231 This is taking standards avoidance to a new level!

What’s wrong with having standards compliance mode enabled as default. You say switching it on is so simple. The same could be said about switching to quirks mode.

When developers open their page in a standards compliant IE8 and realise they haven’t been doing their job properly, they could choose to fix their problems, or simply carry on not doing their jobs properly by simply adding that meta tag. But at least, it will give them a breif shock which could be enough to bring them into standards compliance.

Internet Explorer 8: taking quirks and hacks into the future

posted at 08:31 pm on February 20, 2008 by Web Viewpoint

232 This is taking standards avoidance to a new level!

What’s wrong with having standards compliance mode enabled as default. You say switching it on is so simple. The same could be said about switching to quirks mode.

When developers open their page in a standards compliant IE8 and realise they haven’t been doing their job properly, they could choose to fix their problems, or simply carry on not doing their jobs properly by simply adding that meta tag. But at least, it will give them a breif shock which could be enough to bring them into standards compliance.

Internet Explorer 8: taking quirks and hacks into the future

posted at 08:32 pm on February 20, 2008 by Web Viewpoint

233 Ray McCord, lead the way...

I have to say that after reading approximately 6000 comments on this subject on multiple blogs I have seen at least 99.9% objection to this proposal; and I also object (and commend the objectors for doing so).

I’ll also say that there has been one shinning light for the objecting team in this debate and that is Ray McCord. Every statement he has made is valid, every statement he has made is the essence of what the standards movement is all about, and I for one support his statements to the letter.

Ray, I salute you, please keep voicing you opinion, it means so much to so many.

Seriously, anyone who has digested this debate in detail (since it was announced) can see that the argument against this proposal is more valid than the argument for it. If you are for this pathetic proposal than you can no longer claim to be an advocate of web standards, OR an advocate of the *open web*. The facts here are simple, the facts here are not hard to digest at all, this is nothing more than Microsoft playing the gatekeeper, and their key resides in a new non standard masked by a meta tag.

If you think this pathetic proposal sounds reasonable than you a sorely mistaken, why? Because this meta tag will be abused in every way you can (and can’t) imagine, but not just by web developers who couldn’t care less, by people who want to exploit weaknesses, by people who simply don’t know better, BUT worst of all by the very people who made it a reality. If you need any proof of that statement you need only look at the web of the past, not to mention every piece of closed software ever written, if there is a way, there is a will and this key provides too many cretins with a way!

I for one refuse for one second to believe that Microsoft mean well by forcing this new aid (AKA: key to the gate of the closed web) on the emerging web. They mean only to bolster their position as the number 1 market shareholder by stifling the ability for the web to mature at the rate expected by users, developers and businesses. By all means I will support Microsoft if just for once they will support us (the developers), the very people who for 6 years (minimum) have helped them save face by manipulating their malformed/retarded browsers to allow the very people who give them the market share (that they still enjoy to this day) an enjoyable experience on the open web.

We did not break the web, yet to this day we a forced by one corporation to do their dirty work, enough is enough, we have covered their arse for too long, this key they are offering is hollow and we all know it, even those that assert blind support for this proposal know it in their heart to be nothing more than an empty promise, one we have endured long enough.

Microsoft: it’s high time you started to give us some slack, we have backed you up for too long, we have given you enough chances to make things right, and we are simply tired of carrying you any longer. For once in you feeble life…

STAND ON YOU OWN TWO FEET

Just to be sure I’m not taken out of context here, I personally believe the IE dev team are truly trying to correct the mistakes of the past and for that they have my deepest respect. However it is my opinion that the Microsoft “big wigs/marketing engine” are pulling the strings, and for that I truly am discouraged, it is my humble opinion that the web of today/the future is no place for money grabbing so and so’s; Unless they are willing to truly embrace it.

No… Adding a meta tag is not embracing the future, but for the sake of the MS business brains that don’t understand why, it’s simple… When the market doesn’t require you to improve you will simply leave us in the stone age once again, and this will never change until you truly understand the needs of your supporters and consumers. I really do hope that message sinks in (though I seriously doubt it).

My greatest respect to all those in opposition to this proposal, may our voice be heard (even by our own peers who for the most part seem to have turned their backs on us).

And to those who have simply adopted this as progress, may you see the error of your ways. Zeldman, Gustafson et al, I sincerely hope you wake up out of the dream world you have entered, your light is fading and that truly is a very sad proposition for the future of “our” open web.

Cheers!

posted at 03:55 pm on February 21, 2008 by Nathan Kelly

234 Untitled

@ Kip Kniskern: If I’m getting this right, FireFox et al would render the site correctly, but IE would not. Isn’t this, then, just a wide open door for website developers, rather than including the meta tag, to include instead a “Get Firefox� icon and a message: “This site renders well in everything but IE�?

Believe me Kip, there are many who would walk this path in one second, but you have to remember that most of us are “by definition” professionals, meaning we serve others, and as such the market share pretty much dictates what we can and can’t do (i.e. clients don’t like telling people to go away and come back later with a new browser).

Therefore MS has us over a barrel unless there is an industry wide movement against it, which is not really feasible considering at least 50% of developers out there don’t care about standards because they don’t have to (they just code for IE… hence our dilemma).

Cheers!

posted at 04:04 pm on February 21, 2008 by Nathan Kelly

235 Untitled

I have just re-read some of the comments here and read more blog responses elsewhere, I hope my first comment didn’t discount anyone, I am very aware that there are a lot of people (other than Ray) who are very passionate about this issue while maintaining a solid understanding of the underlying factors in play here.

I just want you all to know that I am also passionately supporting the opposition to this idea and singling out one particular voice was not particularly ideal on my part, I do apologise. Please keep standing your ground on this subject, don’t let this become a stagnate “blog topic of the moment”. This is the most important issue the web standards movement has “ever” faced and it should not be left to pass without logical opposition.

Cheers!

posted at 05:37 pm on February 21, 2008 by Nathan Kelly

236 Looks fine to me

This proposal seems to be saying that Microsoft will guarantee to web developers to retain backwards compatibility in their browser engine, as they release new versions. If a developer wants to “lock” their IE hacks to a specific version and not develop new ones as soon as each update is released then they can use this tag to ensure that all users receive a predictable experience. Other browser developers could take the same approach if they wished. The web developer then has time to explore what new hacks they need for the latest browser and release them when fully tested.

We are in this position because browser developers have differed in their interpretation of standards, even from version to version of their own code. (Microsoft perhaps more than others.) That legacy of different interpretations will be with us for some time to come – and perhaps always. It is a pipe dream to assume that all browsers will implement all standards in exactly the same way and that all users will upgrade in step as soon as a new standard is released.

I doubt that – even on a corporate intranet – anyone would lock their code to IE.7 and simply leave it there. At some point, even Microsoft will have to drop support for old rendering models, otherwise their browser code will be so bloated it will be bigger than the operating system.

posted at 11:20 am on March 1, 2008 by Steven Wheeler

237 User choice

PS – I would hope that users of IE.8 and above can choose, themselves, to have their browser ignore the new X-UA meta tag and always try to interpret a site in standards-optimum mode. Perhaps Microsoft can offer a toolbar button that toggles quickly between these modes. Given this, I think most users would opt for standards-optimum as their default and only toggle “down” if a site did not render well.

posted at 12:24 pm on March 1, 2008 by Steven Wheeler

238 Fine, but only as a last resort

We should not be giving, meaning the web developers community should not be giving, browser vendors the chance to screw things up carlessly in the future. What’s the point of standards otherwise? What they have to do now is do their best to support the latest standards, and then NOT break appart with them in future versions of their browsers. That is the way to make sure that our standards compliant sites will still look appropriattely in the future. And no other meassure, policy or complexity should be forced uppon us.

Now, having said that, it’s fine to give developers – that built sites targeting browsers that were not standards compliant – the opportunity to place an easy but temporary fix so that their work doesn’t look al messed up while they work on a permanent fix.

That’s how I find the new meta tag could be usefull.

If the practice ever got widespread as the article proposes, we’d end up with bloated instalation files, getting bigger every time a new broser version comes along, because the file has to contain all the legacy rendeing engines.

Now there is only one vendor, Microsoft, that needs to pack only the most critical rendering engines those of IE5, IE6 and IE7. Start supporting standards appropriately with IE8 and forget about it from then on.

For us developpers, the meta tag should be absolutely optional, so that we can take full advantage of progressive enhancement.

posted at 12:05 am on March 3, 2008 by Jose Saenz

239 Where is the problem？

If one doesn’t want to use the meta-tag, fine, don’t use it. If the desired result of a new version being released that renders differently than previous releases being the breaking of a site, so be it, just don’t use the meta-tag. See that a page is now broken fix it, move on.

No one is forcing anyone to use the tag and those not using the tag will receive the same result as they always have.

Personally, though, I’ll “fix” my sites so that IE-8 doesn’t puke on them, which I already know it does, the same way that I had to “hack” IE-6 and IE-7 to behave, using Conditional Comments.

As for browsers potentially end up becoming bloat-ware, it will likely only ever be IE that ends up bloated because no other browser, that I know of, has so many different views of the same standard that IE has.

Craig

posted at 09:32 am on March 7, 2008 by Craig Schultz

240 Let's break the IE compatibility

Let’s kill Internet Explorer.

This is a proposal to all sane web-developers out there, who are not willing to cope with the nonsense Microsoft is imposing on us.

We have control, why don’t we use it for the sake of good?

Let’s implement one last browser-specific IE-related hack on ALL OF OUR PAGES – let’s break the IE compatibility.

It’s obvious to me now, that the so called end-users do not have responsibility to alter the web. We were preaching about abandoning IE for years now with no (Opera) or moderate (Firefox) success. Average Joe couldn’t care less for web standarts. And it’s not his responsibility to care about them either. But make no mistake – he WILL benefit. I don’t have to spell why for you. If you’re reading this text, you allready know why.

Internet Explorer is on life support now. And it’s us who were keeping it alive all this time. It draws our blood. Time to pull the plug

Imagine this picture: all the pages all over the internet refuse to accept a user agent known as Internet Explorer. It’ll be painful yes, but think about it for a moment. A cleansing is required to break that cursed circle. W3C introduced DOCTYPE to handle quirks/standarts, yet IE broke it. That was an act of good will form our side, they just spited in our faces in return. Now they’re planning on imposing even more diversity by using the IE-specific meta-tag, which LOCKS your site to a specific browser version. Enough is Enough

Think about all those hours (and days!) you spent hacking your 100% standart-complaint pages, making them WORSE, inserting bloated code, unnecessary Javascript and what not. Just take a moment and think about them. That situation was never normal, and it’s not going to be any better. Unless we do something

The most popular argument for IE support goes like this: It has the most market share, therefore not supporting it is stupid. That is true of course, so why aren’t we doing anything to change it? People at Mozilla can spend only so much money in their firefox ad-campaigns, it will never work to the full extent. Something should motivate a user to upgrade. I say, the ‘day-internet-stood-still’ will motivate them! And yes, I think that will only take a day. In a 24-hour period everyone will get himself a brand new browser

Personally, from this day on, I’m not going to support IE in any of my web projects. If my employer disagrees, I quit. Some things are more important then money. We’re talking about Freedom here. Sometimes you have to make a sacrifice for a greater cause.
But if we all do that in one day (that will require some organization among the web developers, but isn’t that what internet is all about? Can’t we put a countdown/sign up site/blog somewhere to manage it?).. If we all do that in one day, on a set date, then it won’t even be a sacrifice. It’s funny if you think about it. We had that option for YEARS, but for some reason we were bending over for Microsoft downgrading our own code. But I feel a change. I feel the web is more united then ever. I feel that we do have a common agenda, a common reason, a common goal. We totally can do it !

Have you ever saw “This page only works with Internet Explorer” banner, basicly denying your standart-compatible browser an access to the content. Well, how about we do the reverse? How about “This page works with everything other then Internet Explorer” banner?

Yes, IE-hacking became a skill of it’s own (sadly) and many of us are even proud of how they can abuse IE to behave like it had to in the first place. But a job of web developer was never to cope with the ridiculous bugs in Microsoft software. It’s not just one bug, the whole browser is broken.
It’s time to end this nonsense.

vital (dot) driedfruit (at) gmail.com is my email.

• Spread the word. — not among users, but among fellow web developers!
• Set a date. — for maximized effect
• Gain support. — find out if we’re really taking the web back or just loosing our jobs.

• Do your part. — you control the web sites, you know what to do.

It’ll be a lot like a revolution, but with some MAJOR differences:

• When plotting a real revolution you can’t set a date and ask for signatures. You can’t even be sure there’s a following. Well, we’re on internet, we CAN be sure.
• No guns or fighting required. No chance of being killed.

• We will definitely win. After the switch from IE is done, there’s no going back.

See Also
What’s wrong with IE

posted at 12:44 pm on March 7, 2008 by Vitaly Driedfruit