Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-02-01 Thread kate

Oh dear me lol

I am still on IE6 and so I guess jump a version.
Kate
Bichon Frisé
http://jungaling.com/kynismarmissmillie/index.php
Borneo
http://julienne.wordpress.com/ 




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-02-01 Thread Dave Woods
A better approach would be to switch to a more standards compliant browser
like Firefox/Opera or Safari ;o)

http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/firefox/
http://www.opera.com/
http://www.apple.com/safari/ (still appears to be in beta for windows
though).

If you're a web developer/designer, you should have those three plus IE6 and
7 for testing anyway ;o)

If you don't have multiple systems to test on, then you can install multiple
versions of IE by using...

http://tredosoft.com/Multiple_IE

Hope that helps.


On 01/02/2008, kate [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Oh dear me lol

 I am still on IE6 and so I guess jump a version.
 Kate
 Bichon Frisé
 http://jungaling.com/kynismarmissmillie/index.php
 Borneo
 http://julienne.wordpress.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] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Keryx Web

Thomas Thomassen skrev:

Yes, that is an issue. But saving webpages to disc has always been 
unreliable. Espesially now with the extensive use of AJAX and other 
embedded and streamed content.


Not to mention IE:s habit of botching up the markup badly. Valid and 
well-formed XHTML will often be saved with tagnames and attributes in 
UPPER CASE!


That an UA might automatically insert a meta-tag for IE-dummy-mode is 
not that hard to imagine, though.


The problem is that it would have to *required* behaviour for *every* 
UA! And that includes Lynx -dump, wget, and every other program that 
people use for scripted solutions.



Lars Gunther
Who uses wget a lot...


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Keryx Web

[EMAIL PROTECTED] skrev:

One question that I have yet to see anyone ask is: How good will IE8
actually be?
If it is perfect, then there is no need to worry about future
versions...


No browser is, and never will be perfect. (Look at Acid 3. 
http://acid3.acidtests.org/ And when most browsers get that one, we will 
get Acid 4. Ian even has registered a domain name!)


I do not think this applies to you, but I've seen lots of comments 
lately on blogs and forums  complaining about IE - that claims CSS 3 
compliance in FFox, Opera or Safari. And that demands perfect CSS 3 
compliance in IE 8. That is some kind of ignorance about the current 
state of CSS support as well as CSS 3 in itself.


Here is the bottom line. If a browser claims to support a (part of a) 
standard, it must do so with 99,9 % perfection. Mozilla is taking a very 
wise route in being rather slow to move from experimental support 
(-moz-box-sizing, -moz-opacity and -moz-border-radius) to full support.


IE7 fixed bugs, but also added features (selector support). I think more 
harm (=sites breaking) was done by the added features, than by the bugfixes.


As for IE I said it before and I'll say it again. NDAs and secrecy is a 
fertile ground for mistrust. Open bug databases is the best way to keep 
developers happy.



Lars Gunther

P.S. In case anyone has missed it. This we can demand from a browser today:
- Full CSS 2.1 support (except for those minute edge-cases where the 
errata still have not been finalized).

- Full support for CSS 3 selectors
- Full support for CSS 3 color (except for one small part of the spec)
- Full support for CSS namespaces

+ Experimental support for background and borders
+ Experimental support for media-queries
+ Paged media and print

http://www.w3.org/TR/2007/WD-css-beijing-20071019/

Unresolved issues/needed errata for CSS 2.1: 
http://csswg.inkedblade.net/spec/css2.1



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-31 Thread Christian Snodgrass
When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely 
not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just 
like IE5 did.


James Leslie wrote:
 
  

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.

---

But by this argument, you seem to think that we would no longer have to
support IE6 or 7 and not have to spend the time putting hacks in. These
browsers will still be around for a long time... Perhaps not so much IE7
but certainly IE6 due to older OS not being able to update.

My development plan will stay the same aside from having another browser
to check:

Code site in Firefox
Check in Opera, Safari, PLUS IE8 (standards mode)
Hack IE7 fixes
Hack IE6 fixes

Or alternatively I let IE8 act like IE7 and don't bother using an
updated engine as an updated engine. The only difference between now and
then in the above plan is that I would check IE8 standards mode and hope
that it renders the same as firefox, safari and other standards based
browsers. I may be missing something, but I really don't see where the
less work comes in for anyone who is coding to standards. For those who
have been churning out badly coded sites that don't work properly in
firefox/opera/etc and have always been coding for IE it is a blessing.
It is not so much about 'not breaking the web', as not breaking the
sites already breaking the web.

James



***
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

2008-01-30 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Michael Horowitz wrote:
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.


But, since IE8 will by default behave and render just like IE7, the 
clients won't actually see any changes, so most of them won't really see 
the point in getting their outdated sites changed to the IE8/edge way 
(unless they're also interested in supporting non-MS browsers...but 
those aren't the problem MS is trying to solve or sidestep with this 
meta issue).


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

2008-01-30 Thread James Bennett
On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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!

And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people
who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build
stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8
will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like
any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on
into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an
X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with
that?

 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.

Well, there are three groups here:

1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all.

Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the
problem it allegedly solves.

Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode.

Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're
giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since,
to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode,
they'd have to stop relying on old bugs).

So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's
really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to
them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web
sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an
incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business.


-- 
Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of correct.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Christian Snodgrass wrote:

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.


But if it hasn't happened last time around (despite IE7betas being 
easily available a good 6+ months in advance), I remain skeptical...
All they've done in my opinion is sidestepped the issue and bought 
themselves some time.


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

2008-01-30 Thread Chris Knowles

Thomas Thomassen wrote:
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. 
   
What I've yet to hear 
from people who don't like the solution is a realistic alternative. 
Letting the sites break is not an alternative.




heres an alternative, instead of letting the sites break, add a meta tag 
to them to fix them to an older browser version. 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.


It seems that what is so quick and simple for one group of people to do 
is somehow a huge task for the other group?


--
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

2008-01-30 Thread Katrina

Thomas Thomassen wrote:
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. 


Don't forget the nasty gotcha: save that page on your own computer, load 
it back up and suddenly it looks different (as the browser doesn't have 
the meta tag in the code for the webpage).


 Letting the sites break is not an alternative.
Yes it is. You just don't like it :)

Kat



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Gunlaug Sørtun

Well, apart from that I don't like IE/win version targeting one bit, if
MSIE uphold this version targeting strategy in future versions, we may
as well use it to our advantage.

Sidelining IE/win while designing for standards and better browsers,
doesn't have to become a problem for designers or users, as we can keep
on designing for the present edge at any given time, and fix IE/win
when we get around to it.
That's how I go about it now anyway, and version targeting will only
make it easier to cover all IE/win versions that are still in use at any
one time.

We won't need several IE/win versions in order to test and tweak, as we
can just roll back the latest IE/win through previous versions during
the design-phase - providing previous versions are flawless copies
that we can target.
Once finished, we can decide which IE/win version is most suitable as
our own IE-final for that particular job, and leave it there.

Other browsers won't be affected - as long as they stay well away from
any form of version targeting.

Georg
--
http://www.gunlaug.no


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread michael.brockington
One question that I have yet to see anyone ask is: How good will IE8
actually be?
If it is perfect, then there is no need to worry about future
versions...

I also haven't seen anyone mention the fact that we have yet to get rid
of IE5 completely - I know of at least one large organisation (not my
own employer) that is sticking with IE6 on XP because they know that it
is compatible with everything they use. I don't see them getting excited
over IE8 any time soon if it works exactly the same as IE6.

Mike


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Andrew Maben

On Jan 29, 2008, at 7:38 PM, Casey Farrell wrote:


IE8 _will_ be the most popular web browser


it ain't necessarily so... first of all prevalent is not equivalent  
to popular, but IE was not always the most prevalent browser, and is  
once again losing some of the market share that it unfairly (as  
judged in court) gained from NS. Users of all stripes are discovering  
Firefox.


From my, admittedly superficial, reading on this, we're looking at  
another MS ploy to entrench their market dominance.


FWIW, YMMV etc...

Andrew

http://www.andrewmaben.net
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

In a well designed user interface, the user should not need  
instructions.





***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread James Leslie
 
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.

---

But by this argument, you seem to think that we would no longer have to
support IE6 or 7 and not have to spend the time putting hacks in. These
browsers will still be around for a long time... Perhaps not so much IE7
but certainly IE6 due to older OS not being able to update.

My development plan will stay the same aside from having another browser
to check:

Code site in Firefox
Check in Opera, Safari, PLUS IE8 (standards mode)
Hack IE7 fixes
Hack IE6 fixes

Or alternatively I let IE8 act like IE7 and don't bother using an
updated engine as an updated engine. The only difference between now and
then in the above plan is that I would check IE8 standards mode and hope
that it renders the same as firefox, safari and other standards based
browsers. I may be missing something, but I really don't see where the
less work comes in for anyone who is coding to standards. For those who
have been churning out badly coded sites that don't work properly in
firefox/opera/etc and have always been coding for IE it is a blessing.
It is not so much about 'not breaking the web', as not breaking the
sites already breaking the web.

James



***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Andrew Maben

On Jan 29, 2008, at 10:10 PM, Jermayn Parker wrote:


and then we will see the infamous pre-2000 days with websites reading:

This is best viewed using Internet Explorer 6


Would it be so bad if this was This site is best NOT viewed with  
IE?? Come on - Let's not break the web - it's already broken, and  
face it was broken by MS, held together with chewing gum, string and  
hacks.


Andrew







***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***

RE: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread James Leslie
I think we will be able to 'ignore' IE7 way before IE6 due to Microsoft
being able to (presumably) force upgrades of IE7 to IE8, but still being
stuck with IE6 in the way we are now on older OS's.
Though IE8 rendering like IE7 by default means we will have to fix for
that And no doubt Microsoft can come up with something to throw a
spanner in those works like finding that IE8 will only be available for
Vista (this is a prediction not a fact!).

For me the real shame with this whole thing is the designers/coders who
have no interest in standards will probably never know about any of
this, they will just code for IE8 as they code for IE7, so where is the
real improvement? They still produce sub-standard sites using flawed
code, that is rendered in a good browser masquerading as a flawed
browser. 
It is only the small percentage of 'standardistas' who will tap into
IE8's improved engine and we will largely be the only people to notice
too, as most clients will merely visually see a website in a browser
rather than the code underneath.

---
When IE8 comes out, no, we won't be able to ignore IE7, and most likely
not even IE6 yet. However, eventually, IE6 and IE7 will fade away, just
like IE5 did.


***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Thomas Thomassen


- Original Message - 
From: Katrina [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:17 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy



Thomas Thomassen wrote:
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.


Don't forget the nasty gotcha: save that page on your own computer, load 
it back up and suddenly it looks different (as the browser doesn't have 
the meta tag in the code for the webpage).


Yes, that is an issue. But saving webpages to disc has always been 
unreliable. Espesially now with the extensive use of AJAX and other embedded 
and streamed content.





 Letting the sites break is not an alternative.
Yes it is. You just don't like it :)


You're correct. I don't like it. Because it punishes the users and the 
owners of the sites.




Kat



***
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

2008-01-30 Thread Thomas Thomassen
Not every site has a webdesigner constantly maintaining it. Retroactively 
editing the millions of existing pages out there will cost an enourmouse 
amount of money. Fitting a meta tag into existing documents isn't as easy as 
implementing it into new ones.



- Original Message - 
From: Chris Knowles [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:27 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy



Thomas Thomassen wrote:
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. What I've yet 
to hear from people who don't like the solution is a realistic 
alternative. Letting the sites break is not an alternative.




heres an alternative, instead of letting the sites break, add a meta tag 
to them to fix them to an older browser version. 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.


It seems that what is so quick and simple for one group of people to do is 
somehow a huge task for the other group?


--
Chris Knowles


***
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

2008-01-30 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

Thomas Thomassen wrote:
Not every site has a webdesigner constantly maintaining it. 
Retroactively editing the millions of existing pages out there will cost 
an enourmouse amount of money. Fitting a meta tag into existing 
documents isn't as easy as implementing it into new ones.


Then change one simple line in the server configuration to send the 
relevant http header to signal that the site is old and flaky...


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

2008-01-30 Thread Thomas Thomassen
By the sound of it, IE9 will default to IE7 for documents with proper strict 
doctype and IE6 for documents with invalid or missing doctype. Just like 
IE8.


Regarding what you said about X-IE9-Compatible, X-IE10-Compatible:
No, it would be
meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=9 /
if the site was made for IE9, and
meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=10 /
the http-equip header name itself would not need to be replaced.

And your proposed solution is a punishment to the users and the owners of 
the sites. And the owners will loose money if their sites suddently break 
due to missing visitors and having to pay someone to sort it out.
It doesn't sound fair to do this to the owners and users because they're the 
ones that'll suffer the most. And we are after all offering a service.



- Original Message - 
From: James Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy



On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

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!


And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people
who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build
stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8
will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like
any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on
into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an
X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with
that?


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.


Well, there are three groups here:

1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all.

Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the
problem it allegedly solves.

Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode.

Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're
giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since,
to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode,
they'd have to stop relying on old bugs).

So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's
really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to
them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web
sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an
incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business.


--
Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of 
correct.



***
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

2008-01-30 Thread Karl Lurman
Damn, this is the second time in the last two days I have replied to
something via the WSG instead of to the person I really meant to send
it to. Argghhh GMAIL!

Or perhaps its just silly user error... :)

Sorry everyone!!!

On Jan 30, 2008 3:47 PM, Mark Harris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 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]
 ***




***
List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm
Help: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-30 Thread Christian Snodgrass

Yes, I agree.

Part of our job is putting up with the stupidity that MS gives us and 
making it work. We don't just get to say No, we won't support IE 
anymore, at least, not if you plan on keeping clients.


Is this solution perfect? No. Is this solution acceptable? Yes. Could it 
be worse? Hell yes!


Be thankful we are finally getting some standards compliance. Don't 
waste your time complaining about what they aren't doing.


It's one line... one. Not two, not ten. Just one. It is even a fairly 
standards-compliant way. It is not perfect, but it is a decent solution 
at least. When HTML5 is released, in another decade or so, we won't need 
the meta-tag anymore because Microsoft won't have to be making up for 
all of the old sites that were hacked to work with their browser. They 
have a chance to conform to standards from the start, and, after recent 
events, probably will. However, they can't do anything else for 
HTML4/XHTML1. They've dug their own grave with this one. It's our job 
now to not let our clients and their customers suffer for Microsoft's 
short-comings.


Thomas Thomassen wrote:
By the sound of it, IE9 will default to IE7 for documents with proper 
strict doctype and IE6 for documents with invalid or missing doctype. 
Just like IE8.


Regarding what you said about X-IE9-Compatible, X-IE10-Compatible:
No, it would be
meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=9 /
if the site was made for IE9, and
meta http-equiv=X-UA-Compatible content=IE=10 /
the http-equip header name itself would not need to be replaced.

And your proposed solution is a punishment to the users and the owners 
of the sites. And the owners will loose money if their sites suddently 
break due to missing visitors and having to pay someone to sort it out.
It doesn't sound fair to do this to the owners and users because 
they're the ones that'll suffer the most. And we are after all 
offering a service.



- Original Message - From: James Bennett 
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org
Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2008 9:03 AM
Subject: Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy



On Jan 30, 2008 1:31 AM, Thomas Thomassen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
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!


And then when IE9 comes out, what does it default to? The same people
who built stuff that relied on IE6 bugs and broke in IE7 will build
stuff that relies on IE8 bugs and breaks in IE9 (especially since IE8
will be the first version with any support for the HTML 5 drafts; like
any first implementation of anything, there will be bugs). And so on
into the future; do we get an X-IE9-Compatible and an
X-IE10-Compatible, and an X-IE11-Compatible down the line to deal with
that?

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.


Well, there are three groups here:

1. Standards-based developers who don't rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
2. Standards-based developers who do rely on browser bugs to make
their stuff work.
3. Developers who don't use standards-based techniques at all.

Group 1 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they don't have the
problem it allegedly solves.

Group 3 doesn't need X-UA-Compatible because they have quirks mode.

Group 2 are the only ones who need it, but by accepting it they're
giving up on the ability to use any new features down the road (since,
to kick future IE versions into a more featureful standards mode,
they'd have to stop relying on old bugs).

So the solution is to make Group 2 stop existing, and all that's
really needed is for browser vendors to do nothing special to cater to
them; the simple market force of clients who want functioning web
sites will sort things out all on its own by either giving Group 2 an
incentive to change its ways, or putting them out of business.


--
Bureaucrat Conrad, you are technically correct -- the best kind of 
correct.



***
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]
***





--

Christian

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-29 Thread Dave Woods
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

2008-01-29 Thread varun krishnan
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

2008-01-29 Thread Bruce
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]
***



[WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-29 Thread Peter Mount

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]
***



Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-29 Thread David Dorward

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]
***

Re: [WSG] This IE8 controversy

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Broadfoot

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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Knowles

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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Broadfoot

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

2008-01-29 Thread Ben Buchanan
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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Knowles

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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Broadfoot

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

2008-01-29 Thread Ben Buchanan
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

2008-01-29 Thread Bruce

...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

2008-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass

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

2008-01-29 Thread Casey Farrell
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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Knowles

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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Broadfoot

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

2008-01-29 Thread Jermayn Parker
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

2008-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass

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

2008-01-29 Thread Bruce
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

2008-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass

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

2008-01-29 Thread Matt Fellows
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

2008-01-29 Thread Andrew Ingram

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

2008-01-29 Thread Karl Lurman
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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Broadfoot

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

2008-01-29 Thread Katrina






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

2008-01-29 Thread Patrick H. Lauke

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

2008-01-29 Thread Chris Knowles

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

2008-01-29 Thread Jermayn Parker
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

2008-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass

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

2008-01-29 Thread Christian Snodgrass

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

2008-01-29 Thread Michael Horowitz
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

2008-01-29 Thread Karl Lurman
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

2008-01-29 Thread Mark Harris

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

2008-01-29 Thread Jermayn Parker
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

2008-01-29 Thread Thomas Thomassen
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

2008-01-29 Thread Thomas Thomassen
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]
***