MozillaZine

IE's New Rendering Engine

Friday September 10th, 1999

IE will be utilizing a new rendering engine in v5 for Mac, according to this article at TechWeb. And here's a Flash demo to show you what it's all about. A bit weak on specifics, though. If their browser was Open Source, maybe they wouldn't have to resort to using a cartoon called ZipIE as their technical contact.

Thanks to Adam Lock for the news.


#1 ho hum..

by Ben_Goodger

Friday September 10th, 1999 6:23 AM

Reply to this message

their example of Glassdog.com was pointless. geocities have been using content that scrolls with pages for ages. Not only does this not seem to do anything different, its also obviously jerky (not scrolling with the page, but jumping down sporadically with the page).

#9 Re: ho hum..

by FrodoB

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:26 AM

Reply to this message

Actually, they hosed the watermark in the switch to Yahoo!Geocities, but the point is still valid. :)

#26 Re: ho hum..

by Ben_Goodger

Friday September 10th, 1999 6:23 PM

Reply to this message

I wouldnt mind those watermarks so much if their servers werent so damned slow. Apparently the yahoo merger doesnt seem to have done anything for that though :(

#2 is MS using Gecko ?)

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 6:28 AM

Reply to this message

who knows ? maybe Tasman (MS' new layout engine) is "inspired" by Gecko ? maybe MS engineers like Open Source ?!

more seriously, Mac Users will almost certainly be happy beta-testers for this new product before it is ported to the PC...

#3 Healthy competition

by leafdigital

Friday September 10th, 1999 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

There is slightly more information in the ZDnet story <http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn…ws/0,4586,2330301,00.html>

They promise "strict compliance" with W3C standards - in particular, full support for CSS1 and partial for CSS2 (same as promised for Mozilla, although "partial" obviously has a rather vague definition).

Basically, it does indicate that (as I've said) MS are at least trying *not* to be left behind on standards compliance. (Although they don't give a timescale for any PC implementation of the same improvements...)

In other words, there *is* going to be competition for the next-generation browser; Mozilla isn't necessarily going to be the clear winner, even on technical/standards grounds, although hopefully it will still be "first".

I wonder how long it would've taken MS to implement full standards support [rather than "look, it fully supports ActiveX and all other MS extensions!"] if it *hadn't* been for the Mozilla project...

--sam

#18 Healthy competition

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 10:17 AM

Reply to this message

you say << Mozilla isn't necessarily going to be the clear winner, even on technical/standards grounds >>

maybe, but that's where Open Source can make the difference. if there's a better feature in the new IE, we can bet someone will be able to take mozilla's sources and add or improve some code. mozilla can be the clear winner *in the long run*.

#19 How much is partial?

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Friday September 10th, 1999 11:35 AM

Reply to this message

I've always wanted to ask and your post finally reminded me:

How much support for CSS2 is meant by Mozilla's "partial support"? A percentage would be nice, but if there's a list somewhere of which CSS2 properties are supported, that would be better.

Whatever "partial" is, I want my positioning!

(btw, first time I'm using a Mozilla build to check messages and reply here, hehe)

#37 How much is partial?

by sj12fn <sj12fn@excite.com>

Saturday September 11th, 1999 7:46 PM

Reply to this message

~80%

#40 WHOOHOO . . .

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday September 11th, 1999 8:54 PM

Reply to this message

. . . that was better than I was hoping. Thanx.

#24 IE's New Rendering Engine

by hodeleri <drbrain@segment7.net>

Friday September 10th, 1999 5:20 PM

Reply to this message

#4 Tasman stolen from gecko

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 7:06 AM

Reply to this message

Hey, Folks, take a look at the debug symbols in "tasman". The code was stolen from gecko !!!

MS sucks code from our Gecko !

MS sucks code from our Gecko !

MS sucks code from our Gecko !

MS sucks code from our Gecko !

MS sucks code from our Gecko !

MS sucks code from our Gecko !

#6 Re: Tasman stolen from gecko

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 7:38 AM

Reply to this message

Really? You have proof of this? Or is this just a troll?

#7 Re: Tasman stolen from gecko

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:02 AM

Reply to this message

I'm very sure... tasman and geckos layout engine share ~35% of symbol names (mac version)... interesting, isn't it ??

#8 Could you post examples?

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:24 AM

Reply to this message

Could you provide a link to some comparisons? Please? If this is true, I'd be really shocked.

#13 Re: Could you post examples?

by bmetzler <bmetzler@pluto.twistedpair.net>

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:58 AM

Reply to this message

I'd sure like to see examples too. On one hand I'd be completely surprised to find that MS stole code from mozilla. The developers would have likely been warned to not even visit a site related to Mozilla, lest they be contaminated. It would be ubsurd to think of MS actually stealing code.

On the other hand, IE 5 for the Mac has been delayed. We first that it now has a similar release date as Mozilla and a rumor that they share debugging symbols. Also, they remarkably have almost the same features. Is it just a coincindence? It would be a desperate Microsoft to think that they could use Mozilla's code without being caught.

-Brent

#14 THIS IS OPEN SOURCE!

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 9:43 AM

Reply to this message

This is friggin open source so if MS wants to take the code, they can take the code. Get over it people, it's a hypocritcal thing you are doing if you are going to whine about MS using Open Source code in their own browser. It would be a definite change of pace for MS, but they are perfectly within their rights to use any open source code in their applications.

-Chris

#16 THIS IS OPEN SOURCE!

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 9:48 AM

Reply to this message

You are missing the point. The point isn't that MS is unlawfully "stealing" code from Mozilla, but that they may actually be using the code! Legal implications aside, I would find it very surprising and somewhat inflammatory if MS is actually using Mozilla source! Sure they /can/, but they have been traditionally a diamatrically opposed enemy to Netscape and Mozilla...that they would actually be using its own source to compete against it would be startling. However, what would they even attempt to gain from this? They'd have to open-source they're browser wouldn't they?

-Aaron

#17 THIS IS OPEN SOURCE!

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 10:15 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, but if MS uses the code internally without publishing, in source form, their mods, THAT's illegal.

#25 actually, it's perfectly legal

by leaf

Friday September 10th, 1999 5:32 PM

Reply to this message

*if* someone were to take the code from mozilla.org and change it, and publish software based on it, there is no requirement that they publish the modifications.

I'm not even sure any credit has to be given (since the MPL is not a BSD style license)

#33 Are you sure?

by Anon

Saturday September 11th, 1999 9:19 AM

Reply to this message

Any changes to the Mozilla/Gecko source code must be published. But not their own code. Or have I completely misread the MPL?

Good, this means that Microsoft will start sending patches to bugs in Gecko (not that there are any). ;)

#56 IE's New Rendering Engine

by mitchell <mitchell@mozilla.org>

Monday September 13th, 1999 2:13 PM

Reply to this message

Yes, anyone using NPL/MPL governed code must publish any files they change or files they create which include any NPL/MPL governed code. Once that's done, those files can be included in proprietary products without the rest of the product being affected by the NPL/MPL. That's what we intended when we wrote the licenses.

#45 actually, it's perfectly legal--NOT

by Anon

Sunday September 12th, 1999 6:41 AM

Reply to this message

Yes, actually, the license does state they must publish modifications to the code. But they only have to publish files containing that code, not their own. In other words, it wouldn't open up all of IE, but they would have to show they were using the Source, and they would have to publish modifications. Go read the NPL yourself and see.

#20 Stop trolling!

by adamsc

Friday September 10th, 1999 12:37 PM

Reply to this message

Microsoft has to follow licenses just like every one else...

#21 Stop trolling!

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 1:43 PM

Reply to this message

What are you talking about? Microsoft is God they can bend the rules whenever they want...or so goes their thinking.

#15 THIS IS OPEN SOURCE!

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 9:43 AM

Reply to this message

This is friggin open source so if MS wants to take the code, they can take the code. Get over it people, it's a hypocritcal thing you are doing if you are going to whine about MS using Open Source code in their own browser. It would be a definite change of pace for MS, but they are perfectly within their rights to use any open source code in their applications.

-Chris

#10 Tasman stolen from gecko

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:40 AM

Reply to this message

Well you'll have put a link up to an mac binary so we can see for outselves...

#12 Tasman stolen from gecko

by leafdigital

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

It wasn't funny by the first exclamation mark, and it wasn't funny after the ninth.

By the way, assuming I didn't misunderstand the NPL, Microsoft could perfectly legally incorporate the Gecko layout engine into their own browser. I don't think they will, of course, but it would be cool if they did. :)

--sam

#65 Tasman stolen from gecko

by Anon

Wednesday September 15th, 1999 7:33 AM

Reply to this message

This is what GPL was made for, to assure us that code once free will remain always free. As Richard M Stallman pointed out, while MPL tries to be copyleft, it has many loopholes which would enable MS to benefit from Mozilla without ever contributing much back

#5 Whatever

by Luddite

Friday September 10th, 1999 7:26 AM

Reply to this message

This is news dating back to when the iBook was announced. This was supposed to be out in Fall but was pushed back to Winter. IIRC, When IE4.5 was released in January they claimed IE5/Mac would be out in the Summer.

Regardless, I'll believe it when I see it. In addition to W3 standards compliance they are supposed to be adding MS DOM so I can actually see Frontpage/MS authored pages correctly without having to wait for people to make W3 compliant pages. Now if they can only carry through with their promises....

They're probably having trouble removing all those Windows OS entanglements from their product! :) And crap like Auction manager is stuff I can do without.

#27 There's just one answer

by badben

Friday September 10th, 1999 7:29 PM

Reply to this message

If you can't view a page correctly with a standards-compliant browser, there's only one right reaction: leave the site.

That's exactly, what they what to achieve: Creating own "standards", bringing people (web developers in this case) to use them and this way force a lot of people to use their products. Did you ever think about, why they created sites like "Site Builder Network"?

Don't get catched. Fight against them. You're not alone.

#42 There's just one answer

by Luddite

Saturday September 11th, 1999 9:50 PM

Reply to this message

Yes. I agree in principle. But in reality I could use some of that information, and now. Waiting for people to update their pages to be standards compliant is relying on something I cannot influence.

You seem to forget that the announcement states the browser will be W3 standards and MS compliant. That is welcome to me. I understand where you are coming from and I agree with you, but why should I wait for others to make their information in a format I can read when IE5 will supposedly give me both?

Remember, just because I want to (and will when possible) author in W3 compliant standards doesn't mean everybody else will or has. If you have used IE on the Mac you probably know just how much they've been left out of DHTML and similar sites. It's not just MS standards that fall short, but CSS as well. Not to mention that ActiveX nonsense (which I don't want) that pervades MS DHTML pages.

One reason MS is good at getting them to use their standards is all th etols they provide. I hope the market offers tools that developers can use just as easily in the future.

Respectfully, Luddite

#46 Not quite

by thelem

Sunday September 12th, 1999 10:37 AM

Reply to this message

Don't just leave their site, complain to the webmaster. Leaving their site will reduce their traffic but will not tell people where they are going wrong.

Lemming

#50 Not quite

by Luddite

Monday September 13th, 1999 6:20 AM

Reply to this message

I've done this several times. When I get the answer it is always "I'm sorry I don't have time to code for multiple browsers and your browser just isn't up to snuff" (paraphrased). Frankly, most times, I don't blame them. Again, I'm not going to change how people make their sites, but I can certainly build *mine* to standards *when a browser that supports them* is available. Whether it is IE or Mozilla, iCab, or Opera, I couldn't care less. The more the better. But none of them is 100% and available yet.

In any event, I will be glad IE5 supports W3 standards. But as I said, making the Mac version compatible with the Windows version is a big bonus to me as a developer and viewer.

#11 IE's New Rendering Engine

by sdm

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:55 AM

Reply to this message

Microsoft's new technology group is really impressive. Look at this "groundbreaking" stuff:

'Outlook Express 5.0 ... has a new feature called "one-key-read," which lets users move from one e-mail message to the next with a single click.'

I know *I'm* going to switch over as soon as this comes out. I need to press 25-30 keys to read each new mail message with mozilla.

#30 IE's New Rendering Engine

by stoecker <stoecker@mindrevolution.de>

Friday September 10th, 1999 10:02 PM

Reply to this message

aehm... well... it's one key with netscape messenger 4.x ... hummm...

and the super function "auto completion" für email-adresses is also in messenger since 4.x

#22 IE's New Rendering Engine

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 3:07 PM

Reply to this message

I did a time-consuming search a while back. One of the search engines actuallay hit the mozilla.whishlist on a microsoft domain. Conclusion, with Mozilla newsgroups archived on a microsoft domain, it is not absolutely certain that microsoft developpers have been warned to stay away from mozilla. They may have or may not have been inspired by Mozilla. Either way is not wrong anyway.

#23 IE's New Rendering Engine

by PaulA <paula@cnet.com>

Friday September 10th, 1999 4:20 PM

Reply to this message

Regardless of its implications for standards progress, this may be good news for Web developers. The rendering and scripting engines on Mac IE4.x are a nightmare, incomplete and incompatible even with other versions of IE. But thousands of iMac owners are using it thanks to Apple's quid pro quo with Microsoft. If they at least bother to do a little QA or actual porting this time around, it could mean less confusion for users and fewer headaches for us.

#28 This can only be GOOD

by danielhill <danielhill@hotmail.com>

Friday September 10th, 1999 8:06 PM

Reply to this message

This is good news for the Internet community. I use Windows not the Mac, but it means that Microsoft are at least partially committed to standards.

This means that finally, this stupid browser standards war can be OVER!!! Everyone has the freedom of choice, and can be assured pages will render correctly in both.

Hopefully Mozilla developers will take up the challenge to better Microsoft :) Competition leads to better products. In most cases.

#29 hm...

by Ben_Goodger

Friday September 10th, 1999 9:00 PM

Reply to this message

did anyone else get the joke in the codename "Tasman"?

maybe I'm reading a bit too deeply between the lines, but Abel Tasman discovered New Zealand, so you might call him a ... navigator

*cough*

#34 hm...

by thelem

Saturday September 11th, 1999 12:51 PM

Reply to this message

You could also call him an explorer...

#43 yes, I guess you could..

by Ben_Goodger

Saturday September 11th, 1999 10:15 PM

Reply to this message

hadnt thought of that ^_^

#31 Is Microsoft allowed to use the Mozilla Code Base?

by Anon

Friday September 10th, 1999 11:34 PM

Reply to this message

People, please read the license or shut up. IANAL (I am not a lawyer), and the following is just an partial summary of the whole license.

Thus said: The license explictly requires that any executable you distribute must have a notice that it is was created using code covered by the NPL.

Any source code where you use or modify code which is under NPL, has to be under NPL, too.

In explanation: Microsoft is free to use any source code from Mozilla.

However, they would *have* to announce that fact in their executable in a prominent place.

If they modified any code under NPL, they would *have* to publish it and tell in a prominent place with the executable where you can get it.

So *if* they used code from Mozilla and *if* they did not state so, they have made unlicensed (=illegal) use of that code.

PS: I don't mind Microsoft using Mozilla's code as long as they don't change it or contribute their changes. This would give us two standard conformant browsers.

#32 Good thing, bad thing

by Anon

Saturday September 11th, 1999 6:18 AM

Reply to this message

One of the good things about Netscape and even more so about Mozilla is that most of their rendering code is cross platform so you can be fairly sure that if it works in Netscape 4.x for Linux it'll display the same in Windows.

Now Microsoft are going to have two versions of IE5.0 one for Windows and one for the Mac (what rendering engine does the solaris version use?), so pages will display differently depending on what platform you use. They should keep their browser versions inline.

Or do Microsoft not know how to write cross platform code.

Even the menu layout between platforms is totally different.

...and this auction manager they're planning is one of their ideas to promote ebay and damage the popularity of other auction sites.

#54 IE's New Rendering Engine

by PaulA <paula@cnet.com>

Monday September 13th, 1999 12:07 PM

Reply to this message

Having incompatible versions of IE across platforms is nothing new. Every release of Mac IE since 3.0 has been mostly unrelated, codewise, to the Windows version. Even the win16 versions have little in common with their win32 counterparts.

I don't actually know why, but it's a fair guess that Microsoft's win32 programmers don't write portable code. They have access to the complete win32 API, after all, and coded toward OS integration.

But frankly the differences between platforms are still so great as to suggest the products were developed in isolation.

#35 Glassdog.com

by Anon

Saturday September 11th, 1999 6:02 PM

Reply to this message

Someone should help the person/people to get the Mozilla browser detection working on glassdog.com. I went using Mozilla and it keeps looking for document.layers[]

#38 Glassdog.com

by ihxo

Saturday September 11th, 1999 8:24 PM

Reply to this message

but Glassdog.com works on netvigator 4.61

#44 Glassdog.com

by Anon

Saturday September 11th, 1999 10:31 PM

Reply to this message

Just because it works in Nav 4.61 doesn't mean it works in Mozilla 5. Mozilla follows the standards and doesn't use document.layers, so their site doesn't work in Mozilla 5.

#36 I'll Believe it when I see it!

by Anon

Saturday September 11th, 1999 6:56 PM

Reply to this message

Microsoft has contiuoisly failed to produce a browser for the Mac OS. The current verions of Navigator, aside from it's stability issues, works and displays content pretty close to exactly the same on all platforms. I written JavaScripts that would perform exactly the same on all platforms. IE on the other hand, is a whole ne story. You cannot script Plugins on the Mac or Java Applets. There is no ActiveX support on the Mac and if there was, you couldn't script the controls either. And lastly, a good third of all of teh DHTML features on Windows are not present on the Mac. For fucks sake man, Mac IE cannot do Clipping or FullScreen! I'd be willing to be that XML support will be there but there won't be XSL support. That way, MS can say that you need to upgrade (downgrade) your OS too. So, who wants to be that MS will short change Mac Users a second time? I'm holding out for Mozilla.

#39 I'll Believe it when I see it!

by gerbilpower <gerbil@ucdavis.edu>

Saturday September 11th, 1999 8:49 PM

Reply to this message

Short change is right. I did a freelance gig for a web-multimedia company and damn I was almost pulling my hairs out over the incredible inconsistency of IE between Macs and PCs. The only thing consistent with it was that it kept crashing over the course of the day. Microsoft was painfully inconsistent with IE 4.x, and looks like they are doing the same with IE 5.

The standards compliance of Tasman is good news for web developers but why can't MS make two versions of the same product perform exactly the same? With everything aside, the consistency and wide array of platforms Mozilla supports will keep it superior product over IE. Go Mozilla!

#47 I'll Believe it when I see it!

by k3davis

Sunday September 12th, 1999 10:59 AM

Reply to this message

I am in agreement with your position on the IE versions displaying quite differently across platforms. However I don't agree that IE 4.5 is completely a miserable product.

It is a plus that things display in a very similar way on Netscape, PC/Mac. But Netscape 4.x for Mac is certainly nothing to brag about. In fact it has every appearance of simply being a crappy PC port. IMHO.

I am looking toward Mozilla for all my machines (PC at home, Mac and Linux at work), but I can't say as I cry at night that I don't have ActiveX or other obnoxious stuff on my Mac IE. Netscape Nav/Comm (4.x) for Mac is not any kind of improvement. It is junk even if it does render similarly to the PC version.

#41 Mac IE

by Anon

Saturday September 11th, 1999 9:36 PM

Reply to this message

When they say its more stable does that mean stable like WIN 98...If so....no thanks

#48 Palm Pilot Integration

by Anon

Sunday September 12th, 1999 2:32 PM

Reply to this message

Actually, the only thing that got me was the Palm Pilot integration for OE.

I've heard "standards compliance" claims for quite a while now, and I'll believe it when I see the finished product. (And yes, that goes for Netscape\AOL as well as Microsoft.)

#49 PNG lost at Sea on IE

by Anon

Sunday September 12th, 1999 2:36 PM

Reply to this message

Ya know, this means MSIE Mac users won't be seeing PNG graphics, since MSIE 4.5 doesn't support PNG. That really sucks.

Of course, Netscape does support PNG.

#51 Palm Pilot Integration

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 7:19 AM

Reply to this message

Yeah, I think if the Mail/News people haven't thought about Palm Pilot integration, they should. It may be late in the game to add features, but this is one that really should be in the final package.

-Chris

#52 At least they have a release date

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 8:59 AM

Reply to this message

See title. Mozilla is still horizonware, and I still have yet to see a useful release. Maybe if they had done things more correctly they would have focused on the rendering engine first and worried about all the extras like XUL and XCOM later. Because at least if the rendering engine was put out in a usable way, other browsers for alternate platforms could use it with their own interface. I have yet to see this. So, at least IE for the Mac shows promise. And it feels like a Mac app too.

#53 At least they have a release date

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 9:47 AM

Reply to this message

are you kidding when you write "extras like XUL and XPCOM" ?

I don't see those as being "extras". They look rather like building blocks for the future.

and be patient ! don't you prefer to wait a few months to have an innovative software than have another classical one right now ?

regards.

#55 Agree

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 1:53 PM

Reply to this message

Yeah, XPCOM and XUL are core components to the rendering engine. It's not like they could hold off on those. And if they did, they would have had to rewrite the entire engine to make it XPCOMified thus making the project cycle even longer. Look, the work's been done, they've made their bed, and they will sleep in it, yadda yadda yadda.

-Chris

#57 The rendering engine is out, and being used

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 5:50 PM

Reply to this message

Do you pay attention? The rendering engine for Mozilla IS out and available. That's why it IS in other browsers and HTML authoring tools. If you go to the main mozilla.org page, you can see links to other products (like NeoPlanet) which use Mozilla's rendering engine.

#66 At least they have a release date

by basic <_basic@yahoo.com>

Thursday September 16th, 1999 11:46 AM

Reply to this message

You are refering to NS Communicator right? Moz plans to be release by Dec,99. Right now mostly is bug-fixing. Most of the "new features" you see being announced will not be in this first release. NS (or AOL?) Communicator on the other hand...

#58 Oooh, the irony...

by Anon

Monday September 13th, 1999 7:22 PM

Reply to this message

Try visiting <http://www.glassdog.com>, it already performs the demonstrated feature.

Or can the current IE for the Mac not do that?

#59 not enough

by arielb

Monday September 13th, 1999 11:25 PM

Reply to this message

Well IE5 for Windows doesn't support w3c standards and that's what counts for me. It would be interesting to see sites that say "best viewed under Mozilla for windows or mac and IE5 for mac but go away if you have IE5 for windows"

#60 Actually

by Luddite

Tuesday September 14th, 1999 6:16 AM

Reply to this message

All it should say is "conforms 100% to W3 standards"

#61 test

by Anon

Wednesday September 15th, 1999 2:34 AM

Reply to this message

test

#62 test again

by Anon

Wednesday September 15th, 1999 2:36 AM

Reply to this message

test again

#63 Actually

by Anon

Wednesday September 15th, 1999 2:37 AM

Reply to this message

test

#64 test5

by Anon

Wednesday September 15th, 1999 2:40 AM

Reply to this message

test5