Anonymous asked:

Despite personal opinion, a good web site will be tested and display properly on any browser with IE's market share. (BTW, I'm sure you were aware of this and just waiting for someone to point it out so you could pounce. Your welcome).

I’m perfectly happy to have a “not good” web site if it means not having to do all the tedious bullshit you have to do to get your site to render correctly in that abomination of a browser.

Sorry to sound bitter, that used to be my job. IE was the bane of my existence. 

Also, this is my website. YOU’RE welcome to visit. On my terms.

Max Slater-Robins for Neowin:

To further ensure IE11 users don’t receive an odd version of the site, Microsoft also included the command “Like Gecko” which instructs the website to send back the same version of the website as they would to Firefox. The results of this update are unknown, especially on websites which are poorly coded. The move is strange, but shows that Microsoft is desperate to clean up Internet Explorer and get away from the awful experience in IE6, 7 and 8. 

So, let me get this straight: Microsoft is being forced to trick the web into thinking its own browser is actually that of its chief rival so that pages will render properly?

Such an amazing legacy IE has built.

The writing has been on the wall for this for some time. Chrome is great and IE hasn’t done anything interesting in years — the recipe for disruption. I suspect Google themselves will announce this milestone soon.

Next up: the battle for mobile browsing dominance. Safari clearly has the lead here right now, but Google is pushing hard with Chrome for Android. Next up: Chrome for iOS?

Google: Microsoft Is Full Of Shit

Earlier today, I posted a link to a Microsoft blog post calling out Google for bypassing IE security measures. Google saw the post and sent me the following on-the-record statement (below).

It’s a bit verbose, so I’ll summarize: “Microsoft is full of shit.”

Statement: Attributable to Rachel Whetstone, Senior Vice President of Communications and Policy, Google

Microsoft omitted important information from its blog post today.  

Microsoft uses a “self-declaration” protocol (known as “P3P”) dating from 2002 under which Microsoft asks websites to represent their privacy practices in machine-readable form.  It is well known - including by Microsoft - that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing modern web functionality.  We have been open about our approach, as have many other websites.  

Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational. A 2010 research report indicated that over 11,000 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.

Here is some more information.

Issue has been around since 2002

For many years, Microsoft’s browser has requested every website to “self-declare” its cookies and privacy policies in machine readable form, using particular “P3P” three-letter policies.  

Essentially, Microsoft’s Internet Explorer browser requests of websites, “Tell us what sort of functionality your cookies provide, and we’ll decide whether to allow them.”  This didn’t have a huge impact in 2002 when P3P was introduced (in fact the Wall Street Journal today states that our DoubleClick ad cookies comply with Microsoft’s request), but newer cookie-based features are broken by the Microsoft implementation in IE.  These include things like Facebook “Like” buttons, the ability to sign-in to websites using your Google account, and hundreds more modern web services.  It is well known that it is impractical to comply with Microsoft’s request while providing this web functionality.  

Today the Microsoft policy is widely non-operational.  

In 2010 it was reported:

Browsers like Chrome, Firefox and Safari have simpler security settings. Instead of checking a site’s compact policy, these browsers simply let people choose to block all cookies, block only third-party cookies or allow all cookies…..

Thousands of sites don’t use valid P3P policies….

A firm that helps companies implement privacy standards, TRUSTe, confirmed in 2010 that most of the websites it certifies were not using valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft:

Despite having been around for over a decade, P3P adoption has not taken off. It’s worth noting again that less than 12 percent of the more than 3,000 websites TRUSTe certifies have a P3P compact policy. The reality is that consumers don’t, by and large, use the P3P framework to make decisions about personal information disclosure.

A 2010 research paper by Carnegie Mellon found that 11,176 of 33,139 websites were not issuing valid P3P policies as requested by Microsoft.

In the research paper, among the websites that were most frequently providing different code to that requested by Microsoft: Microsoft’s own live.com and msn.com websites.

Microsoft support website

The 2010 research paper “discovered that Microsoft’s support website recommends the use of invalid CPs (codes) as a work-around for a problem in IE.”  This recommendation was a major reason that many of the 11,176 websites provided different code to the one requested by Microsoft.

Google’s provided a link that explained our practice.

Microsoft could change this today

As others are noting today, this has been well known for years.

  • Privacy researcher Lauren Weinstein states: “In any case, Microsoft’s posting today, given what was already long known about IE and P3P deficiences in these regards, seems disingenuous at best, and certainly is not helping to move the ball usefully forward regarding these complex issues.”
  • Chris Soghoian, a privacy researcher, points out: “Instead of fixing P3P loophole in IE that FB & Amazon exploited ……MS did nothing. Now they complain after Google uses it.”
  • Even the Wall Street Journal says: “It involves a problem that has been known about for some time by Microsoft and privacy researchers….”

If you actually took the time to read half of that statement, you’d realize just how ridiculous this war of words is getting. And it’s going to get worse.

I’m not saying either side is right or wrong here. All I’m saying is that if Google has a problem with what Microsoft is saying, they should come out and say so in plain English. Instead, this is like ubernerd passive-agressiveness. 

"Microsoft omitted important information" — that’s such a cop-out. Just say: "Microsoft is trying to deceive the public." Or: "they’re total dicks". You know, things a human being can understand. 

My summary is crude, but in many ways much more accurate and insightful.