Hm, not to be rude, but is this a draft article? A couple of first words of sentences aren't capitalized, a couple of sentences just don't make sense, there are some incomplete/improper verb forms, etc.
As far as the content of the article, I can certainly understand Microsoft's actions. They saw an opportunity to push IE9, and they did. Since the other browser vendors were given the same opportunity, I say it's all fair. Kudos to Microsoft for trying to make IE9 standards compliant (though I remain a Firefox user, for now).
And finally, good job Wolfgang for digging up this story and reporting it so completely!
imho if the W3C were going to test alpha and beta releases, they should have also tested the standard release along side it. that way it wouldn't nullify any of their findings, and wouldn't call them into question.
[citation][nom]Flameout[/nom]bottom line is microsoft don't care about the end user. that's why their products will always be inferior[/citation]
That's not at all true. Look at Windows 7 after the Vista fiasco. They took input from their users, offered over a year of open-beta testing. Obviously they care about what their customers want. That's part of business whether or not people want to believe it. There's no point pumping out a product if your potential customers aren't in mind during the development stage, because nobody will use it.
[citation][nom]Pyroflea[/nom]That's not at all true. Look at Windows 7 after the Vista fiasco. They took input from their users, offered over a year of open-beta testing. Obviously they care about what their customers want. That's part of business whether or not people want to believe it. There's no point pumping out a product if your potential customers aren't in mind during the development stage, because nobody will use it.[/citation]
I wish they didn't take advice from that guy in the green shirt. While snapping windows is pretty sweet, it seems they dropped a lot of other essential features. Maybe the guy in the green shirt told them to drop them?
Wait... IE9 the very first browser designed to be compliant with web standards?
The first IE for sure, but Opera has been complying with web standards for years, it was even co-founder of a few, including CSS. Chrome, even though it doesn't exist as long as Opera, has also been complying with all web standards. Firefox isn't fully compliant, but does a very good job too. Hell, even Safari, made by a company that usually ignores standards, is more compliant than IE 8.
And to make matters worse, IE 9 isn't even fully compliant. In other news, it's no faster than FF, not extensible and lacking in features.
Said it before, say it again - you jumped the gun Wolfgang
I do like the style of your editorials, large, free-flowing and full of information. Maybe the subject matter isn't exactly "All The President's Men" and you sure aren't Robert Redford, but you do tend to go very indepth on a subject where other people will post soundbites.
But on this matter, you sank to their level when you posted yesterday's article, just because some guy didn't get back to you in 1 day and posted up an insinuation that W3C had sold out to MS?
Gutter journalism Wolfgang, we had come to expect so much more from you. Here's hoping it returns to it's previous quality soon.
Really this whole "issue" is blown out of proportion. It was clear that all the products were in Beta so the tests should always have been taken with a grain of sand. It is still useful because there are lots of people who use the beta builds of each browser.
Yes they had a newer build of IE that was not publicly released yet. But guess what? Certain companies that review computer hardware get stuff to review before it comes out too. And yes I am aware that the tests are anywhere near completion. This still should be be a big deal. No where did they say those were the "final" version of those browsers to begin with.
I have to say, this is one of the only compelling "news" articles posted recently to this site. I have about had it with the advertisement "news" that gets posted by most of the other "reporters" on Tom's.
So you screwed the pooch yesterday by posting a premature "expose" on an issue that was a pretty cut a dried case of a reporter not understanding how the process works and crying foul before any of substance was actually _investigated_ at all and you follow it up with a poorly edited article correcting your mistakes but offering no appology or retraction?
Well, I'm done with the gutter reporting here. I guess I'll stick to Ars for the real story. Taking this site off my rss feed.