다음을 통해 공유

Blog Comments Back Up

  • 아티클

The blog platform migration is now complete and the blog and comments are working as usual. If you notice any problems or want to comment on the new platform, please use this post to do so. Thanks for your patience. And now back your regularly scheduled programming...

Comments

  • Anonymous
    May 24, 2010
    I suggest you give the IEblog account an IE logo avatar. The W3C markup validation on this new blog pages seem even worse than the old one. Is this some bug?

  • Anonymous
    May 24, 2010
    From rcf 4287: "When an Atom Document is relocated, migrated, syndicated, republished, exported, or imported, the content of its atom:id element MUST NOT change." This includes upgrading your blogging platform.

  • Anonymous
    May 24, 2010
    Ohh... wow... Have you considered migration to WordPress? :D

  • Anonymous
    May 24, 2010
    Nice. It's a shame that the blog's theme wasn't changed as well.

  • Anonymous
    May 24, 2010
    I was really hoping that the update would also mean your blog finally having valid markup. Too bad that's not the case. Normal validation shows "2027 Errors, 24 warning(s)", while the "best case scenario" (i.e. one with least errors) - HTML 4.01 Transitional - shows "199 Errors, 104 warning(s) ". IE team, if you haven't already, can't you explicitly ask the blog platform maintainers for valid (X)HTML code to be part of the next update? And if you have, could you remind them?

  • Anonymous
    May 24, 2010
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    Does it really matter about valid markup on here people, really?  Really?  Big deal.  Does it render ok?  The answer is yes.  So get over it.

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    We are taking a look at the CSControl issue. We're listening...

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    Why on earth has the URL changed with a /b/ now in it?

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    It's a shame each comment no longer has a unique link to it, which made it easy keeping up when a particular blog entry had a lot of responses.

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    Ending up getting duplicate feed messages after the change in my feed client. Probably caused by an atom:id change as Jesper suggests. Although it wasn't difficult to clean up, it was quite annoying.

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    @Chris: It appears (based upun Comments feed) that post might have uniq link,but it just doesn't have anchors in html. Link from feed for your comment is blogs.msdn.com/.../blog-comments-back-up.aspx

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    @hal - we added an IE avatar image (the ie logo.)  We are still experimenting a bit with where we really want the avatar images to appear.  For the moment they should be appearing only in the comments section. @Chris - thanks for pointing that out.  We are looking into it and hope we can get the individual comment links back.  We aren't sure yet. We also moved the comment submission form to below the current comments.  

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    boen_robot: at least it doesn't declare the Frameset doctype anymore...

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    As a continuation of my cynical series of posts, I'd like to report that comment posting is putridly slow.

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    Oh great - yet another site created with Adobe's CS defaults.

  • don't use XHTML Transitional if all you're outputting is HTML! Use HTML 4.01 Strict DOCTYPE and 1,200 validation errors just go away.
  • when using HTML, remove all xmlns parameters and shorttags (' />'). Save bytes.
  • in ALL CASES, you must encode the ampersands '&': CS doesn't do it for you (yes, it's stupid - you more than anybody else must know how dangerous a badly declared entity is)
  • content generator markers must be kept inside comments - or not appear at all.

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    The replacement of the pagination widget with more comments after the page loads is really, really annoying - it is completely trashing any hope of the browser remembering the scroll position I was last at if I reload (if it was beyond comment 15, the last on page 1). :(

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    Thanks for removing the requirement to sign in. The signin system wasn't hooked up correctly and would not let you associate an existing MS login with this site. Wow for a new site there sure is a lot of trash in the source! e.g. this site has almost no styling yet there are hundreds of extremely verbose class names scattered across the code. 20 JavaScript files and 19 Stylesheets No gzipping on images or stylesheets and no CDN Woot! way to optimize for performance!

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    @Moo0z0r - no it's not.  Trade in your 56k modem for broadband.

  • Anonymous
    May 25, 2010
    its slower than before

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2010
    @ieblog: It would be great if each comment could have a unique link back to it like before, as not only for keeping track, but for when great comments are added and referenced to via other sources (blogs, forums, etc). Also, the comments feed link seems to be for all comments, rather than each blog entry. To subscribe to the comment feed for each blog entry, I had to use the feed icon in the browser to find it in that long list of options. Could a second link be added to each blog entry for comments related to only that subject?

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2010
    All you people complaining about performance and wasteful code--I have the solution, so listen up: 1.) Get a faster computer... 2.) Get a faster Internet Connection... 3.) Don't you know this has been the Redmond answer for decades now? 4.) It's your fault, not theirs (but they're listening!). ;) ;) ;)

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2010
    When I try to subscribe to the IE Blog feed (using IE8) I get the error: "Internet Explorer cannot display this feed  Internet Explorer does not support feeds with DTDs." Nice to know MS has abandoned dogfooding...

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2010
    @Phil Validity is important, especially for any company creating HTML rendering engines, browsers, mobile web phones, WYSIWYG HTML editors and claiming to be web standards compliant. Validity is a necessary minimum. Validity is not a luxury. Validity should not be a feature, or some kind of webpage decoration or a flavor-of-the-month. Many people have said and continue to say: "If Microsoft does not even validate its markup code in all of its websites, then why should I?" or "If Microsoft never did validate the markup code in all of its websites, why should I?" And yes, the rendering is not OK. The normal font-size is now definitely under 13px when the browser default font-size for unstyled body text is 16px in all browsers. Why change this? Why decrease the font-size? Why make it harder to read? The textarea to edit comments is ridiculously small, clearly anti-user. Microsoft should use the best coding practices, not the worse practices, not miserable coding practices, not bloated code (like 20 JavaScript files and 19 Stylesheets), not hundreds and hundreds of validation markup errors in a blog about its browser, not millions of validation markup errors in all of its websites fully under its control in the last 15 years. It's irrelevant whether we are speaking of HTML 4.01 with strict DTD or HTML5 or HTML6. A webpage should not contain HTML errors when it's labelled "Microsoft" or any other web-related corporation brand names. Microsoft should use the best coding practices at all times, in its websites, in its products, books, conferences, blogs, etc.. What is so difficult to understand here?? Gérard

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2010
    The new blog definitely has huge problems:

  • utter divitis
  • utter classitis
  • many id attributes use more than 64 characters
  • utter bloated code
  • like I said, the textarea is ridiculously small: it's set to have/show 2 rows and 20 characters wide: <textarea name="ctl00$content$ctl00$fragment_5069$ctl01$ctl00$ctl00$ctl05$bpCommentForm$ctl05$tbComment" rows="2" cols="20" id="ctl00_content_ctl00_fragment_5069_ctl01_ctl00_ctl00_ctl05_bpCommentForm_ctl05_tbComment" style="height:100px;"></textarea>
  • some id attributes simply defy imagination: e.g. <div class="footer-fragment omniture-footer-fragment" id="fragment-63dbeaa2-1743-491a-8213-0ba60bd457b8">
  • font-size has been set to 12px, just like that, whether it helps the user or not, like-it-or-not.
  • on top of all of the declared stylesheets, there are many inline style declarations
  • the stylesheets (eg blogs.msdn.com/.../base.css ) overdeclare, overdefine, over-excessively overcode almost everything: so everything is in place for over-excessively-constrained page layouts To me, all of the reasons (usability, code reduction, code maintenance, separation of style and content, accessibility, forward-compatibility, etc) to use CSS that I could think of are defeated in that blog. Gérard

  • Anonymous
    May 26, 2010
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2010
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2010
    And yet Microsoft thinks that we will believe that they are IN for HTML 5 and the same markup goal..... MICROSOFT, YOU NEED TO ACT. AND YOU NEED TO ACT ON ALL POSSIBLE WAYS YOU CAN, EVEN THE SMALLER ONES. Look ao Mozilla and Opera: they have valid markup code on near all their webpages. Also, MOZILLA AND OPERA ACTIVELY FIX COMPLAINTS ABOUT THEIR BLOG PLATFORMS, even if MOZILLA AND OPERA probably have less visitors and less money than you MICROSOFT, but still they show to care MORE about their users. Really Microsoft, have a look here: my.opera.com/.../blog http://blog.mozilla.com/ They might not be perfect, but they are way better than you, again JUSTLIKETHEYAREONTHEIRBROWSERS*ATM. MICROSOFT, stop talking and ACT! ACT, ACT, ACT, ACT!

  • Anonymous
    May 27, 2010
    @Gérard - it's a good job I'm not an amateur then! :) My point was, quite simply, there are more important things for Microsoft to focus on - in my opinion - than ensuring that the markup on one of their blog sites is "perfect". Like IE9.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2010
    Why are most images (Mostly the avatars) sent with Cache-Control: no-cache Pragma: no-cache It make loading the blog much slower then needed.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2010
    The comment has been removed

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2010
    @Gerard - it's a blog.  Not a customer ordering site.  Not a vendor order site.  Not financial.  A BLOG.  IT-DOESN'T-MATTER. For Hotmail, or microsoft.com etc then yes it does.  Big time.  But not here.

  • Anonymous
    May 28, 2010
    @Neil Dunensach - You've summed up my opinion quite succinctly :) @Gérard - Without being too blunt, chill out. Maybe just a little? :)

  • Anonymous
    May 29, 2010
    One more issue to report on this new IE blog: POSTING big posts on FIREFOX doesn't work!

  • Anonymous
    May 30, 2010
    "Average", please troll elsewhere. Thank you.