Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

status.modern.ie

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#41

Post by jfoster »

geetee wrote: post #10

I'm bewildered by the many "under consideration" entries. When all the other major players support something, and you want to be taken seriously, why aren't you throwing more engineers at the problem?

It's a good point. It makes it embarrassingly (for Microsoft) clear who the leaders are when it comes to browsers.

That said, despite Google's leadership in this area, Chrome's support of "new browser features" is often sloppy. They ship some features in quite broken states, and don't get around to fixing them until a lot later. The Chromium issue tracker has over 56,000 open issues. Google are going for quantity over quality when it comes to new features.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#42

Post by amaks »

elisee wrote: post #23
alfet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so whats the difference between the two? its the first time i hear about object RTC.

Microsoft had a competing proposal to WebRTC called CU-RTC-Web which, as far as I understand it, proposed to get rid of the Session Description Protocol (which is text-based and thus difficult to parse/edit) and provide lower-level APIs instead (details here: http://www.tokbox.com/blog/what-the-cu-rtc-web-vs-webrtc-deb... ). I've just started reading up on ObjectRTC but I believe it plans to offer an API to replace S…

"Lowe level API instead" suspiciously sounds like a lock in tactic for a platform specific stuff (read Windows).

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#43

Post by Joeri »

derefr wrote: post #29
JacobRossi wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If feature status were a Facebook relationship status, many might say "it's complicated." ;-) Most of the time, it's not actually a question of engineering resources. Stay tuned as we update more and more stuff to "In Development". (I work for IE)

I'm curious--does this imply internal-politics problems (e.g. getting other departments to expose, and possibly backport, APIs that Chakra needs to consume to do the features), or just weird engineering challenges specific to the Chakra codebase?

In the past when they've spoken about why they delayed implementation it was often due to security issues (e.g. Webgl) or due to the standards proposal not being mature enough and them being worried that supporting it would lock in a bad version of the spec because people would build code on top.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#44

Post by pyalot2 »

Note that this site lists WebGL as "IE11+". That's false. IE11 has a flavor of webgl that's experimental (prefixed or not) that's reported as version WebGL 0.92 (this is basically an invalid specification conformant string, it's either 1.0 or something not done).

Huge gaps and bugs remain in Microsofts WebGL implementation which make it nearly impossible to use except for specific select usecases that Microsoft optimized for.

It took google and mozilla about 4 years to get a good WebGL implementation (and they're still not done). It'll take Microsoft years to come to bring their implementation on par with the rest of the WebGL world.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#45

Post by adrianba »

pyalot2 wrote: post #44

Note that this site lists WebGL as "IE11+". That's false. IE11 has a flavor of webgl that's experimental (prefixed or not) that's reported as version WebGL 0.92 (this is basically an invalid specification conformant string, it's either 1.0 or something not done). Huge gaps and bugs remain in Microsofts WebGL implementation which make it nearly impossible to use except for specific select usecases that Microsoft optim…

We shipped an update to the IE11 WebGL implementation to developers today as part of Windows 8.1 Update. We will roll this out to all IE11 users through Windows Update starting next week. There will be further updates to our WebGL implementation in the summer.

If there are specific use cases that you're interested in support for, please let us know what they are so that we can prioritise the order of our implementation.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#46

Post by iSnow »

JacobRossi wrote: post #15
pepelepoo wrote: post #13

heheh. This website has a hard dependency on chromestatus.com.

Yep, and we're already chatting with the Chrome team on how browsers can collaborate on this type of data. We encourage people to use our data too. It's openly licensed.

This is good for sites like caniuse.com, so kudos.

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#48

Post by fishy929 »

elisee wrote: post #23
alfet wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

so whats the difference between the two? its the first time i hear about object RTC.

Microsoft had a competing proposal to WebRTC called CU-RTC-Web which, as far as I understand it, proposed to get rid of the Session Description Protocol (which is text-based and thus difficult to parse/edit) and provide lower-level APIs instead (details here: http://www.tokbox.com/blog/what-the-cu-rtc-web-vs-webrtc-deb... ). I've just started reading up on ObjectRTC but I believe it plans to offer an API to replace S…

> which is text-based and thus difficult to parse/edit

That's not what I normally conclude when I think "text-based."

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#49

Post by orf »

amaks wrote: post #42
elisee wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Microsoft had a competing proposal to WebRTC called CU-RTC-Web which, as far as I understand it, proposed to get rid of the Session Description Protocol (which is text-based and thus difficult to parse/edit) and provide lower-level APIs instead (details here: http://www.tokbox.com/blog/what-the-cu-rtc-web-vs-webrtc-deb... ). I've just started reading up on ObjectRTC but I believe it plans to offer an API to replace S…

"Lowe level API instead" suspiciously sounds like a lock in tactic for a platform specific stuff (read Windows).

No it doesnt

Re: Status IE – IE's feature status and plans

#50

Post by gk1 »

I wonder if a re-branding is in order. I suspect I'm not the only one who feels an inner discomfort with IE. I even associate the logo and name with thoughts like "outdated," "broken," "difficult," and "cumbersome."

I realize they've come a long way, but it's tough to shake off 10+ years of negative experiences and associations.

Post reply on HN