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