Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
which site is the this site that is showing you the message: Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type On Jan 28 2008, at 23:22, Andrew Freedman wrote: G'day, I see this warning often when using the W3C validator and figured I must be doing something wrong, but as it is a warning I never bothered looking into it. Now I've seen it on the results from this site so it has roused my curiosity. Can some explain to me why this is occurring and how it is overcome. Thanks. Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** Joe Ortenzi [EMAIL PROTECTED] www.joiz.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. Using an HTML5 doctype will remove the need to include the meta tag. Using edge within the meta tag will also set IE8 to use the rendering engine for whatever the current version of IE is... what impact this will have on development remains to be seen as I don't think we can really comment until we've seen it in action. Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of every page on every clients site I've ever done? NOT So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups? Or am I misreading all this? You're misreading it slightly. Presumably you'll have tested your websites in IE7? Therefore when IE8 is released, all these websites should render exactly the same as IE7 by default, IE8 will use IE7's rendering engine unless you use one of the methods of triggering IE8 standards mode. I dont think adding another tag makes much sense.. I want my site accessible to lots of browsers .. not just freaking IE We'll need to support IE7 for a while yet anyway so will things change that much other than for the mean time just leaving out the meta tag and just ensuring that things work in the IE7 rendering engine (once IE6 users have ceased to exist). On 29/01/2008, varun krishnan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I dont think adding another tag makes much sense.. I want my site accessible to lots of browsers .. not just freaking IE Varun, http://varunkrish.com On Jan 29, 2008 6:41 PM, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of every page on every clients site I've ever done? NOT So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups? Or am I misreading all this? Bruce bkdesign - Original Message - From: Peter Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:18 AM Subject: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Hi I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I dont think adding another tag makes much sense.. I want my site accessible to lots of browsers .. not just freaking IE Varun, http://varunkrish.com On Jan 29, 2008 6:41 PM, Bruce [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of every page on every clients site I've ever done? NOT So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups? Or am I misreading all this? Bruce bkdesign - Original Message - From: Peter Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:18 AM Subject: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Hi I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of every page on every clients site I've ever done? NOT So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups? Or am I misreading all this? Bruce bkdesign - Original Message - From: Peter Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:18 AM Subject: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Hi I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type
Joe Ortenzi wrote: which site is the this site that is showing you the message: Conflict between Mime Type and Document Type My apologies. In my haste before the Hail storm hit I sent this off without the URL. http://www.bigbaer.com/css_tutorials/css.image.text.wrap.htm Andrew *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] Perth: Event - Usability and Web Startups
This will be relevant to people in Perth, Western Australia its been a bit long between WSG meetings in the west. In case you didn't know there is a micro conference on tomorrow night (Wednesday 30th January, 6:30 pm for 7:00pm) . The Australian Web Industry Association is presenting Ideas4. Hear two great speakers, Lisa Herrod, Usability expert, and Rachel Cook, Founder of Minti talk about usability, accessibility, web start-ups and more, and just mingle with your local industry peers. The Melbourne Hotel 942 Hay Street PERTH WA 6000 You can book online - http://www.webindustry.asn.au/ideas4/ Tickets : AWIA Members : $25 Non- Members : $35 -- Gary Barber User Interaction Designer / Information Architect Web: radharc.com.au blog: manwithnoblog.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] This IE8 controversy
Hi I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[ADMIN] THREAD CLOSED Re: [WSG] APHP counter script
On Tue, 29 Jan 2008 12:49:40 -0800, Hayden's Harness Attachment wrote: The nonprofit I run a web site for again wants a counter. I did work on putting together a PHP counter and came up with the following. We are off topic here. If anyone would like to comment, plase reply to Angus directly :) warmly, Lea -- Lea de Groot WSG Core Member *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
[WSG] APHP counter script
The nonprofit I run a web site for again wants a counter. I did work on putting
together a PHP counter and came up with the following.
?php
$vCounter = TotVis.txt;
if(file_exists($vCounter))
{
$oFile = fopen($vCounter, r+);
$visits = fread($oFile,filesize($vCounter));
$visits++;
rewind($oFile);
fwrite($oFile, $visits);
fclose($oFile);
}
else
{
$oFile = fopen($vCounter, w);
$visits = 1;
fwrite($oFile, $visits);
fclose($oFile);
}
echo As of December 22, 2005 you are visitor number $visits to
nfoforce-services.com.br /Counter provided by a
href=\http://www.stormdragon.us\;Storm Dragon/a.;
php?
Is this correct ? And how do I add it? If this is off topic, please reply to
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Angus MacKinnon
Infoforce Services
http:ééwww.infoforce-services.com
It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.
George Washington
***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
On 29 Jan 2008, at 13:48, Dave Woods wrote: Using an HTML5 doctype will remove the need to include the meta tag. What a shame that HTML5 has only just released its first official draft ... which has comments like: 6.3.5.2. Broadcasting over Bluetooth Does anyone know enough about Bluetooth to write this section? It is going to be a long time before claiming conformance to HTML5 is going to be a sane thing to do in production. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk/ http://blog.dorward.me.uk/ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
RES: [WSG] Usability for downloading documents
You could use a select box menu to allow the user choosing an action (Read / Print / Open.) Is how newer web tools are working with multi-functions on the same stage of navigation. Genau L. Jr. Media Developer Curitiba-PR Brazil De: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Em nome de Rochester oliveira Enviada em: segunda-feira, 28 de janeiro de 2008 16:05 Para: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Assunto: Re: [WSG] Usability for downloading documents Doesn't have a way to force the don't download? Or you may force download as pdf and make a jpg() for the preview :) 2 buttons for the same action will be a problem for sure. 2008/1/28, Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Wording that would be really tricky, because if they're default action is to download it, when they hit Read they'd expect it to just open, not offer them a download prompt. There are a lot of people that would be agitated that both buttons do the same thing. Rochester oliveira wrote: I think that you should make 2 buttons. The user will choice for download or just read the documment []'s - Rochester Oliveira http://webbemfeita.com/ Viva a Web-Bem-Feita Web Designer Curitiba - PR - Brasil *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- []'s - Rochester Oliveira http://webbemfeita.com/ Viva a Web-Bem-Feita Web Designer Curitiba - PR - Brasil *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Bruce wrote: - Original Message - From: Peter Mount [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:18 AM Subject: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Hi I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. Is Microsoft going to pay me my time to add another tag to the head of every page on every clients site I've ever done? NOT So it won't happen, why should we spend even more time on MS screwups? Or am I misreading all this? Bruce bkdesign I personally think it's great. Think of the time you save by not having to debug IE. Chris. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Broadfoot wrote: I personally think it's great. Think of the time you save by not having to debug IE. why won't we have to debug IE? We'll still have to make our sites work in IE7 and IE6 for quite some time. I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: I personally think it's great. Think of the time you save by not having to debug IE. why won't we have to debug IE? We'll still have to make our sites work in IE7 and IE6 for quite some time. Sure. But if IE8 in standards mode is any good, then you won't have anywhere near as much work if MS chose to just totally ignore standards. I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I just like to ask if it might be possible to turn off this version freezing thing in IE8, maybe with some markup or something. I agree with Drew Mclellan when he said in his blog that old browsers must die. You can't turn it off as such, since it will be built in to IE8 and enabled by default. But you can negate the effect by setting your pages to IE=edge which simulates what would have happened without the version freeze thing. Or you can explicitly set IE7, or IE8, or both. As the tag is an http-equiv it should be possible to set this up using a .htaccess file or via server configuration, rather than putting in the meta tag. That at least is the least work option for those of us doing the right thing. cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? Too much work for those that aren't in the know. Chris. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. You're right there. They're not ignoring the problem, it's just that a lot of people don't agree with their solution. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Consider it this way: is any other browser maker asking you to modify every single HTML document you publish, just to fix a problem *they* created? ...and not for the first time, given MS already expects us to load up our sites with conditional comments and extra stylesheets... It really wouldn't matter so much if they were making IE8 default to IE8, then letting people set it back to IE7 if they actually need it. This way around ticks people off for the same reason SPAM ticks them off - they didn't ask for it! cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
...Too much work for those that aren't in the know. Chris. I disagree. Why should I make fixes on my clents sites because ie8 doesn't work properly? I won't, and what I know has nothing to do with it. MS says it would cost too much to change the engine. well, too bad, I'm not going to with my time fix their errors. Bruce bkdesign - Original Message - From: Chris Broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? Too much work for those that aren't in the know. Chris. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I disagree. Why should I make fixes on my clents sites because ie8 doesn't work properly? I won't, and what I know has nothing to do with it. MS says it would cost too much to change the engine. well, too bad, I'm not going to with my time fix their errors. Good luck keeping clients with that attitude. There's no point disagreeing with what MS are going to do. It will happen and IE8 _will_ be the most popular web browser. At least this time we have options and some standards adherence. If MS get the picture that 'standardistas' are never happy, they're not going to bother even trying to please us. Casey. Bruce wrote: ...Too much work for those that aren't in the know. Chris. I disagree. Why should I make fixes on my clents sites because ie8 doesn't work properly? I won't, and what I know has nothing to do with it. MS says it would cost too much to change the engine. well, too bad, I'm not going to with my time fix their errors. Bruce bkdesign - Original Message - From: Chris Broadfoot [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 7:04 PM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? Too much work for those that aren't in the know. Chris. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Christian Snodgrass wrote: The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. If you have a web-based application that will break in IE8, then whats so wrong with adding an HTTP header or a meta tag to say 'use IE7' ? -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Christian Snodgrass wrote: The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. Didn't people use conditional comments? Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
nothing is wrong with it!! saves times, money, grey hairs and we will all live longer happier lives! If you have a web-based application that will break in IE8, then whats so wrong with adding an HTTP header or a meta tag to say 'use IE7' ? The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Well said. Another thing is, as much as everyone gripes and moans, you can't just start ignoring IE. Well, I guess you could, but then you'd miss about 50% of your possible audience. That would probably tick some clients off. It is the best solution they can come up with that won't destroy everything that has been created in the past. Adding one line of code to each of your pages is a lot more cost effective and time saving then all of the hacks we currently have to do to get it to display properly in IE6 and IE7. While it'd be nice for MS to completely fix their problem, they'd have to go back in time. There are just too many existing pages that would utterly fail if IE8 didn't render how it will by default, many of those being expensive corporate web-based software. Jermayn Parker wrote: Just keep the website to look and behave right in IE7 then! and create every new website or important/ re-designed websites with the new target IE8 tags! sounds quite simple to me. Maybe not the most perfect but you cannot expect everything to jump over night! Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30/01/2008 9:15:48 am Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Precisely and well said, bruce bkdesign - Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan snip/ Consider it this way: is any other browser maker asking you to modify every single HTML document you publish, just to fix a problem *they* created? ...and not for the first time, given MS already expects us to load up our sites with conditional comments and extra stylesheets... It really wouldn't matter so much if they were making IE8 default to IE8, then letting people set it back to IE7 if they actually need it. This way around ticks people off for the same reason SPAM ticks them off - they didn't ask for it! cheers, Ben *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Knowles wrote: Christian Snodgrass wrote: The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. If you have a web-based application that will break in IE8, then whats so wrong with adding an HTTP header or a meta tag to say 'use IE7' ? What's so wrong with adding a tag that says use IE8? Plus, not everyone will know this. I doubt that when you open up IE8 there will be this popup that says Hello, if you are a web developer, please add a meta tag to any existing documents that you have created that rely on the rendering prior to IE8, because they will now fail. Existing software is more difficult to update then to slightly modify the way you create new software. -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
A great point Casey. MS have taken the first major step in moving towards a standards compliant industry and we, the web designer, are complaining that it's going to break our old sites hacked up for IE6/IE7. The saying says 'we can't have our cake and eat it too', but in fact we can. We have asked for standards compliance and we are getting it. Unfortunately this was inevitably going to happen and it is the users that are punished for doing nothing. As professionals, we need to deal with it much the same way as we dealt with the non-standards compliance of previous versions. The only difference is that we are now moving in the _right_ direction. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Knowles wrote: Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? I've swayed back and forth on this issue and I'm still not sure what my opinion is, but I'm currently thinking along the following lines: I don't oppose a meta tag which is effectively saying to a browser this is what this site was developed to work in, it's basically saying to the browser that it can't promise that it'll work with future versions and it's up to the browser to decide what to do. If a browser version has relatively few rendering changes (ie any changes are either new features that won't affect existing rendering or very minor bug fixes) then the browser can say i'm pretty sure your site will work in my new version or if there are big changes it can say this will probably break, i'm going to fall back to the previous version's rendering. Conceptually this is a good idea, but I am concerned with the amount of bloat and complexity this could add to browsers. If from IE8 onwards Internet Explorer can keep on the game, then once IE6 and IE7 are down to insignificant percentages we can drop conditional comments completely. But we should still provide the http header / meta tag as a polite notice for the reasons I mentioned in the previous point. The problem I see is that because their sites will apparantly work fine in IE8 (rendering as IE7), the web developers that are less informed will be completely unaware of the changes in the rendering engine. As a consequence we won't be closer to solving the problem that the vast majority of the web isn't using standards and as a consequence the uptake of new features won't be noticably faster. Basically, there are two problems at hand here. Firstly, breaking the web with new browser versions. This can be addressed with this meta tag, but this solution can't work forever. Secondly, finding a way to get the websites that would break into a state that they wouldn't break. This is the difficult part and I imagine it'll require a standards drive of much greater scope than the one we experienced a few years ago. Actually, there's a third problem, and that's the need to find a way of allowing browser manufacturers and others to innovate with new features in such a way that they can be used whilst somehow not breaking the web again. Some sort of standardised rendering extension architecture that all browsers can be used would be my suggestion, extensions could then be automatically downloaded much like new flash versions. - Andrew Ingram *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I think the opt-in approach is really the only path they can take. They can't very well abandon all the website, intranets, extranets that are coded specifically to take advantage of Microsoft 'features' within older IE browsers. The corporate environment is fairly adverse to change, even on a good day. It's not in Microsoft's best interests to create head-aches for the people that have spent good (or is that 'horrendous amounts of') money on solutions based around their products. Frankly, they cost business serious amounts of money in the first place. Anti-virus is a big cost on which platform again? Anyone? I think the thing to remember here is that, over time, the older browsers will be phased out. When was the last time you worried about IE on Mac? In the mean time, you can be rest-assured (*cough*) that the World's leading software manufacturer's latest browser will, with a flick of tag, transform into a lean-mean standards machine. :) Jokes aside. As the older browsers FINALLY become less important, YEARS from now, they can eliminate the meta-tag altogether. However, this won't affect you because all your pages would be standards compliant and work flawlessly anyway. Man, you just saved yourself a heck of a lot of time. More time than the time it took altering your website templates to include the meta-tag in the first place. Karl On Jan 30, 2008 11:55 AM, Jermayn Parker [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: nothing is wrong with it!! saves times, money, grey hairs and we will all live longer happier lives! If you have a web-based application that will break in IE8, then whats so wrong with adding an HTTP header or a meta tag to say 'use IE7' ? The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Matt Fellows wrote: A great point Casey. MS have taken the first major step in moving towards a standards compliant industry and we, the web designer, are complaining that it's going to break our old sites hacked up for IE6/IE7. The saying says 'we can't have our cake and eat it too', but in fact we can. We have asked for standards compliance and we are getting it. But I thought the point was that it *wont* break old, crappy sites? The point people are complaining about is the whole opt-in/meta tag/http header (non) issue. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
What's so wrong with adding a tag that says use IE8? Standards are a type of contract creating abstraction. If you develop to standards, you don't need to know, nor should you, what browser or version they are running. This tag breaks that abstraction. It's white box rather than black box development. And that usually ends in tears: when the browser version changes, when the browser brand changes (Opera, Safari, Firefox, etc). The tag starts to take responsibility away from web developers, to the browser developer, for crappy code. That engenders complacency and laziness. Neither of which is good for the developer or for the browser developer. What happens when many people are relying on IE7 rendering and MS decide to stop supporting it? The web will still be 'broken'. The issue of legacy will always be there. We are on the cusp of a mobile web and an XML web. I think being forward-thinking here is more important than backwards-compatibility (which is solved within the standards anyway). Thing big. Sure we have numbers on the web now, but the prediction is that we will have double, if not more, on the web through mobile devices. If we can get it right, now, as it should have been, it will solve the problems for the future. And due to the expected increase of numbers, the problems will be even bigger than now. A little bit of pain now (going standards) is worth it. Kat I believe in an XML world. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Karl Lurman wrote: I think the thing to remember here is that, over time, the older browsers will be phased out. Jokes aside. As the older browsers FINALLY become less important, YEARS from now, they can eliminate the meta-tag altogether. But the crappy intranet sites etc that are coded specifically to IE6 or IE7's quirks *won't* go away (as that's the whole reason why MS are doing this), so no, the meta tag (and the associated rendering engine) will stay. If they're freezing rendering unless you opt-in because corporates won't update the sites now, what makes you think that they will ever update the sites? Come IE9, the argument will be the same: since IE8 rendered as IE7 by default, we can't now default to standards in IE9 because it would break the sites that didn't have to be updated last time around because of the switch...so, the switch stays. P -- Patrick H. Lauke __ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com __ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ __ *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Broadfoot wrote: Too much work for those that aren't in the know. but not too much work for you and me? What I think it really means is that those not in the know would have to be told - and that could damage reputations! (which can hurt revenues) I'd argue that it's one of the tenets of good web development that we embrace forwards compatibility and not backwards compatibility. I think what they are doing flies in the face of this. -- Chris Knowles *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
and then we will see the infamous pre-2000 days with websites reading: This is best viewed using Internet Explorer 6 Patrick H. Lauke [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30/01/2008 11:55:19 am Karl Lurman wrote: I think the thing to remember here is that, over time, the older browsers will be phased out. Jokes aside. As the older browsers FINALLY become less important, YEARS from now, they can eliminate the meta-tag altogether. But the crappy intranet sites etc that are coded specifically to IE6 or IE7's quirks *won't* go away (as that's the whole reason why MS are doing this), so no, the meta tag (and the associated rendering engine) will stay. If they're freezing rendering unless you opt-in because corporates won't update the sites now, what makes you think that they will ever update the sites? Come IE9, the argument will be the same: since IE8 rendered as IE7 by default, we can't now default to standards in IE9 because it would break the sites that didn't have to be updated last time around because of the switch...so, the switch stays. P -- ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
There is another possible outcome which is positive. It's more likely (assuming they get the info about the meta-tag out there) that new sites will be developed using this meta-tag and standards-compliance. Eventually, the old sites will be replaced with new ones built in this fashion. Then, when they finally just drop the non-standards-compliance all together, fewer sites will break. They may be hoping for that outcome. Katrina wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Karl Lurman wrote: I think the thing to remember here is that, over time, the older browsers will be phased out. Jokes aside. As the older browsers FINALLY become less important, YEARS from now, they can eliminate the meta-tag altogether. But the crappy intranet sites etc that are coded specifically to IE6 or IE7's quirks *won't* go away (as that's the whole reason why MS are doing this), so no, the meta tag (and the associated rendering engine) will stay. If they're freezing rendering unless you opt-in because corporates won't update the sites now, what makes you think that they will ever update the sites? Come IE9, the argument will be the same: since IE8 rendered as IE7 by default, we can't now default to standards in IE9 because it would break the sites that didn't have to be updated last time around because of the switch...so, the switch stays. P I agree. But eventually MS are going to get sick of maintaining a rendering engine, I guess IE7 first, and then stop supporting it. Then they will 'break' the web. All they will have done is delayed 'breaking' the web. And because of the delay and the meta-tag, more developers will have grown complacent and lazy (coding for just that rendering engine*), and so the number of sites that will 'break' will have increased. Kat * who can blame them? It's the easy way out. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Chris Broadfoot wrote: Christian Snodgrass wrote: The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. Didn't people use conditional comments? Chris *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** There are various CSS hacks which are only noticed by either =IE6 or =IE7, etc. which could cause some problems if these, essentially, bugs aren't corrected. -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
I would assume any professional developer will test any application they currently support with IE 8 when it comes out. I'm sure I will get a lot of business from new clients who need their sites updated to support whatever changes MSFT makes. Lets face it how many older sites need to be updated because elements that used to work in HTML are being depreciated in new XHTML browsers. Eventually at some point I expect those depreciated elements to stop being supported by future version x of browsers. How many of us have developed websites with tables in the past that should be redeveloped using div and css? Michael Horowitz Your Computer Consultant http://yourcomputerconsultant.com 561-394-9079 Christian Snodgrass wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: Christian Snodgrass wrote: The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. If you have a web-based application that will break in IE8, then whats so wrong with adding an HTTP header or a meta tag to say 'use IE7' ? What's so wrong with adding a tag that says use IE8? Plus, not everyone will know this. I doubt that when you open up IE8 there will be this popup that says Hello, if you are a web developer, please add a meta tag to any existing documents that you have created that rely on the rendering prior to IE8, because they will now fail. Existing software is more difficult to update then to slightly modify the way you create new software. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Train: there is a 6:30 pm overnight train,clean and comfortable, that leaves from Bangkok's Hualomphong Station. You can buy a train + ferry ticket package a day in advance(approx.800 baht) from travel agencies on Kao San Rd. You will arrive at 6 am in Surat Thani and catch a connecting bus to the ferry which leaves 8-9 am. You arrive in Tong Sala on Koh Phangan at 12-1 pm. This is the problem... We should have bought the tickets the day before our journey, which is today! Man, we are looking at a long journey tomorrow night huh. x Karl On Jan 30, 2008 2:58 PM, Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: There is another possible outcome which is positive. It's more likely (assuming they get the info about the meta-tag out there) that new sites will be developed using this meta-tag and standards-compliance. Eventually, the old sites will be replaced with new ones built in this fashion. Then, when they finally just drop the non-standards-compliance all together, fewer sites will break. They may be hoping for that outcome. Katrina wrote: Patrick H. Lauke wrote: Karl Lurman wrote: I think the thing to remember here is that, over time, the older browsers will be phased out. Jokes aside. As the older browsers FINALLY become less important, YEARS from now, they can eliminate the meta-tag altogether. But the crappy intranet sites etc that are coded specifically to IE6 or IE7's quirks *won't* go away (as that's the whole reason why MS are doing this), so no, the meta tag (and the associated rendering engine) will stay. If they're freezing rendering unless you opt-in because corporates won't update the sites now, what makes you think that they will ever update the sites? Come IE9, the argument will be the same: since IE8 rendered as IE7 by default, we can't now default to standards in IE9 because it would break the sites that didn't have to be updated last time around because of the switch...so, the switch stays. P I agree. But eventually MS are going to get sick of maintaining a rendering engine, I guess IE7 first, and then stop supporting it. Then they will 'break' the web. All they will have done is delayed 'breaking' the web. And because of the delay and the meta-tag, more developers will have grown complacent and lazy (coding for just that rendering engine*), and so the number of sites that will 'break' will have increased. Kat * who can blame them? It's the easy way out. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Karl Lurman wrote: Train: there is a 6:30 pm overnight train,clean and comfortable, that leaves from Bangkok's Hualomphong Station. You can buy a train + ferry ticket package a day in advance(approx.800 baht) from travel agencies on Kao San Rd. You will arrive at 6 am in Surat Thani and catch a connecting bus to the ferry which leaves 8-9 am. You arrive in Tong Sala on Koh Phangan at 12-1 pm. This is the problem... We should have bought the tickets the day before our journey, which is today! Man, we are looking at a long journey tomorrow night huh. x Karl Well, that makes as much sense as anything out of Microsoft about this, so I guess it's on topic ;-) mark (who, for the record, agrees with Patrick) *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
Just keep the website to look and behave right in IE7 then! and create every new website or important/ re-designed websites with the new target IE8 tags! sounds quite simple to me. Maybe not the most perfect but you cannot expect everything to jump over night! Christian Snodgrass [EMAIL PROTECTED] 30/01/2008 9:15:48 am Chris Knowles wrote: Chris Broadfoot wrote: Chris Knowles wrote: I don't see how opting-in to standards by adding a meta tag does anything for me or anyone else. Except for Microsoft of course, by allowing them to do the right thing at last and create a decent browser while at the same time not doing the right thing and ignoring the mess they created. I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Yeah actually I agree, they're not ignoring the mess. Just actively covering it up by enlisting yours and my support. My users/visitors should get the right viewing experience by default, not by having to opt-in. On the contrary, if you wish your users/visitors to NOT get the right viewing experience, is opting-out by adding a meta tag really too much work? The biggest problem is the fact that if they don't have it be the opt-in option, that any older sites that used all of the hacks that made it work in IE6 and IE7 won't work in IE8. That probably includes even a lot of your own sites. Beyond that (since they could just make it ignore those types of hacks which wouldn't be difficult), is pages even older, and especially those web-based applications that relied on those hacks. It's the lesser of two evils, but it's still a huge pain. -- Christian Snodgrass Azure Ronin Web Design http://www.arwebdesign.net/ http://www.arwebdesign.net Phone: 859.816.7955 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security requirements for inbound transmission. ** The above message has been scanned and meets the Insurance Commission of Western Australia's Email security policy requirements for outbound transmission. This email (facsimile) and any attachments may be confidential and privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or copying of this email (facsimile) is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email (facsimile) in error please contact the Insurance Commission. Web: www.icwa.wa.gov.au Phone: +61 08 9264 * *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
But the crappy intranet sites etc that are coded specifically to IE6 or IE7's quirks *won't* go away (as that's the whole reason why MS are doing this), so no, the meta tag (and the associated rendering engine) will stay. If they're freezing rendering unless you opt-in because corporates won't update the sites now, what makes you think that they will ever update the sites? That's the whole idea. That they *won't* have to update their intranet application to account for a new IE rendering engine. And for an intranet application, and such like, web standards and semantics is not an issue. It's an application, it runs on the IE engine and it works. And because of the delay and the meta-tag, more developers will have grown complacent and lazy (coding for just that rendering engine*), and so the number of sites that will 'break' will have increased. Then they're made by non-professional developers. Which is how most sites are made anyway. Webdevelopers that cares about clean coding, semantics and webstandards are a minority. Most of the web is allready broken. There's tagsoup and hacks all over the place. I can't see how this tag will change that. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy
You don't have to modify every single HTML you publish. You can set the HTTP header for HTML files on your server and off you go. Btw, you have to author every single document, so is it really that bad to add a meta tag? They don't want to default to IE8 rendering because of what happend with IE7. It broke website. Not only that but IE is used so much outside the browser as well. It's a platform. Intranet apps. HTA apps. Even help files uses the IE engine. If IE8 defaulted to IE8 rendering, then you risk breaking ALL of that. And who's going to get the heat for that? The developers! Us! When I first heard of this new tag I didn't know what to think of it. But I'm starting to like it more and more. What I've yet to hear from from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative. - Original Message - From: Ben Buchanan To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 1:23 AM Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy I don't think they're ignoring the mess they created at all.. You're right there. They're not ignoring the problem, it's just that a lot of people don't agree with their solution. Is adding a meta tag really too much work to provide your users/visitors the viewing experience they should have? Consider it this way: is any other browser maker asking you to modify every single HTML document you publish, just to fix a problem *they* created? ...and not for the first time, given MS already expects us to load up our sites with conditional comments and extra stylesheets... It really wouldn't matter so much if they were making IE8 default to IE8, then letting people set it back to IE7 if they actually need it. This way around ticks people off for the same reason SPAM ticks them off - they didn't ask for it! cheers, Ben -- --- http://weblog.200ok.com.au/ --- The future has arrived; it's just not --- evenly distributed. - William Gibson *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] *** *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
