31 backwards compatiblity

So how will previous versions of browsers handle things when they see a page marked as using a greater version number? How will IE8 handle a page that is marked as IE9?

This solution seems to only be a crutch to help with backwards compatibility between versions 6-8. I can’t see how the approach will help with versions 9+.

posted at 04:35 pm on January 22, 2008 by Brian LePore

32 Interesting but probably a bit too optimistic

I must admit that I have different feelings on this suggested approach.

On one hand I can see the use of a way to preserve the site in a manner as it has been designed and implemented even some years furter in the future (think about campaign sites that are not developed further when they are done).

On the other hand I do agree with others that it most likely is un-doable to ship new browser versions with a couple of legacy versions to support old sites. There are various reasons why this is not easy to do for browser vendors, but I will just highlight the big 2:

File size:
Every new browser version will carry at least 2 older versions with it making the distributable much bigger. This will make the threshold for low bandwidth regions like Asia and Afrika to adapt new browsers even higher then it already is (which is the reasons why IE6 is still a very big player worldwide).

Browser start-up time:
When each request to a site tells the browser to run in a differnet version it probably will not be uncommon to have the browser spin off multiple processed running an older version of the browser making the rendering time to view a site much higher. Also this will slow down the machine which again is the biggest problem in less evolved IT regions like Asia and Afrika. IE might solve this problem by adding all supported versions to the OS start-up process, making that slower again.

And as a last comment I have to admit that we have not had many problems for the company that I work for to make sites work in IE6, IE7, FF2, Safari 2 and Opera 9. Usually we only have to add aditional logic for IE6 and that only runs when accessed by an instance of IE6.

Conclusion:
I like the idea, and in theorie it could have it’s benefits, but in reality I do see far too many obstacles in the way for this to ever reach the production environment.

posted at 04:57 pm on January 22, 2008 by Donovan van der Roest

33 Typical Microsoft...

“The solution you guys all came up with was great but we want to dominant like we did with Windows. So… Rather than fixing our browser to work like everything else we’ll invent something new so you have to go and change everything. Wooo go us!”

How about they just change the damned box-model problem and we can all get on creating new stuff rather than adapting our perfectly good code to suit Microsoft’s browsers?

Two words… Web and Standards

posted at 05:06 pm on January 22, 2008 by Jon Harvey

34

First we get doctype, now we get an extra meta. What’s next.
Why not adjust the doctype and put this info there?

posted at 05:25 pm on January 22, 2008 by jerone vw

35 code to standards, not browsers

I want to code to standards, not browser versions.

The ideal web is a web where you don’t have to think about differences between browsers – because there are none. Now Microsoft is moving away from that ideal by introducing another rendering trigger, while there should be only one.

A strict doctype should trigger standard-compliant rendering for all browsers. Until IE is not fully compliant (hopefully that won’t take too long), I’m all for <!—[if IE N]>.

posted at 05:26 pm on January 22, 2008 by Blaise Kal

36 Untitled

I’ve read what Microsoft had to say, I’ve read both articles here, I’ve read Anne van Kesteren’s post, and now I’ve read through the comments up till now.

The one thing thing that finalized my thoughts was what Blaise Kal just wrote, “I want to code to standards, not browser versions.”

I’m sorry, but this is a sad day in web development.

posted at 05:42 pm on January 22, 2008 by Neil Cadsawan

37

Is keeping the exact rendering engine of older browser versions REALLY that important in displaying older websites?

Most of the content will still display in some from or another in future browsers, if it doesn’t, just turn off the styles! If the exact rendering is important (which it really shouldn’t be in most cases), then yes, people who care enough can boot up their virtual PCs and load it up in the browser it was intended for.

Keeping an ever-increasing stack of rendering engines in a browser just for a small percentage of cases (which most of the time will display well enough anyway) seems like madness to me.

I’m wondering if this is actually a test by the upper-level standardistas. “Will you go with something stupid just because we endorse it, or will you use your common sense and renounce it?” Still, I’ll try to keep an open mind.

Oh, and one last thing…shouldn’t Microsoft have collaborated on this with the W3 as well as WaSP?

posted at 05:42 pm on January 22, 2008 by Alexis Deveria

38 Better solution: application/xml+xhtml

Here’s a better solution: If a document is served as application/xml+xhtml and validates as XHTML (any version), render it strictly according to that standard (using the new IE8 standards-compliant mode). Otherwise, behave like IE7. This is the best of both world: The current web behaves as-is and developers who are moving forward get full support for standards.

posted at 05:53 pm on January 22, 2008 by Liam Morland

39 Standards are optional again!

I reached the end of the article and thought “I must’ve missed something, I must’ve misunderstood”.

I then read the comments and, no, it really is as stupid as it first appeared:

1. we’re imposing on browser-makers to provide increasingly bloated applications to service obsolete rendering standards

2. we’re encouraging web developers to take the easy route and produce sites that favour a particular browser – so much easier than coding to W3C standards … hey! We can all go back to using Front Page Express!

WaSP, Zeldman, Molly, et al just took a major nosedive in credibility for clear thinking – although this is exactly the sort of ‘feature’ we’ve come to expect from MS.

We’ve had enough of needing hacks for MS … and now they’re adding more. [expletive] idiots.

posted at 05:58 pm on January 22, 2008 by David One

40 It's that mantra thing.

What’s the problem with breaking badly designed sites? A car that’s not road worthy is kept away from the road.

The mantra for MS shouldn’t have been “Don’t break the web” when it’s already broken, it should have been “Let’s fix the web”. And if that means that some sites won’t work properly on newer versions of IE, then so be it. Web owners will have to update their sites, as they no doubt do every once in a while anyway.

posted at 06:14 pm on January 22, 2008 by Roberto Baca