<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:itunes="http://www.itunes.com/dtds/podcast-1.0.dtd"
	xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Painful Web Standard Decision from IE</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/</link>
	<description>Open Source Buddhism</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Mar 2010 17:10:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Web Developer Notes &#187; Blog Archive &#187; IE8 versioning snowstorm</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-225836</link>
		<dc:creator>Web Developer Notes &#187; Blog Archive &#187; IE8 versioning snowstorm</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 May 2008 13:49:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-225836</guid>
		<description>[...] Painful Web Standard Decision from IE [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Painful Web Standard Decision from IE [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-151574</link>
		<dc:creator>Al</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:50:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-151574</guid>
		<description>I had seen people assume that from comments that you&#039;ve made, Chris, but it is good to have it explicitly confirmed. That will make life easier once we all start marking things as HTML5... :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I had seen people assume that from comments that you&#8217;ve made, Chris, but it is good to have it explicitly confirmed. That will make life easier once we all start marking things as HTML5&#8230; :-)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-151569</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Feb 2008 19:40:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-151569</guid>
		<description>Al,
   as I&#039;ve said publicly, new unknown DOCTYPEs (such as HTML5) will trigger IE8 standards mode, so future standards will have the best behavior available.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Al,<br />
   as I&#8217;ve said publicly, new unknown DOCTYPEs (such as HTML5) will trigger IE8 standards mode, so future standards will have the best behavior available.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-140135</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 27 Jan 2008 16:17:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-140135</guid>
		<description>I&#039;d like to see Firefox (and others) implement something like this, if only to override the doctype switch, so that I wouldn&#039;t have to include it anymore, giving me a singular quirks mode for IE 7 and below, and a singular standards mode for IE 8, Mozilla, Webkit, Opera, and what not.

I can currently see a problem where I add a quirks mode doctype for oldIE, that then in turn triggers Firefox&#039;s quirks mode. Or, adding a strict doctype, and having IE 6 and 7 to deal with, though maybe there is a doctype that triggers quirks in IE 7 that doesn&#039;t affect standards compliant browsers?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;d like to see Firefox (and others) implement something like this, if only to override the doctype switch, so that I wouldn&#8217;t have to include it anymore, giving me a singular quirks mode for IE 7 and below, and a singular standards mode for IE 8, Mozilla, Webkit, Opera, and what not.</p>
<p>I can currently see a problem where I add a quirks mode doctype for oldIE, that then in turn triggers Firefox&#8217;s quirks mode. Or, adding a strict doctype, and having IE 6 and 7 to deal with, though maybe there is a doctype that triggers quirks in IE 7 that doesn&#8217;t affect standards compliant browsers?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-138330</link>
		<dc:creator>Al</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:33:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-138330</guid>
		<description>Microsoft isn&#039;t going to come out and say anything like what you are suggesting. From their point of view, even if they were going to do it, they have no incentive to say so at this time, years before it is necessary. Micrsoft (and IE specifically) never pre-announces anything it isn&#039;t required to in order to avoid being boxed in by earlier statements and promises.

I say rip the band-aid off right now and get it over with. This is only delaying the day that it happens, not solving the problem.

I will point out that a successful Firefox created those Google dollars (for the Mozilla Corporation), not the other way around. It is a misperception to think that Google had anything to do with the initial creation of Firefox or with the earlier Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation, which owns MoCo, existed without any of those dollars being present and worked on Firefox, with the larger Mozilla community supporting and contributing much of the work because they believed in it, for a long time without Google. Google is hardly the only source of revenue for MoCo as well. It is simply the largest source. 

An important point, at least to me.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Microsoft isn&#8217;t going to come out and say anything like what you are suggesting. From their point of view, even if they were going to do it, they have no incentive to say so at this time, years before it is necessary. Micrsoft (and IE specifically) never pre-announces anything it isn&#8217;t required to in order to avoid being boxed in by earlier statements and promises.</p>
<p>I say rip the band-aid off right now and get it over with. This is only delaying the day that it happens, not solving the problem.</p>
<p>I will point out that a successful Firefox created those Google dollars (for the Mozilla Corporation), not the other way around. It is a misperception to think that Google had anything to do with the initial creation of Firefox or with the earlier Mozilla Foundation. The Foundation, which owns MoCo, existed without any of those dollars being present and worked on Firefox, with the larger Mozilla community supporting and contributing much of the work because they believed in it, for a long time without Google. Google is hardly the only source of revenue for MoCo as well. It is simply the largest source. </p>
<p>An important point, at least to me.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: pd</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-138327</link>
		<dc:creator>pd</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Jan 2008 05:26:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-138327</guid>
		<description>Hi Al

I see your point about creating a multi-mode, infinite level scenario. It took me a while to take this in. 

I suppose my answer to that concern is that there is an issue of sites written for non-standards. They were written in an environment where there was no need to conform to standards other than the proprietary ones imposed by, but supported market-wide via a near-universal market share, IE6. 

Now that remained the case for a long time in web years. Microsoft essentially said to developers: here&#039;s the web as a frozen APi, with ActiveX as a bonus! (haha) and developers said, you beauty. We have to remember that Microsoft&#039;s monopoly is not the only reason that IE6 dominated the market. There was no alternative until a viable Firefox turned up on the back of Google&#039;s dollars. Genuine developers had every right to code for IE6 in all it&#039;s evil glory. Should Microsoft abandon those people after what, two years (in their terms) of heading down a standards compliance route? I don&#039;t think that&#039;s all that reasonable.

Therefore the key is that this &#039;version targeting&#039; has to be a one-version-wonder. The idea of the browser vendor market agreeing to a triple+ standards support environment is madness.

MS should come out and say that whenever IE9 comes about, they will revert to a twin-render-mode model. That way those who have refused to update their IE6 code within approximately a 5 year time frame (from first new of IE7 until delivery of IE9) can reasonably be told to get nodded.

There&#039;s a balance issue. Don&#039;t kill IE6-developed sites just yet, but kill IE6 and add great standards support. That&#039;s what they are doing. 

The more developers actually see IE6 disappearing from desktops (something that STILL isn&#039;t happening despute IE7&#039;s significant public lifetime), they will start looking forward and the only option these antiquated developers will see is heading down the standards road.

As much as I hate the idea, allowing Microsoft to maintain some &#039;face&#039; to all those developers they conned into loving IE6, whilst gently, slowly moving towards standards, is better than Microsoft sticking their heads in the sand, which they did for many years.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Al</p>
<p>I see your point about creating a multi-mode, infinite level scenario. It took me a while to take this in. </p>
<p>I suppose my answer to that concern is that there is an issue of sites written for non-standards. They were written in an environment where there was no need to conform to standards other than the proprietary ones imposed by, but supported market-wide via a near-universal market share, IE6. </p>
<p>Now that remained the case for a long time in web years. Microsoft essentially said to developers: here&#8217;s the web as a frozen APi, with ActiveX as a bonus! (haha) and developers said, you beauty. We have to remember that Microsoft&#8217;s monopoly is not the only reason that IE6 dominated the market. There was no alternative until a viable Firefox turned up on the back of Google&#8217;s dollars. Genuine developers had every right to code for IE6 in all it&#8217;s evil glory. Should Microsoft abandon those people after what, two years (in their terms) of heading down a standards compliance route? I don&#8217;t think that&#8217;s all that reasonable.</p>
<p>Therefore the key is that this &#8216;version targeting&#8217; has to be a one-version-wonder. The idea of the browser vendor market agreeing to a triple+ standards support environment is madness.</p>
<p>MS should come out and say that whenever IE9 comes about, they will revert to a twin-render-mode model. That way those who have refused to update their IE6 code within approximately a 5 year time frame (from first new of IE7 until delivery of IE9) can reasonably be told to get nodded.</p>
<p>There&#8217;s a balance issue. Don&#8217;t kill IE6-developed sites just yet, but kill IE6 and add great standards support. That&#8217;s what they are doing. </p>
<p>The more developers actually see IE6 disappearing from desktops (something that STILL isn&#8217;t happening despute IE7&#8217;s significant public lifetime), they will start looking forward and the only option these antiquated developers will see is heading down the standards road.</p>
<p>As much as I hate the idea, allowing Microsoft to maintain some &#8216;face&#8217; to all those developers they conned into loving IE6, whilst gently, slowly moving towards standards, is better than Microsoft sticking their heads in the sand, which they did for many years.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: תומר כהן</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-138080</link>
		<dc:creator>תומר כהן</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 21:21:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-138080</guid>
		<description>[...] ההמצאה החדשה של מייקרוסופט - קוד מיוחד שיוטמע בדף וירמוז לדפדפן באיזה סביבה הוא אמור לעבוד. לכאורה, מייקרוסופט הולכים לכיוון של תקנים וזה כבר שינוי מרענן, אבל דבר אחד הברנשים עם העניבות מרדמונד מתקשים להבין - בשביל להיות תקניים צריכים להשתמש בתקנים. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] ההמצאה החדשה של מייקרוסופט &#8211; קוד מיוחד שיוטמע בדף וירמוז לדפדפן באיזה סביבה הוא אמור לעבוד. לכאורה, מייקרוסופט הולכים לכיוון של תקנים וזה כבר שינוי מרענן, אבל דבר אחד הברנשים עם העניבות מרדמונד מתקשים להבין &#8211; בשביל להיות תקניים צריכים להשתמש בתקנים. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Al</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-137973</link>
		<dc:creator>Al</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:47:25 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-137973</guid>
		<description>James, it isn&#039;t really clear. I suppose when the IE team finally gets around to letting people play with a build, we can all find out.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>James, it isn&#8217;t really clear. I suppose when the IE team finally gets around to letting people play with a build, we can all find out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: James</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-137963</link>
		<dc:creator>James</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:24:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-137963</guid>
		<description>Sam Ruby quotes Chris Wilson saying the HTML5 doctype will trigger standards mode: http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/23/Sunsetting-Quirks-Mode which seems like a good thing, although it flies in the face of their &quot;doctypes are dead&quot; propoganda.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sam Ruby quotes Chris Wilson saying the HTML5 doctype will trigger standards mode: <a href="http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/23/Sunsetting-Quirks-Mode" rel="nofollow">http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/23/Sunsetting-Quirks-Mode</a> which seems like a good thing, although it flies in the face of their &#8220;doctypes are dead&#8221; propoganda.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Opera, Mozilla and Safari react to IE&#8217;s solution for browser compatibility issues</title>
		<link>http://www.openbuddha.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/comment-page-1/#comment-137955</link>
		<dc:creator>Opera, Mozilla and Safari react to IE&#8217;s solution for browser compatibility issues</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 23 Jan 2008 17:00:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.arcanology.com/2008/01/22/painful-web-standard-decision-from-ie/#comment-137955</guid>
		<description>[...] Mozilla QA Engineer (Read more)  “This new mode, and the change to standards mode within IE, just enables IE to continue to hold [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Mozilla QA Engineer (Read more)  “This new mode, and the change to standards mode within IE, just enables IE to continue to hold [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
