IE7 provides XMLHttpRequest object for compatibility_javascript tips

In the development of IE7, it is said that a new Native object-XMLHttpRequest has been added. Why don't the "new police" who developed IE7 know that IE6 all use the ActiveX object XmlHttp? What's wrong with XmlHttp and why does IE7 do this? It turns out that everything is just for a simple compatibility, but it makes people feel a lot.

After IE7 provides the XMLHttpRequest object, it will of course continue to support the ActiveX object XmlHttp. This is Microsoft's minimum "qualification" for product upgrades in the past few decades. We don't need to worry about the Ajax application code on IE now. In Sunava Dutta's blog, although he said the original intention of why he did this, it is actually just to be compatible with the current non-IE browsers that provide XMLHttpRequest to use XmlHttp. Although a piece of his "crappy" sample code was picked out by some hot-eyed comrades, I feel that Microsoft has shown its real strengths in these "minutive" issues.

This goes back to the days when IE and Netscape were competing for hegemony. At that time, Netscape was the absolute No. 1 in the browser market. Because of Comrade Bill, Microsoft took a nap on the Internet strategy at first, so that Netscape had a taste of the feeling that there are no tigers in the mountains and monkeys dominate. When Bill made the self-examination conclusion: I found that it is very dangerous not to have Microsoft's file format on the Internet, Microsoft began to march into the Internet. Of course, a thorny issue was strangling Netscape. Netscape vs. IE at that time was like IE vs. Firefox today. The former IE has Windows as its bundled Green Express, and the latter has today's calls for support from everyone holding high the banner of security and the W3C. It can be said that both are powerful opponents but no one is a benefactor.

In this strangulation battle, Microsoft is relatively stable. Because IE 1.0, 2.0 and even 3.0 (it seems that NT4.0 comes with IE3.0) are no match for Netscape. Just like the competition between VC and BCC, Microsoft is depressed. But Microsoft knew that it was no match for Netscape at the time, so it made a lot of designs that were compatible with Netscape in the implementation of IE, because Netscape at that time was not a softie. It single-handedly created JavaScript, which is actually the default standard in the industry. This situation continued until IE4.0. IE gradually took advantage (of course, the free Green Express bundle was not a vegetarian) and the decline of Netscape was inevitable. At this time, Microsoft began to radically design its own DOM, modify HTML parsing and Rendering effects, adding new HTML tags (this was previously Netscape's job), and of course support for CSS are all up to Microsoft's whim.

Today’s IE7 supports the XMLHttpRequest object, forming a clear contrast with Firefox’s rigid adherence to the so-called W3C standard. A few days ago, someone called on web developers to boycott Firefox on a classic scripting forum. Although his words were extreme and seemed like he was trying to block something, I still agreed with some of his views. I just hope that non-mainstream (in fact, non-IE) browsers such as Firefox can be more compatible with IE, instead of asking web developers to try their best to be compatible with various browsers with nuances. Because from a cost point of view, since IE is already the indisputable winner, modifying the implementation of the new browser will benefit everywhere from one modification, and allowing web developers to be compatible with various browsers is simply a waste of the intelligence and labor of the working people. insult.

Of course, many people may say that standards are the boss. No matter what browser, they should follow the standards, otherwise it will be bull shit. But the reality is that "big shops suppress people, and big people suppress shops." Everything else is meaningless. Just like today, most of our network application technologies have no standards but only RFCs. Isn’t everyone enjoying themselves and living a good life? Without going too far, lest it becomes a crusade against standards, let’s continue talking about browser issues. As for Firefox, the little brother browser that has been "later" for so long, no matter how perfectly it wants to support standards, I wholeheartedly support it. But at the cost of a little effort, why not be well compatible with the following IE, which is currently the most popular? For example, you have to use different DOM attribute names, and you have to draw a clear line with IE. I'm sorry but I don't support your IE-exclusive runtimeStyle, currentStyle, etc. Events also have to be different from yours, no matter how awkward they are. The final effect is that most of the normal pages in IE are saved and deleted when running in Firefox for the first time. Is everyone satisfied now?!

If Firefox and other non-IE core browsers , if they can take care of compatibility issues like Microsoft, then their market should be bigger and more promising. Firefox can provide two modes to run. One is the standard mode that completely follows the W3C, and the other is the IE compatibility mode that is as compatible with IE as possible. At this time, users can seamlessly transition and choose freely. Now its fast and safe features can truly become an overwhelming advantage. Choosing different operating modes as the default mode in different periods of its popularity can effectively solve the contradiction between standard promotion and "coaching" other IE users. Why not do it happily?