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 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]
*******************************************************************
