in newer versions after IE7.x., and is useful when you try to visit a site who is using wrong ways to get things done. Or just incorrectly written HTML-sites (mostly produced by programs like Microsoft Word or online “This is my website”-sitebuilders), who are working correctly now in IE6.x.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003

    Alex, I said this before:

    If you cannot address these issues maturely, then I see no point in responding to you.

    Now you have once more set about calling me a liar for saying things I did not say, completely mischaracterising my arguments, whilst ignoring the existing objections I have to the truthfulness of your statements.

    Calling me names, insulting me, ignoring what I have to say, and not conceding on points where you are clearly in the wrong is not what I would call addressing these issues maturely.

    If you would like to adjust your attitude and try again, feel free. But there's no real point in me continuing this with your current attitude, as anything I say will go in one ear and out the other, won't it?

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Jim,
    as I pointed out earlier and as you admitted, you have to concede fully without any condition that IE supports Javascript completely. Your claim that JavaScript and JScript are different is being refuted by JavaScript books. They are only different in name only, they are implementations of the same language and both are commonly referred to as Javascript language, no matter at which implementation you run. For example, while you claim that Javascript and JScript are different, you shamelessly didn't acknowledge the fact that we use the word javascript to refer to implementations in other browsers too, like Safari, Opera and so on. If you had some dignity you would answer that question, but you don't because you only attack Microsoft.

    Once you become mature and knowledgable enough feel free to discuss real issues. I enjoy discussing technical issues, but really not with a slashdot type.

    You have to know when to concede fully and admit that IE does support Javascript, period. You should also apologize for intentionally misrepresenting what is being said and retract your false claims that the JavaScript books talk about just Netscape's implementation and that IE's implementation is different. At least people will know what you are all about, rather than taking you seriously.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    > Your claim that JavaScript and JScript are different is being refuted by JavaScript books.

    And supported by Microsoft:

    http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/default.asp?url=/library/en-us/com/htm/ctrans_0hdg.asp

    If they are not different, then why has Microsoft written an article entitled "Translating to JavaScript from JScript"?

    I'm still waiting for you to stop putting words in my mouth. You are repeatedly misrepresenting my arguments. What is the point in talking to you if you are going to ignore what I say and attack me for things I haven't said?

    I'm still waiting for you to acknowledge the fact you have stated a number of untrue things about me.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Jim stop being a liar and tell us what Microsoft says about compatability. The article says

    "JScript is largely compatible with JavaScript. However, JScript includes some objects not currently supported by JavaScript"

    JScript is a superset of JavaScript meaning that, if you write for JavaScript it will work in JScript too. Once again, you flat out lie about facts.

    I am still waiting you to apologize for lying and misrepresenting facts intentionally. Clearly JavaScript books disagree with you that JScript is not compatible with JavaScript. This is not slashot, even though many from there come in and support you, you can't win this argument, every javascript book disagrees with you. Find one single book that says JScript is not compatible with JavaScript. One of the best books on this topic, JavaScript Definitive Guide, clearly says that IE supports JavaScript 1.2 fully. Period, I gave you the page number, you can go to Amazon and read it yourself. You lie again and again, just apologize and you may gain some respect.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    > I am still waiting you to apologize for lying and misrepresenting facts intentionally.

    At least some of the things you claim I am lying about have never been said by me. Why should I apologise for them?

    > Clearly JavaScript books disagree with you that JScript is not compatible with JavaScript.

    This is a prime example. I never said that JScript is not compatible with Javascript. If you disagree, feel free to quote me. No paraphrasing, no reading things into what I am saying that aren't there, just a simple quote. My comments are right here on the page for you to copy and paste. It shouldn't be too hard to quote one of these supposed lies, should it?

    It seems to me that your constant accusations of lying are merely projection. I have provided sixteen clear cases where you have said something that isn't true, and you have avoided the issues each time. When you have brought up something where I have been mistaken, I have openly conceded both times. I think it's clear to everybody who is being honest and who is being childish.

    So, as I say, there is absolutely no point in me saying anything further to you - you'll just make something up and call me a liar again.

    Unless you participate constructively in some other debate, I don't expect to respond to you again. I'll just leave you with one last thing to chew on:

    Javascript and JScript are different. Microsoft say so. This argument started because you flamed somebody for correcting you on this issue. If you are unwilling to accept corrections about technical issues relating to Javascript, what does this say about the quality of your book that you claim to have written on the subject?

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Jim, no one but me knew what I meant by my first point about JavaScript != JScript. So let me explain it again:

    Ok, there are two standards (methods if you like), JavaScript the Netscape method and JScript the Microsoft method. Now as far as I know Netscape released their method first (correct me if I'm wrong). Now what I meant was that Microsoft didn't support the Netscape standard, hence why you (sometimes) have to code two sets of code to deal with the two methods. I would like to see this changed, it might not be Microsoft that needs to change, it might be Mozilla that needs to include some of the extra things in JScript.

    Hope I cleared that up! :/

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Yet again another post by Alex the Clueless stating how little he knows. If he actually read what I said he would note that I didn't even say anything about JavaScript and JScript not being ECMA-262 compliant.

    And he should also note that the w3c does write standards that would make the web a better place if dolts like him actually followed them instead of using standards only supported by one company on one platform.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Hi Guys,

    Don't you have work,off Bill pay this hit

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The IE team started a blog on MSDN. It touched off a firestorm of comments from trolls that make slashdotters...

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003

    journal &raquo; Even Internet Explorer Needs Love&raquo;
    jinabolton

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Ask any sane person to read this mess and they'll all come to the same conclusion - Alex is unwilling to concede or even comment on clear points.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    >Lots of good interesting responses on IE and the posts on IEBlog
    You want "good" responses about IE?
    You want "interesting" responses about IE?

    It seems to me that you just want us to make IE sound good rather than us telling you the truth. Which do you want? Do you want the truth or do you want us to just lie to you and tell you that IE is a wonderful product that deserves further development?

    The truth is that Microsoft has a habit of producing bad software - probably due to being closed sourced and the limited minds can't produce anything else. It "looks" pretty on the outside, but, that's as far as the beauty goes.
    Linux is a wonderful product, which is winning the OS war, by the way, despite what you want to believe, because practically the entire world is working on it in some way - it's open source. The source code for Microsoft products is kept secret and hidden, thus, severly limiting the amount of people who can work on it and, therefore, limiting its quality.

    My suggestions is thus. Open ALL the source code for Microsoft products, thereby allowing more folks to improve it. Or keep it closed and continue to wane until such time as Microsoft products are no longer wanted by the public at all.

    Microsoft Corp. is going to lose the revenue generated by it's Microsoft Windows OS's. Either by opening the source code to the public, or by the public demand for the products dying out. Revenue generated by MS Windows OS's is going to be lost, one way or another.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    My top 3 desired improvements are:

    * Tabbed browsing: Once you try it, you'll never go back. I would LOVE for IE to implement this one.
    * Improved CSS support. If MS wants to ignore W3C standards, fine. But at LEAST publish your own standards so developers can stop wasting time figuring out how MS implemented each node.
    * Transparent PNGs. Graphical goodness.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    standards need to be maintained.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Decency should be maintained ...Its a quite interesting blog..u get lots of information.. gud work..

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    Rules shld be followed for comments in any blog

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    This is quite interesting blog.

  • Anonymous
    January 01, 2003
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    June 05, 2008
    I am glad to see what got lots of feedback and discussion around our posts from yesterday. I am still digging through all the comments from yesterday and today, but I did notice some profanity. As people get more engaged with IEBlog, we want to set dow

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2009
    PingBack from http://paidsurveyshub.info/story.php?title=ieblog-rules-for-comments-on-the-ieblog

  • Anonymous
    June 01, 2009
    PingBack from http://portablegreenhousesite.info/story.php?id=14052

  • Anonymous
    June 08, 2009
    PingBack from http://insomniacuresite.info/story.php?id=3736

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2009
    PingBack from http://besteyecreamsite.info/story.php?id=1281

  • Anonymous
    June 09, 2009
    PingBack from http://menopausereliefsite.info/story.php?id=1291

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009
    PingBack from http://debtsolutionsnow.info/story.php?id=8212

  • Anonymous
    June 15, 2009
    PingBack from http://einternetmarketingtools.info/story.php?id=2217