Internet Explorer is NOT a webbrowser

[MrX]

hey a while back there was an article about why IE is not a webbrowser. not standards compliant, other stuff etc. please supply reasons and evidence.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Web_browser
does this need to be changed or edited?

Mr X

[muzzy]

If you want to redefine the word, then go ahead. However, "web browser" means quite a different thing to different people. Are you claiming that old netscapes are not web browsers either, because they don't comply to standards either? Or how about mosaic 1.0, which only supports pre-1.0 versions of HTTP, and thus most of websites don't even load? Is it not a web browser?

[Aloone_Jonez]

Microsoft Internet Explprer is a web browser and if nothing else it's featureless and plain and boring too.

ps
Would some moderator please move this to applications.

[Annorax]

Microsoft Internet Explprer is a web browser and if nothing else it's featureless and plain and boring too.

ps
Would some moderator please move this to applications.

It's a browser only if you stretch that term to its limits.

If you want to redefine the word, then go ahead. However, "web browser" means quite a different thing to different people. Are you claiming that old netscapes are not web browsers either, because they don't comply to standards either? Or how about mosaic 1.0, which only supports pre-1.0 versions of HTTP, and thus most of websites don't even load? Is it not a web browser?

Old Netscapes complied with the standards of their time. Internet Explorer complies with the standards from its "creator's" ass. Which is closer to being a "web browser" in your eyes?  :confused:  :confused:

[Calum]

i agree with that last statement, but i agree also with muzzy (put this date in your diary!) - i think the argument is more about whether it is a good web browser, a secure web browser, a reliable web browser, or an efficient web browser (et cetera)

[Orethrius]

Both valid points: indeed, Internet Explorer attempts to embrace, extend, and extinguish new standards, but what makes a good "web browser" really depends on the context of usage.  

Calum, +1 for reading my thoughts and speaking them.  

[muzzy]

So, it's more like redefining the "Web" rather than redefining "Web browser" now? With the standards and so on, are you saying that old web pages are not part of the web if they don't comply to the standards? Or perhaps, back in the old days when blink tag wasn't in the specification, the pages using it weren't actually web pages?

Saying IE is not a web browser is just ridiculous, it's like saying that notepad is not a text editor. Yeah, notepad isn't, it's just a wrapper over EDIT control that can save and load files! It's not standards compliant either, try to save as UTF-8 and you'll get a BOM-marker in the beginning, which is really really fishy! That wasn't in any standards back when it was implemented, so notepad isn't really a text editor! Getting my point?

[Orethrius]

So, it's more like redefining the "Web" rather than redefining "Web browser" now? With the standards and so on, are you saying that old web pages are not part of the web if they don't comply to the standards? Or perhaps, back in the old days when blink tag wasn't in the specification, the pages using it weren't actually web pages?

Saying IE is not a web browser is just ridiculous, it's like saying that notepad is not a text editor. Yeah, notepad isn't, it's just a wrapper over EDIT control that can save and load files! It's not standards compliant either, try to save as UTF-8 and you'll get a BOM-marker in the beginning, which is really really fishy! That wasn't in any standards back when it was implemented, so notepad isn't really a text editor! Getting my point?

Wow, you assumed a LOT from so very little.  That's probably what I like best about you.  Yes, technically, web pages that are non-standards compliant ARE NOT part of the web - at least not the parts that are non-compliant.  They cannot be shown equivalently in all browsers, and thus are only part of a limited browser market.  That being said, the purist in me still thinks tags were a bad idea.    Additionally, don't go ragging on , it got adopted after all.  Terrible idea, but it DID get adopted.

Saying IE is not a web browser is just ridiculous, it's like saying that notepad is not a text editor.

I agree wholeheartedly.  Now find the part where any of us actually SAID that.  See you in a decade.

Yeah, notepad isn't, it's just a wrapper over EDIT control that can save and load files! It's not standards compliant either, try to save as UTF-8 and you'll get a BOM-marker in the beginning, which is really really fishy! That wasn't in any standards back when it was implemented, so notepad isn't really a text editor! Getting my point?

If your point is that Notepad is IN NO WAY related to any functionality of Internet Explorer - unless you count the versatility to be capable of authoring raw pagecode, which ANY decent text-ed can do - then yes, you've made that abundantly clear, albeit in a roundabout manner.  By the way, I thought you were supposed to be the defender of Microsoft?  Where did you come up with the idea to attack what is - quite possibly - their best-coded application?

[muzzy]

MrX and Annorax seem to believe IE is not a web browser, that was the initial topic of the discussion anyway and that's what I was discussing. I gave the example of blink tag to counter the notion that netscape complied to standards of its time (as claimed by Annorax), and the notepad example to show how ridiculous it is to use strict standards compliance as a measure to determine if an application is something or not. There are cases where you can take such a stance, but the web has always been a loose platform, with browsers implementing their own features to "extend" things.

You also missed my point with notepad. My analogy was with standards compliance, i.e. how notepad cannot be considered a text editor since the utf-8 saving didn't quite comply with standards when notepad was developed. Go save an utf-8 file with notepad and open it in hex editor, you should see U+FEFF in the beginning (encoded in hex as EF BB BF in utf-8) which really shouldn't be there. Microsoft is using that to mark files as UTF-8, and this has caused a lot of issues with other applications that don't expect them. That character is considered a zero-width non-breaking space, and typically called a "byte order marker".

So, since they implement this hack, a lot of software has been rewritten and standards redefined to explicitly support this, see XML and expat crashes for an example. However, do you think that this issue means notepad is not a text editor at all? I don't know anyone who would make such a claim. Similarly, I didn't think anyone would consider IE to not be a web browser just because it implements some things in funny, sometimes non-standard ways.

[Aloone_Jonez]

That a side muzzy, if Microsoft Internet Exploer is such a secure browser then why did united States Computer Emergency Readiness Team (US-CERT), recommend to switch to an alternative browser?

Use a different web browser

There are a number of significant vulnerabilities in technologies relating to the IE domain/zone security model, local file system (Local Machine Zone) trust, the Dynamic HTML (DHTML) document object model (in particular, proprietary DHTML features), the HTML Help system, MIME type determination, the graphical user interface (GUI), and ActiveX. These technologies are implemented in operating system libraries that are used by IE and many other programs to provide web browser functionality. IE is integrated into Windows to such an extent that vulnerabilities in IE frequently provide an attacker significant access to the operating system.

It is possible to reduce exposure to these vulnerabilities by using a different web browser, especially when viewing untrusted HTML documents (e.g., web sites, HTML email messages). Such a decision may, however, reduce the functionality of sites that require IE-specific features such as proprietary DHTML, VBScript, and ActiveX. Note that using a different web browser will not remove IE from a Windows system, and other programs may invoke IE, the WebBrowser ActiveX control (WebOC), or the HTML rendering engine (MSHTML).

By the way this isn't that old - only 13th October 2004, and I think they know a lot more about computer security than you do. :p

[muzzy]

Heh, about that IE thing above. There's a reason I have even my local zone in IE configured to be extremely restrictive, and all active scripting and activex turned off. That's simply because there's always vulnerabilities found there, and I don't need those features. I wish more people did the same, so webdesigners would damn fix their sites to work without javascript.

I'm quite aware of security issues with current version of IE. As orethrius said, img tags were a bad idea. Since then, HTML and web browsers have only been going downhill. Unfortunately, they're still damn practical. The situation could be fixed if W3 got their act together and worked with vendors to write clear specifications for the core technologies involved. Microsoft has publicly declared they won't support CSS because it's not defined well enough, and I just have to agree. There's no way you could tell from the specifications how some of the more complex layouts should work.

[MrX]

all i was aking was for somebody smart to give a list of reasons why IE is not a webbrowser. sheesh. now all the 'haters' have turned this into a flame war.

Mr X

[Calum]

you'll get no reasons from anybody who has posted so far for why IE is not a web browser. if you took the time to read the replies, you would see that nobody in this thread except you (possibly) believes this to be the case!

[Aloone_Jonez]

Heh, about that IE thing above. There's a reason I have even my local zone in IE configured to be extremely restrictive, and all active scripting and activex turned off. That's simply because there's always vulnerabilities found there,

Yes almost any browser will magically become secure when you disable scripting even Internet Explorer! That's why you don't need anti-virus software and most people do. I would rather get the most out of the web by using a more secure browser like the US-CERT suggested.

and I don't need those features. I wish more people did the same, so webdesigners would damn fix their sites to work without javascript.

You're in the minority, now I hope you can understand how annoying it is trying to veiw some IE only websites on a decent browser, ie. not IE. Javascript is very cool and is very secure compared to ActiveX controls as it runs in  a vierual machine. I hope ActiveX controls are disappearing from the web fast, I haven't encountered them recently.

I'm quite aware of security issues with current version of IE.

Yes so am, I that's why I use FireFox.

As orethrius said, img tags were a bad idea. Since then, HTML and web browsers have only been going downhill. Unfortunately, they're still damn practical. The situation could be fixed if W3 got their act together and worked with vendors to write clear specifications for the core technologies involved. Microsoft has publicly declared they won't support CSS because it's not defined well enough, and I just have to agree. There's no way you could tell from the specifications how some of the more complex layouts should work.

I find it just as sad how some standards haven't taken off like compressed html and svgs for example. The web would be faster and look a lot nicer too if they had.

all i was aking was for somebody smart to give a list of reasons why IE is not a webbrowser.

That's because IE is a web browser.

sheesh. now all the 'haters' have turned this into a flame war.

I haven't seen any flaming in this thread so far!

Why?

Since you've mentioned flaming do you want me to start?

Ok then:
Anyone who thinks Microsoft Internet Explorer is not a web browser is fucking retarded - just like this stupid thread.

[muzzy]

Firefox isn't any more secure than IE, you'll learn it soon enough now that it's becoming popular and more worthwhile to attack. It's equally vulnerable, just less profitable target. The latter is changing, the former is staying.

SVG support in IE would be really nice, though. I'd love that.

Oh, and activeX could in theory be secure, too, but that's only theory. Wanna bet microsoft will reimplement the whole activex deal with .NET, and it'll actually be secure this time?