Talk:Internet Explorer: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 15:21, 3 August 2011

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Internet Explorer article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5

Internet Explorer was one of the Engineering and technology good articles, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
May 11, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
May 28, 2005	Peer review	Reviewed
June 2, 2005	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
January 26, 2006	Good article nominee	Listed
October 23, 2007	Featured article candidate	Not promoted
October 24, 2008	Good article reassessment	Delisted
Current status: Delisted good article

This article has not yet been rated on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing: Software Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as High-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microsoft

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles relating to Microsoft on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.MicrosoftWikipedia:WikiProject MicrosoftTemplate:WikiProject MicrosoftMicrosoft
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Microsoft Windows: Computing High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Microsoft Windows, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Microsoft Windows on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Microsoft WindowsWikipedia:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsTemplate:WikiProject Microsoft WindowsMicrosoft Windows
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Computing (assessed as Mid-importance).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Internet High‑importance

	Internet portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Internet on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.InternetWikipedia:WikiProject InternetTemplate:WikiProject InternetInternet
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:V0.5

Discussion on this article has been archived. If you wish to comment on an ongoing discussion, you may quote it here or simply refer to it. Post new comments below the list of archives please.

IE Content Advisor

Should there be a section about the Content Advisor? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Goheels619 (talk • contribs) 19:42, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Address bar search

Can someone write about the little known address bar search prefixes feature of IE? (Not to be confused with simply address bar search which nearly every browser offers) - xpclient ^Talk 11:06, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Screenshot of Internet Explorer

Hello, everyone

Is it just my eyes or every time I visit this article someone has toggled the screenshot of Internet Explorer between one of IE8's or IE9's? (Note for future readers: At this time, IE9 was still in "Public Preview"/Beta-test stage.)

Constant reversion of a part of article without trying to seek consensus is called edit warring and is not acceptable in Wikipedia. Hence, before toggling the screenshot again, please seek consensus here, in talk page.

Fleet Command (talk) 17:00, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to make the following points:

You haven't given any reason for why the screenshot/logo should be kept, one way or the other.
Edits like this are rude and unproductive, considering that there are no other editors involved and I'm agreeing with you.

--Gyrobo (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I argued neither in favor of keeping nor in favor changing. I'm in favor of talking. You see, there has been a lot of toggling recently.

Oh, and as for the rudeness, I personally think that "DO NOT change" is far less polite than "please visit the article's Talk page... Thanks in advance."

Fleet Command (talk) 16:50, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All right everyone, first opinion is in from Gyrobo. Judging from what I read, (please feel free to correct me, dear Gyrobo,) I think Gyrobo in favor keeping the latest version of an RTM/GA copy of Internet Explorer. Is anyone willing to support or oppose? Fleet Command (talk) 16:59, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I support that. - Josh (talk | contribs) 17:08, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RTM/GA support mabdul 16:17, 28 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Web browser flaw secretly bares all

This http://www.thenewstribune.com/2010/12/05/1452951/visited-porn-web-browser-flaw.html contains information that should be included in this wiki article. Question is where should it be inserted - thanks for any suggestions or actions. Ottawahitech (talk) 20:56, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

that has nothing to do with internet explorer exclusive. if you want to add this, then add this in the a) web browser or b) in javascript or in one article that i can't remember at the moment. This "security flaw" is nothing new. I could show more secondary sources that are really older with links to the initial primary sources. mabdul 21:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The IE 9 section needs updating.

The Internet Explorer 9 section is written in this weird speculative/previewing way. It starts with its standards support rather than its release date and development for instance. I think the section needs to be cleaned and updated. Perhaps an entire rewrite would help. I'll go ahead and whip up a draft. Captain Stack (talk) 08:05, 20 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft posted below. Please read/edit and tell me what you think. I'll post when I add the refs and feel it is up to snuff. I think it flows a lot better than the current section.Captain Stack (talk) 10:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You should also add a section for Internet Explorer 10. The Platform Preview is available for download now. Silvie_rob 198.136.130.179 (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I though I'm not going to hear about anything called IE10 for the next five years. Looks like Microsoft is really in a hurry. Actually, I somehow feel IE9 passed its Beta and RC stage fast. Fleet Command (talk) 18:03, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of potential interest is WP:Articles for deletion/Internet Explorer 10, where the IE10 article is going to be deleted, mainly due to MOS, notability, and CRYSTALBALL violations.Jasper Deng (talk) 18:09, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Draft of improved "Internet Explorer 9" section

[[:File:Windows Internet Explorer 9.png|thumb|right|200px|Internet Explorer 9 running on Windows 7]]

Internet Explorer 9 was released on 14 March 2011^[1]. Development for Internet Explorer 9 began shortly after the release of Internet Explorer 8 (19 March 2009). Microsoft began taking feedback and suggestions through Microsoft Connect ^[2]. Microsoft first announced Internet Explorer 9 at PDC 2009 and spoke mainly about how it takes advantage of hardware acceleration in DirectX to improve the performance of web applications and improve the quality of web typography. At MIX 10, Microsoft showed and publically released the first Platform Preview for Internet Explorer 9, a frame for IE9’s engine not containing any UI of the browser. Leading up to the release of the final browser, Microsoft released updated platform previews approximately every 6 weeks which each featured improved JavaScript compiling (32-bit version), improved scores on the Acid3 test, as well as additional HTML5 standards support. Ultimately, 8 platform previews were released. The first public beta was released at a special event in San Francisco, which was themed around “the beauty of the web”. The release candidate was released on 10 February 2011 and featured improved performance, refinements to the UI, and further standards support. The final version was released during the South by Southwest (SXSW) music and film festival in Austin, Texas on 14 March 2011^[3].

Internet Explorer 9 only runs on Windows Vista and Windows 7 ^[4]. It supports several CSS 3 properties (including border-radius, box-shadow, etc.), embedded ICC v2 or v4 color profiles support via Windows Color System, and the 32-bit version has faster JavaScript performance due to a new JavaScript engine called “Chakra” ^[5]. It also features hardware accelerated graphics rendering using Direct2D, hardware-accelerated text rendering using DirectWrite, hardware-accelerated video rendering using Media Foundation, imaging support provided by Windows Imaging Component, and high fidelity printing powered by the XPS print pipeline^[6]. IE9 also supports the HTML5 video and audio tags and the Web Open Font Format ^[7]. Internet Explorer 9 currently scores 95/100 on the Acid3 test^[8].

History Section.

Does anybody else feel like the History section should merely link the History of Internet Explorer and have all of the short clippings deleted? DanielDPeterson (talk) 21:35, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Intelligence

The study purporting to show that IE users have low IQ is a hoax. Please stop adding it to the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes it is, but that news only came up today and I still do not agree with the reasoning behind the reverts of my edits yesterday. I must admit that they were not so NPOV because I was having a good time with it (I'm still smiling about it :-), but that should have been dealt with by editing, not reverting. WP:UNDUE is not for scientific research supported content, examples given make that very clear (flat earth is not based on scientific research and thus would be WP:UNDUE when included on article about Earth). The reverts were clearly based on WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Now that it has turned out to be a hoax, the discussion should be if that hoax is notable enough to be included in the article. The reporting by the big names in the press like BBC News, CNN etc. indicate that it is. It should be labelled as being a hoax of course and NPOV. Thoughts? --DeVerm (talk) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC).[reply]

- The hoax is not notable, it's purpose is propaganda.

[1] ttp://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/mar11/03-14IE9RTWPR.mspx

[2] ttp://news.softpedia.com/news/Forget-about-IE8-Onward-to-Internet-Explorer-9-in-Windows-7-74575.shtml

[3] ttp://www.microsoft.com/presspass/press/2011/mar11/03-14IE9RTWPR.mspx

[4] ttp://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/internet-explorer/downloads/ie-9/worldwide-languages

[5] ttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/03/16/html5-hardware-accelerated-first-ie9-platform-preview-available-for-developers.aspx

[6] ttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/04/09/benefits-of-gpu-powered-html5.aspx

[7] ttp://blogs.msdn.com/b/ie/archive/2010/04/23/meet-woff-the-standard-web-font-format.aspx

[8] ttp://ie.microsoft.com/testdrive/benchmarks/Acid3/Default.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

Revision as of 13:34, 3 August 2011 edit DeVerm (talk \| contribs) Extended confirmed users 1,440 edits →Intelligence ← Previous edit		Revision as of 15:21, 3 August 2011 edit undo 12.107.188.5 (talk) →Intelligence Next edit →
Line 108:		Line 108:

	:*Yes it is, but that news only came up today and I still do not agree with the reasoning behind the reverts of my edits yesterday. I must admit that they were not so NPOV because I was having a good time with it (I'm still smiling about it :-), but that should have been dealt with by editing, not reverting. [[WP:UNDUE]] is not for scientific research supported content, examples given make that very clear (flat earth is not based on scientific research and thus would be WP:UNDUE when included on article about Earth). The reverts were clearly based on [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Now that it has turned out to be a hoax, the discussion should be if that hoax is notable enough to be included in the article. The reporting by the big names in the press like BBC News, CNN etc. indicate that it is. It should be labelled as being a hoax of course and NPOV. Thoughts? --[[User:DeVerm\|DeVerm]] ([[User talk:DeVerm\|talk]]) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC).		:*Yes it is, but that news only came up today and I still do not agree with the reasoning behind the reverts of my edits yesterday. I must admit that they were not so NPOV because I was having a good time with it (I'm still smiling about it :-), but that should have been dealt with by editing, not reverting. [[WP:UNDUE]] is not for scientific research supported content, examples given make that very clear (flat earth is not based on scientific research and thus would be WP:UNDUE when included on article about Earth). The reverts were clearly based on [[WP:IDONTLIKEIT]]. Now that it has turned out to be a hoax, the discussion should be if that hoax is notable enough to be included in the article. The reporting by the big names in the press like BBC News, CNN etc. indicate that it is. It should be labelled as being a hoax of course and NPOV. Thoughts? --[[User:DeVerm\|DeVerm]] ([[User talk:DeVerm\|talk]]) 13:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC).

			:**The hoax is not notable, it's purpose is propaganda.