IE8 feature preview

[Ace Pace]

Mostly this source

IE8 will offer a wealth of new features starting with Activities. Activities allow you to open links to external web services within the context of a page you are looking at. If you are looking at the webpage for a store or restaurant, you could get driving directions with Live Maps or send the information to another web application.

Webslices is another new feature that allows users to subscribe and bring content on the links bar as they surf the web. IE8 also comes a long way on standards compliance and offers three different rendering modes -- Quirks mode, Strict mode, and IE8 standards mode. Quirks mode supports IE5 and legacy browsers, strict mode supports IE7 and is accessed through an emulate IE7 button.

IE8 is compliant with cascading style sheets (CSS) 2.1 and offers HTML improvements intended to fix cross browser inconsistencies. IE8's get/set/remove attributes are now compatible with other browsers and default attributes for HTML are supported. IE8 also includes integrated developer tools. This will allow web developers to debug HTML, CSS, and JavaScript in a visual development environment included with the web browser.

CNET News reports that IE8 Beta 1 has some significant new security features. One of the features is a cross-site scripting filter. Microsoft says this is one of the first scripting filters on a mainstream browser. This feature is meant to protect a user from a malicious webpage that tries to execute a script on a user's browser without them knowing. When a page requests a cross-site script to be executed, IE8 changes the content on the web page being viewed with a notice that the script wants to run. When IE8 recognizes a malicious script, it keeps the script from executing.

Another significant new feature is called InPrivate. The feature allows users to browse the internet without having IE8 cache the content being viewed. When the function is activated, you can keep the rest of your browsing history intact. IE8 also adds ActiveX components security, which eliminates drive-by downloads. IE8 has Microsoft malware protection built-in -- a feature that Opera and other competitors feature.

One of the best new features of IE7 was the addition of tabbed browsing. IE8 takes tabbed browsing to the next level for Microsoft. IE8 will also users to reopen the last few tabs that were closed. This is a great feature if you have ever accidentally closed a tab while working. Tabs opened from the same page are also color coded to make keeping groups of tabs easier. IE8 also offers the ability for the browser to suggest new websites similar to the websites you have previously viewed. The option is turned off by default.

Quite a few nice features. Activities should be very fun especially if it's extensible to using any internet based service.
This and this explain in more detail just some of the security advances in IE8.

This goes into tab independence, or in practice, one tab crashing doesn't take down the entire browser. Something both Opera and Firefox are guilty of.

Reliability. One of the cooler things for SDN members is here: If the browser crashes, IE8 can recover your form data. That includes your precious 5000 word long post about the mating habits of dolphins.

IE8 Beta 2 is available here.

[Bounty]

From previous articles I thought IE8 would just be 7 with a few of Opera and Firefox's minor features bolted onto it, but this actually looks interesting. Independent tabs and form recovery especially are things I'd like to see adopted by other browsers.

[phongn]

Competition is a good thing, eh? This looks like a four-way race comin' up.

[Edi]

Supposedly interoperable in theory, but not in practice and all that by design to FUD people to make web pages so they won't work right in other browsers.

[phongn]

Supposedly interoperable in theory, but not in practice and all that by design to FUD people to make web pages so they won't work right in other browsers.

First of all, the Register is a worthless tabloid rag. I don't trust anything from it without corroboration.

Compatibility Mode is enabled by default for intranet pages only, not the rest of the Internet. This makes sense, since a great deal of intranets have old, custom web applications that were specifically written for IE6's rendering engine. They would break under IE8's much stricter layout.

Secondly, that broken-document icon has a tooltip that pretty much says "if this site looks weird, try this." It's for all the users who encounter websites that claim to be standards compliant (but aren't) and need to get about their business.

EDIT: Also, Microsoft's IE group explains everything about IE8 for primary-source information.

[Questor]

First of all, the Register is a worthless tabloid rag. I don't trust anything from it without corroboration.

That's an insult to worthless tabloid rags, I only visit the register for the BOFH, and even that has been spotty.

Compatibility Mode is enabled by default for intranet pages only, not the rest of the Internet. This makes sense, since a great deal of intranets have old, custom web applications that were specifically written for IE6's rendering engine. They would break under IE8's much stricter layout.

Which to be fair to the register, is pointed out in the article.

Secondly, that broken-document icon has a tooltip that pretty much says "if this site looks weird, try this." It's for all the users who encounter websites that claim to be standards compliant (but aren't) and need to get about their business.

Exactly. Since a large portion of the internet is made to work with broken Microsoft browsers, not including that would be irresponsible, and counter-productive. It would lead to a Vista-like nightmare where people refuse to upgrade their browsers, making them even more vulnerable to hacks. If you release a product that works, but makes everything else appear broken, no one will use it.

[phongn]

Which to be fair to the register, is pointed out in the article.

The implication of the Reg's article is that it's a direct strike to kill standards compatibility when clearly it's not.

If you release a product that works, but makes everything else appear broken, no one will use it.

Exactly. It's unfortunate that Microsoft had to be dicks about standards compliance for so long and helped created this situation - but what else are they supposed to do? Show a bunch of broken webpages?

I bet the fanatics would like that one to drive people away from IE.

[Dominus Atheos]

Supposedly interoperable in theory, but not in practice and all that by design to FUD people to make web pages so they won't work right in other browsers.

Do you actually bother to read that story, or did you just read the summary off of slashdot or digg? I'm inclined to believe the latter since you only linked to it and didn't post it in full. There's a reason doing that here is against the rules, and why there's a discussion in the Senate right now about banning stories like this. (In N&P anyway) So let's post the full thing and let everyone read it and draw their own conclusions.

By Hakon Lie, CTO, Opera Software

In March, Microsoft announced that their upcoming Internet Explorer 8 would: "use its most standards compliant mode, IE8 Standards, as the default."

Note the last word: default. Microsoft argued that, in light of their newly published interoperability principles, it was the right thing to do. This declaration heralded an about-face and was widely praised by the web standards community; people were stunned and delighted by Microsoft's promise.

This week, the promise was broken. It lasted less than six months. Now that Internet Explorer IE8 beta 2 is released, we know that many, if not most, pages viewed in IE8 will not be shown in standards mode by default. The dirty secret is buried deep down in the «Compatibility view» configuration panel, where the «Display intranet sites in Compatibility View» box is checked by default. Thus, by default, intranet pages are not viewed in standards mode.

How many pages are affected by this change? Here's the back of my envelope: The PC market can be split into two segments — the enterprise market and the home market. The enterprise market accounts for around 60 per cent of all PCs sold, while the home market accounts for the remaining 40 per cent. Within enterprises, intranets are used for all sorts of things and account for, perhaps, 80 per cent of all page views. Thus, intranets account for about half of all page views on PCs!

Furthermore, web standards are discriminated against in IE8 by the icon that appears next to standards-compliant web pages:



The picture shows a broken page. A broken page? Why is broken page icon shown next to standards-compliant pages? The idea, apparently, is to encourage users to escape standards-mode by clicking on the broken page. There's a dastardly logic here: showing a broken page may make users wonder if they are seeing pages correctly. Authors are probably not too thrilled by having a broken page shown next to their pages, and the only way to avoid the icon is to not trigger standards mode. The message is clear: don't use standards!

I have a few suggested remedies. First, I suggest that IE8 not introduce version targeting which only perpetuates the problem of non-compliant pages. Instead, IE8 should respect the established conventions which don't need manual switching between modes. If Microsoft insists on displaying some kind of icon next to standards-compliant web pages, I suggest they use this image instead:



Microsoft has a long-standing tradition of saying the right things about standards, but shipping non-standard products. IE8 could be different. Microsoft have done the hard technical work. They've made a promise they can keep. I call on them to make the right choice.

Thing thing you should notice is something that most people probably didn't: the author. It's written by the head of the Opera browser project at Opera Software. The Register only mentioned this once in the byline, which everyone's eyes usually just automatically skip over. Every real newsource (That is, everyone that calling a tabloid rag wouldn't be an insult to the comparatively excellent journalism of The National Enquirer and The Daily Mail) puts the authors name and relevant information in italics at the end of the page when they host a guest column by somebody who's opinions expressed in the column might be motivated by personal or financial gain.

The first of the two other things the tabloid-rag insulting guest op/ed fails to mention is that companies intranets don't count as part of the World Wide Web, so IE8 does default to web standards mode to all websites, which is exactly what was promised. The second is that even if intranet pages start conforming to web standards, it's not going to start a tsunami of people installing Opera or any other alternative browser on their work computers. Any company that has an IT department consisting of anybody but monkeys (admittedly, there are a lot that don't) will force all users to actually run in user mode, so they won't be able to install any programs. Companies that run Windows will only use Internet Explorer, ones that use Macs will only use Safari, and ones that run Linux will only use the browser that that distro came with, and all intranet pages will be designed to work only with that browser. (it's very rare for a company to use multiple operating systems and allow all of them access to the same network resources. This goes beck to the monkey comment)

[Edi]

Do you actually bother to read that story, or did you just read the summary off of slashdot or digg? I'm inclined to believe the latter since you only linked to it and didn't post it in full. There's a reason doing that here is against the rules, and why there's a discussion in the Senate right now about banning stories like this. (In N&P anyway) So let's post the full thing and let everyone read it and draw their own conclusions.

Yes, I actually read the full article instead of using sites like Slashdot or Digg. So you can take your inclinations to believe whatever the fuck you will and shove them up your ass. Preferably after you've set them on fire.

Thing thing you should notice is something that most people probably didn't: the author. It's written by the head of the Opera browser project at Opera Software.

Yes, I did notice that and I have no doubts they have an axe to grind. I know all about intranets and interoperability as far as user impact is concerned because I need to use some tools at work with IE and some with Firefox and some work on both. And I can't install anything myself. It does look like I didn't pay quite enough attention wrt the intranet/internet distinction when I read the article the first time, so that's my mistake. Phongn did a very good job explaining it to me (thanks, phongn ), so I don't need your sanctimonious lecturing on top of that. So kindly fuck off.

[Dominus Atheos]

Do you actually bother to read that story, or did you just read the summary off of slashdot or digg? I'm inclined to believe the latter since you only linked to it and didn't post it in full. There's a reason doing that here is against the rules, and why there's a discussion in the Senate right now about banning stories like this. (In N&P anyway) So let's post the full thing and let everyone read it and draw their own conclusions.

Yes, I actually read the full article instead of using sites like Slashdot or Digg. So you can take your inclinations to believe whatever the fuck you will and shove them up your ass. Preferably after you've set them on fire.

Thing thing you should notice is something that most people probably didn't: the author. It's written by the head of the Opera browser project at Opera Software.

Yes, I did notice that and I have no doubts they have an axe to grind. I know all about intranets and interoperability as far as user impact is concerned because I need to use some tools at work with IE and some with Firefox and some work on both. And I can't install anything myself. It does look like I didn't pay quite enough attention wrt the intranet/internet distinction when I read the article the first time, so that's my mistake. Phongn did a very good job explaining it to me (thanks, phongn ), so I don't need your sanctimonious lecturing on top of that. So kindly fuck off.

If you post a link to The Register with a summery that's an incorrect summery and without bothering to mention it's written by the head of one of the thread subject's competitors, I'm going to assume you're an idiot. Admitting you knew who the author was and posted anyway doesn't make me think that any less, and if it does it's only because I'm wondering if you are an idiot or a liar.