Flipping the IE 8 Kill Switch
|
News Commentary. Yesterday, I opined that Microsoft's IE 8 meta tag approach is no different than using DOCTYPE to load browser-specific pages. Maybe it's time for Microsoft to reconsider the approach. |
Unless Microsoft changes its IE 8 tagging plans, there will be massive Web design/browser fragmentation. The chaos would be bad for anyone using the Web, but potentially good for Microsoft maintaining its dominant browser position.
Recap: For years, Web designers have used DOCTYPE tags to load pages specific to Internet Explorer 6, which lagged behind in standards support. Other browsers use the tags, too, for different modes, such as "quirks" for ensuring backward compatibility. Microsoft made IE 7 more standards compliant but in the process broke many applications calling on HTML code or Web sites. About 40 hours ago, Chris Wilson, Microsoft's IE platform architect, blogged about plans to use a meta tag switch as a means of directing Web pages to IE 8, or not.
This morning, Don MacAskill, SmugMug CEO, offered up a stinging reproach of Microsoft's approach:
"Pages and sites that are likely to care about this are poorly written and poorly maintained. Microsoft created this problem themselves when they let IE6 sit idle for more than half a decade, and now they have to deal with it. Instead of letting someone flag their site as being broken (that's what they're doing), why shouldn't they finally force them to fix their site and improve the browsing experience for everyone (not to mention improve the stability, speed, and maintainability of their codebase)?...Some reasonable adherence to standards and moving things forward is the only thing keeping the web browser mess from descending into pure chaos."
SmugMug happens to be my preferred photo Web site, embracing some of the best attributes of what Web 2.0 should be. SmugMug isn't ad-funded. People pay for the service, which is constantly enhanced. What's that saying about getting what you pay for? More importantly, SmugMug is notoriously standards compliant. That said, MacAskill runs a decidedly Mac shop. His loyalties there are on record, and SmugMug even offers up pages formatted for iPhone.
No surprise, the WebKit gang griped about the IE 8 compatibility switch over at the Surfin' Safari Weblog. I was quite surprised by the post, which could have generated some anti-Microsoft FUD but really doesn't. The WebKit gang acknowledged using a "quirks mode" but warned that too many modes is problematic. The reason, which is somewhat self-serving because of the iPhone: mobile devices. "The extra code (possibly whole extra copies of the engine, at the very least a whole lot of extra if statements) would be a significant burden on mobile devices," according to the post.
Bottom line:
"While we sympathize with the tough road that the IE team has to travel to achieve a high degree of standards compliance, we haven't really experienced the same problem...We don't see a great need to implement version targeting in Safari. We think maintaining multiple versions of the engine would have many downsides for us and little upside. The IE team is, of course, under different constraints and free to make their own choices."
Web developer Rachel Andrew mirrors my opinion about Microsoft's tagging switch approach. She writes:
"I believe that it will encourage the practice of developing for specific browsers. A practice we have tried to discourage since the days we all had to build two versions of our sites, one for Netscape and one for IE. It will also mean that the large number of developers who code solely for Internet Explorer and who, in the last couple of years, have been forced to update their methods due to IE 7 having better standards support can now code purely for a specific version of IE, thus leaving large chunks of the web frozen in time—not taking advantage of improvements that would benefit all of their users."
I remember the days of designing Web sites for Internet Explorer or Netscape. Problem: IE never really ended the problem because of the need to use DOCTYPE as a means of advancing Web design even while Microsoft's browser lagged behind.
Andrew makes a chilling observation:
"However it gets worse..if you have used a CSS feature currently unsupported in IE7, when IE 8 comes out—despite it supporting that feature—it won't render your page with it as it will be rendering as IE 7. I know this sounds bizarre, but IE8 will only render your pages as IE 8 if you tell it to. There is the ability to set IE=edge so you get the terrifying unknown thing that is the latest version of the browser, but how many people will know or care enough to do this?"
What are Microsoft's real objectives here? I ask, because to me they are suspect. Wilson argues that the new "http-equiv='X-UA-Compatible'" switch is a necessary compromise to ensure backwards compatibility while allowing Microsoft's browser to better adhere to Web standards. But the approach really requires adherence to an IE standard that benefits Microsoft's dominant Web browser.
I would like to see Microsoft educating Web designers and developers about writing to standards supporting any browsing engine. I find it ironic that by default Microsoft's Expression Web creates standards-based Web pages that IE 7 might gag on.
I ask: Is the IE 8 switch a competing browser kill switch? I put the question to you. Please offer your answer in this post's comments.
Related Posts:
- IE Struggles to be Compatible, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 22, 2008
- The New European Drama Unfolds, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 14, 2008
- Netscape: AOL Buries the Dead, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 2, 2008
- IE 8 and the New Browser War, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 20, 2007
- IE 8: What's In a Name?, Microsoft Watch, Dec. 5, 2007
- Who Jacked My Browser to Google?, Microsoft Watch, Nov. 29, 2007
- Why Did Microsoft Set IE 7 Free?, Microsoft Watch, Oct. 5, 2007
- Do We Really Need Another Web Browser?, Microsoft Watch, June 11, 2007
- IE 7 Gives the Green Light, Microsoft Watch, Feb. 6, 2007
- Will IE 7 Perception Problems Hurt Vista?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 23, 2007
- Is Internet Explorer 7 Too Locked Down for You?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 19, 2007
- Are IE 7 Installations Counting Up or Down?, Microsoft Watch, Jan. 16, 2007
Comments (11)
Andrew makes a chilling observation:
"However it gets worse..if you have used a CSS feature currently unsupported in IE7, when IE 8 comes out—despite it supporting that feature—it won't render your page with it as it will be rendering as IE 7. I know this sounds bizarre, but IE8 will only render your pages as IE 8 if you tell it to. There is the ability to set IE=edge so you get the terrifying unknown thing that is the latest version of the browser, but how many people will know or care enough to do this?"
Joe;
Thanks for the heads up and I suspected this, I really did and I wonder how bad that IE 8.0 will twist my sites up. I guess, I'll find out soon enough!
Posted by Douglas S. Taylor | January 23, 2008 3:39 PM
If other web developers are like me, we will likely create the main content for the non-IE browsers, then send the IE tag with perhaps an additional stylesheet to IE. This would not likely create any problem for non-IE browsers.
However, it is unlikely that all web developers are like me.
Posted by Phil | January 23, 2008 4:58 PM
44 more days until I-Menst/criminal portuno has to find a new delusion and something else to carry on the fantasy that VCSY will survive the year without going bankrupt.
No wonder the price of VCSY stock is still falling. No wonder his pump-and-dump stock scam is such a failure.
Posted by Tom Berber | January 23, 2008 5:12 PM
Joe,
I haven't even finished the article yet but must take a short reading break to exclaim - Halle-freaking-lujah! - someone else thinks like me!
I'm so glad i'm not the only one who would rather pay for web services rather than giving up my privacy or being ad-bombed or whatever the next back-handed revenue generation scheme might be.
I only wish more people would think like this so that more web services would work on a paid model...
Posted by whatever | January 23, 2008 6:08 PM
I don't understand the underlying problem, although I read both of the articles on alistapart.
I am webmaster of 1,600 of the "billions and billions" of web pages that might be broken by IE8, although none of my pages were broken by IE7 or FF2.
Are the "billions" Chris Wilson is referring to the pages that were commissioned/hacked by owners/consultants and now these owners/constultants are to poor/stupid to undo their IE6-specific hacks?
Are these web purists telling us on one hand that they are currently going blind writing IE6 hacks and on the other hand that they don't have the time/patience/aptitude to insert a single meta tag into their template or master page that will eliminate the need for hacks in IE8?
I have spent the last year getting my 1,600 pages within shouting distance of XHTML transitional. Would I like to see IE7 a skosh closer to FF2? Yes. Do I want to spend another year trying to meet the next hurdle .. and the next? Probably not. I guess I'll just have to settle for XHTML transitional.
Folks who want pixel level control need to get over HTML/CSS and move to Flash or Silverlight.
Posted by roger | January 23, 2008 7:49 PM
so whats wrong with Windows Internet Explorer 8...?
Posted by puppet | January 23, 2008 9:07 PM
Did you read the Surfin' Safari blog?
They have *tons* of modes. They even have a Dashboard-compatibility mode "that has a few extra quirks beyond quirks mode, to handle Dashboard widgets that were coded to depend on old WebKit bugs."
Wow. They felt that backwards compatibility with a few hundred (dozen?) Dashboard widgets was sufficient reason to have a Dashboard-compatibility mode, and yet you give IE crap for trying to protect having a compatibility mode to keep *millions* of pages working correctly?
You think it's *easy* to create compatibility modes? Of course not -- it's *hard* to keep compatibility with sites while attempting to do what everyone is asking for by supporting standards. The IE team is making things twice as hard for themselves by doing this just so that *you* don't get inconvenienced by a site that was designed for IE7 doesn't break, and so that the site designers don't have to run around updating all of their sites to work with IE8.
Posted by Bob | January 23, 2008 9:23 PM
Microsoft is in no position to put out a "competing browser kill switch". All they've managed to achieve, with IE6-versus-IE7-versus-IE8 and XP-versus-Vista, is fragment their own dominance, and thereby weaken it. The more they try to throw their weight around, the less of it they have.
Posted by Lawrence D'Oliveiro | January 24, 2008 1:35 AM
Microsoft has a large part of the blame on the. The standards commited as well. However, let's not point only fingers on Microsoft. All browsers even today have significant incompatibilites, but it's not that much of the problem if they have 0.3% of the market.
Posted by evan | January 24, 2008 2:26 AM
I would strongly recommend that anyone with VCSY sell. VCSY is in trouble and a couple non-enforceable patents is not going to save them. Check this out. It comes from VCSY itself, so we know criminal portuno/i-menst cannot refute it.
Most of what's worth reporting about VCSY is contained in its latest 10-Q. You can find it at:
http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/fetc...
This is the report where VCSY talks about its negative cash flow and how its debts are many times its assets. That report also offers choice tidbits like:
The Company has suffered significant recurring operating losses, used substantial funds in its operations, and needs to raise additional funds to accomplish its objectives. Negative stockholders’ equity at September 30, 2007 was approximately $19 million. Additionally, at September 30, 2007 , the Company had negative working capital of approximately $12.4 million (although it includes deferred revenue of approximately $2.1 million) and has defaulted or is delinquent on several of its debt obligations. These conditions raise substantial doubt about the Company’s ability to continue as a going concern.
...
Management of the Company is continuing its efforts to attempt to secure funds through equity and/or debt instruments for its operations, expansion and possible acquisitions, mergers, joint ventures, and/or other business combinations. The Company will require additional funds for its operations and to pay down its liabilities, as well as finance its expansion plans consistent with the Company’s anticipated changes in operations and infrastructure. >>
also
>
In summary, the company has been losing money consistently. It has not paid its payroll taxes. The 10-Q also shows that the company is in default on many loans. Read it carefully. It shows in exceuciating detail why criminal portuno is so desperate.
Posted by Criminal Portuno | January 24, 2008 8:44 AM
I suspect that IE8 will be another half hearted attempt to outsmart the EU like it did with the no windows media player edition of Windows XP. While it could render some pages correctly, it will default to IE7, which really keeps the lockin working just fine, but is an attempt to show the EU; "see we really are doing something."
Expect IE9, future Office and Windows to be highly regulated with regards to standards and interoperability by the EU. Whatever MS releases in the short term future will be half hearted and only for the purpose of PR and to increase its lockinware, while it still can.
Posted by chips | January 25, 2008 1:06 PM