Welcome to MSDN Blogs Sign in | Join | Help

Compatibility and IE8

In Dean’s recent Internet Explorer 8 and Acid2: A Milestone post, he highlighted our responsibility to deliver both interoperability (web pages working well across different browsers) and backwards compatibility (web pages working well across different versions of IE). We need to do both, so that IE8 continues to work with the billions of pages on the web today that already work in IE6 and IE7 but also makes the development of the next billion pages (in an interoperable way) much easier. Continuing Dean’s theme, I’d like to talk about some steps we are taking in IE8 to achieve these goals.

I’ve been on the IE team for over a decade, and I’ve seen us apply the “Don’t Break the Web” rule in six different major versions of IE in different ways. In IE 6, we used the DOCTYPE switch to enable different “modes” of behavior to protect compatibility. When we released IE 6 in 2001, very few pages on the web were in “standards mode” (my team ran a report on the top 200 web sites at the time that reported less than 1%) – few people knew what a DOCTYPE was, and few tools generated them. We used the DOCTYPE switch in IE6 to change the box model to comply with the standards and enable developers to opt-in to the new behavior. We’d already seen so much content written to IE5.x’s non-standard interpretation of the CSS2 spec that we couldn’t change it without causing a slew of problems.

In IE7 we made a lot more changes to improve IE’s standards compliance, particularly with CSS. We limited these behavior changes to IE’s “standards mode” only, and we expected that this would help limit compatibility problems as it had in the past.  Unfortunately, and somewhat surprisingly to us, this wasn’t true; many of those changes made IE incompatible with content that was already part of the web. It turned out by the time IE7 shipped in late 2006, roughly half of the top 200 US web sites were in “standards mode”. Many of those sites had been “opted in” to standards mode by a tool that generated their content; many of them had probably been hand-coded by someone who was trying to do the right thing, and make their HTML code valid according to the W3C. Regardless, users of those sites expected them to keep working the same, even when they downloaded a new version of IE.  Unfortunately, that didn’t happen.

But wait, a lot of people say at this point, why isn’t this a problem for Firefox, or Safari, or any other browser? The answer is that developers of many sites had worked around many of the shortcomings or outright errors in IE6, and now expected IE7 to work just like IE6. Web developers expected us, for example, to maintain our model for how content overflows its box, even in “standards mode,” even though it didn’t follow the specification – because they’d already made their content work with our model. In many cases, these sites would have worked better if they had served IE7 the same content and stylesheets they were serving when visited with a non-IE browser, but they had “fixed their content” for IE. Sites didn’t work, and users experienced problems.

In short, there was an expectation that even under standards mode, IE would keep working the same way.  Because sites expected IE6 behavior, the DOCTYPE switch failed to protect compatibility in the real world when we changed behavior under standards mode to become more compliant. We realized that “Don’t Break the Web” should really be translated to “Don’t change what developers expect IE to do for current pages that are already deployed.” (Of course, for content that is developed to a later standard that isn’t deployed yet, you can expect different things.)

With this painful and unexpected lesson under our belt, we worked together with The Web Standards Project (in the WaSP-Microsoft Task Force) on this problem.  I can’t give them enough credit for this work; it’s tough to step into the shoes of a browser vendor that ships to half a billion users to figure out what the best thing to do is, when you really just want to sit down and write code to the standards. We started from a simple statement of “enable (and encourage) interoperable web development, but don’t force IE to break pages that work properly in IE today.” I think we all want to converge to a world where a web developer doesn’t have to spend much time at all testing and recoding their site for different browsers.  At the same time, we can’t break the web experience on current sites for users like my mom, even for as good a reason as improving standards compliance.  With all the great styling and layout changes we’re working on in our new engine for IE8 to be much more standards compliant, that’s a lot of potential breakage. (More details in the near future, but the Acid2 announcement gives you some idea.)

We realized that the model for web development was really “write to the standard, then test against and fix problems in the most popular browsers.”  This meant that the web developer had one crucial piece of information we could make use of – what version of IE they had tested against, and after much discussion in the WaSP-MS task force, we ended up with a <meta>-based “opt-in to the browser version I tested with” strategy. 

Aaron Gustafson, one of the members of the WaSP-Microsoft Task Force wrote an article detailing where we ended up that was posted on A List Apart today; I highly recommend reading it for a different perspective. I’ll summarize, though, that:

  1. “Quirks mode” remains the same, and compatible with current content.
  2. “Standards mode” remains the same as IE7, and compatible with current content.
  3. If you (the page developer) really want the best standards support IE8 can give, you can get it by inserting a simple <meta> element. Aaron gives more details on this in his article.

We believe this approach has the best blend of allowing web developers to easily write code to interoperable web standards while not causing compatibility problems with current content. We also think this approach allows developers to opt in to standards behavior on their own schedule and as it makes sense to them, instead of forcing developers into a responsive mode when a new version of IE has different behavior on their current pages. I’m excited by all the standards work we’re doing in IE8; I’m even more excited that we won’t cause a lot of compatibility problems for our users and web developers.

Chris Wilson
IE Platform Architect

Published Monday, January 21, 2008 9:01 PM by ieblog

Comments

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:13 AM by Rowan

Thanks for posting this, let's spread the news around.

Digg This: http://digg.com/tech_news/IE8_Super_Standards_Mode

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 12:48 AM by Cory Nelson

I wish this wasn't needed, but backward compatibility is important and it does seem like the best solution with that in mind.

I'm curious why a whole working group was needed to come up with such an obvious solution though!

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:06 AM by tShao

It's really no fun to switch the <meta> tag in the source code for the purpose of testing. At least, it could be a switch in IE configuration or IE Developer Toolbar to turn the IE8 standard mode on/off.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 1:48 AM by Xepol

Enough nonsense.  Point the finger where it belongs - squarely on the webdevelopers and site owners for having their heads lodged firmly up their posteriours.

It isn't like they didn't have any notice.  IE7 was in beta for a good long time, the IE team was VERY vocal about what was going on and coming down the pipe.  

I say enough of this bloody nonsense.  Break the bloody web, and maybe, just maybe, we'll finally be able to break free of the morass of the pre-IE7 days.  

Quirks mode be gone.

Just put in standards mode and be done with it so that everyone can more forward to a stable, standard platform and finally be convinced that they need to get off their duffs and fix up their websites for new versions instead of assuming that nothing will change.

Heck, if you want quirks mode, make it so they have to have the meta tag for that.

Trying to fix around the fixes for problems that aren't even there anymore isn't going to do anything but cause more problems.

LET THEM BREAK IF THEY CAN'T BE BOTHERED TO MAINTAIN THEIR SITES!  

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:04 AM by Nemeseri

@Xepol: if they break the compatiblity with older sites they will lost market share instantly.

wow... quirks mode, standards mode, super standards mode... :D

In IE9 we will see the super duper standards mode... this will be the ABBA release... hehe

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:05 AM by jm

This is retarded. If you've learned anything in developing IE, it's that new versions don't encourage developers to use standards. They'll open their site in IE, and see that their IE5 code looks the same now. If it looks the same, then why change coding techniques? I thought IE8 was about advancing the web. I thought advancing the web didn't include stuffing your head with useless meta tags.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:07 AM by EricLaw [MSFT]

@tShao-- Good feedback, thanks.

@Xepol-- If only it were that easy...

Pointing fingers does nothing to help the end user, who just wants the yesterday's content to keep working.

Even assuming that all sites on the Internet have active development teams (a large and incorrect assumption), what is to be done about all of the content which is no longer editable for myriad other reasons (e.g. burned on CD/DVD/etc being the most obvious)?  

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:09 AM by Peter Michaux

It is simple. From the point of view of CSS hacks and JavaScript, kill the IE brand. Call it IF or something but just don't identify as IE anymore and make sure none of the popular sniffs or hacks work. Problem solved. You can still market it as IE. Only developers will notice the difference.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:25 AM by Brandon Bloom

Peter Michaux beat me to it!

If this problem only affects Internet Explorer due to the fact that sites check for the agent string or whatever, then just radically change the agent string!

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:33 AM by Stifu

As some people suggested, I hope you'll make it so the meta tag won't be needed in some cases. Like if the doctype is for an HTML5 document, or if the page is served as application/xml.

That wouldn't break the web at all, and would spare us the extra tag in the future.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:34 AM by Sami

I'd prefer having the superstandards mode on by default. Let the user switch to quirks mode, if the page is not displayed.

IE7 gives an enormous warning about invalid ssl certificates, why not to do the same about invalid markup?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:51 AM by Little Dave

I think the additional meta tag is a very good idea. Another suggestion though, would be the ability to enable ABBA standards mode from external documents, such as CSS files (Maybe in the form of a CSS comment). Then, we don't have to clutter up our HTML with code that isn't necessary.

e.g.

CSS File

/* @IE8:supermode=true */

#normal

{ rules-go:here;

}

And, while I'm here, one more suggestion:

The conditional comments feature of IE6 and 7 is good. It solves a lot of problems. However, it also means we still have to alter our document structure JUST FOR IE. Would it be possible to enable conditional comments directly within our CSS? You already do this with Javascript. Then we don't have to maintain two different CSS documents, which is a right pain in the space between </head> and <body>.

Dave

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 2:55 AM by kimblim

For me personally the best thing would to drop the backwards compatibility and let all the webdevelopers and companies who didn't care about standards pay the price. However, the META-solution seems like a reasonable compromise although by v9 it must time for quirks-mode to die. By that time it will have been at least 8 years since IE6 was launched, and 8 years must be long enough for people to learn about doctypes.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:11 AM by AC

Well, how convenient for you. So what you're saying is that you're going to allow people to write says it's standards compliant when it isn't because you've screwed up in the past. Well, guess what, this is the present and you're screwing up again. You'll "suffer" this decision at some future point when you'll come back with another point and analysis that will justify further leaving the web in a b0rked state. And it's convenient as it continues to keep standards compliant browsers at bay through your monopoly of the market. Good work.

# Ein neuer IE, eine neue Art Standards zu fordern

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:18 AM by TheUndeadable entwickelt

IE 5 -&gt; IE 6: Quirksmode -&gt; Standardsmode per DOCTYPE IE 6 -&gt; IE 7: Es wurden eher nur offensichtliche Bugs in der bisherigen CSS-Implementierung gefixt. IE 7 -&gt; IE 8: Standardsmode -&gt; Best Standardmode per &lt;meta&gt;-Tag http://blogs

# Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:19 AM by DotNetKicks.com

You've been kicked (a good thing) - Trackback from DotNetKicks.com

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:27 AM by M T

I completely agree with Sami - SuperStandards should be ON by default. If IE7/quirks mode is needed, the meta tag should be used.

And backport this meta tag to IE7 and IE6.

This would make a lot more sense.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:31 AM by Rowan

Will it be possible to target IE6 with this new meta tag as well? For instance, using IE8, could we use content="IE=6" to see how the page would look in IE6? I won't complain if it's not implemented, because IE6 should be forgotten anyway.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:32 AM by Yves

Standard should be on by default, or just call your browser 'IE 7 extended'.

You're not going to break anything, all the web works fine on Safari, Firefox, Opera & Co.

What's actually breaking the web are deprecated browsers like yours :)

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:39 AM by virtualblackfox

You guys totally and utterly SUCKs.

I'm bored to add "I want IE to support standards" tags everywhere (DOCTYTPE, meta, what next ??? a special comment <!-- I wish for microsoft to do the right thing at least one time in their life --> ?).

Nice to see that at least IE8 will follow vista with the philosophy : http://garywiz.typepad.com/trial_by_fire/2006/03/windows_vista_p.html

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:47 AM by ruemere

Why not just enable side-by-side install for IE8 and IE7-? Also, allow users for easy switch between rendering engines of these browsers.

IE8's unique agent string - great idea.

Also:

- say NO to full system integration - shell becoming unresponsive due to browser problems is simply unacceptable. This is twenty first century and application should be able to break down without affecting the rest of its environment.

- say YES to multiple sandboxes - one instance of the browser should not affect other instances.

- say YES to user sandbox finally - it's a calamity that web applications require higher priviledges under IE than Mozilla.

Sigh.

Regards,

Ruemere

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:48 AM by Webdesign

I'd prefer having the superstandards mode on by default. Let the user switch to quirks mode, if the page is not displayed.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:55 AM by Eric Eggert

That's just rubbish.

People shouldn’t have to opt in for the best Version of IE. If someone’s expecting IE8 to behave like IE7 he should opt out to IE8s behavior. Many web developers don’t know about Doctype-Switching and struggle with IE5.5s flaws in IE6 and 7. Now you expect them to have knowledge of both: Doctype switching AND IE8 Super Webstandards Compatibilty Mode Like it's 2004?

Microsoft is doing the wrong thing over and over again. There is absolutely no need in having wrong done websites displayed right. Although, I admit, for very old sites there may be a good cause for the quirksmode.

Standards based websites WILL NOT break in a new version of IE. Thats the reason, why they don’t break in all other major browsers, like Firefox and Opera. We use conditional comments to give IE7 and 6 what they need. If the new engine is on par with current browsers no site should break.

Probably Microsoft is doing it’s own type of standards mode? Do we get new incompatibilities to Firefox, Opera, Safari? Is that the reason, why you are promoting this? If not, give us the standards mode every other browser has since ages. If so, i'll advice everybody to use another browser or stay at IE7, which has expected behavior but many shortcomings, because I will not support IE8 anymore.

I will not clutter my HTML with unnecessary proprietary markup, because the IE folks don’t know how to make a decent browser. I won’t even clutter my HTTP header, if that’s an option.

The idea alone is stupid, retarded and not useful at all. It was great to see IE8 passing Acid2 but then you’re coming with such a stupid thing  to enable the browser to do what he was expected to do three years ago. Makes no sense. At all.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 3:55 AM by Steve

Once you have an IE which is standards compliant, or pretty darn close to it, then I don't see a need for the meta tag thing.

What I am most shocked to see, and I hope I am misreading it, is "'Standards mode' remains the same as IE7, and compatible with current content." Why not keep quirks mode as it is, and upgrade standards mode? People (web developers) don't want to deal with three different modes, and they certainly don't want to deal with another line of IE-unique code.

By the way, (sorry to go off-topic) when is SVG coming to IE?

# I hate meta tags

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:07 AM by Takazudo

>Sites didn't work, and users experienced problems

Can't you understand why this happened?

It's because funny behavior like IE6's box overflow model is unfortunately known to all people much more than right CSS2's overflow model now.

I thought that you are testing Acid2 and making IE8 for perfect compatibility with other browsers like FF, Opera and future browsers under the right specification but was it my misunderstanding?

I hate all meta tags you made.

imagetoolbar? conditional comment?

How many meta tags should we write in HTML in 10 years?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:09 AM by Kenneth

I understand the above, but don't remember huge problems in upgrading the sites we work on for IE7.  We had a mix of standards and non-standards websites, and most were upgraded for IE7 easily. (Most didn't need to)

Will this meta tag affect the conditional comments?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:13 AM by Aaargh!

"we can’t break the web experience on current sites for users like my mom, even for as good a reason as improving standards compliance."

Yes you can, you don't want to, that's something completely different.

Btw, why are you still working on this POS rendering engine, there are lots of other free options available that work a LOT better than IE ever will. Just drop Trident and replace it with WebKit or Gecko.

You guys are reinventing the wheel, again. Probably just a bad case of not-invented-here syndrome.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:19 AM by Robin

So you won't be passing Acid2 then? Shame.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:32 AM by Paul

In IE8 why don't you just shift the current modes? So Quirks mode renders pages as if it were IE7, and Standards mode renders pages as if it were IE8?

By the time IE8 comes out there shouldn't be a reason for people coding to IE6 standards...

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:32 AM by Paul

In IE8 why don't you just shift the current modes? So Quirks mode renders pages as if it were IE7, and Standards mode renders pages as if it were IE8?

By the time IE8 comes out there shouldn't be a reason for people coding for IE6 quirks...

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:35 AM by Mihai Tarmure

I agree, super-standard mode should be the default mode. That way, any new website won't need much of a cross-browser testing.

Detect if website was built with conditional comments for IE6 or IE7 or with classic hakcs, then render the old content with the old engine. Older sites should work, newer built websites should be standard compliant. Gradually, old sites will be replaced.

You can't come after so many years of ignoring us and say, you know, we're getting there but probably IE9 will do it.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:46 AM by Mihai Tarmure

I really understand the need of having a choice when it comes to a web-browser. But why has the rendering engine have to be the main concern?

Why have several different foundation engines striving to reach exactly the same result?

Why not make the rendering engine a plugin, develop the engine as open-source but let the rest of the browser closed-source. Each browser will have its own proprietary interface, unique set of features, but at least the rendering engine will be essentially the same.

There will still be competition among the browsers.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 4:55 AM by Peter Kasting

I think this is a catastrophically bad idea.

Notably, no other browser has ever needed such a concept, because the other browsers all regularly release updates that fix rendering bugs, meaning that site authors have an expectation that the browser's behavior will differ over time, and generally in a way that becomes more compliant with a spec.  As a result, web developers praise other browsers, rather than loathe them, for fixing rendering bugs.  All the IE team needs to do is set the same expectations.

Instead, the introduction of this concept results in a couple effects:

* Hardcodes into the DNA of the web Microsoft's questionable practice of shipping multiple rendering engines.  Supporting this switch basically means that no rendering engine or behavior will ever be obsoleted, and thus must always be supported in the codebase.  This hurts IE development and IE users.

* Makes life incredibly difficult on all non-IE browser vendors.  Browser vendors already supported quirks and standards modes for IE compat reasons.  Now they'll need to reverse engineer and support every single new IE rendering engine as it comes down the pipe if they want to work with the web as a whole, since site authors will no longer have any reason to update older pages to make them more standards-compliant.

There are a couple ways out of this mess:

* In HTML5 mode (<DOCTYPE HTML>), ignore this ridiculous meta tag and use the latest, most compliant version of the browser.  Then at least as vendors and authors support HTML5, this problem disappears.  (The circumstances that led to the current problem, namely Microsoft not bothering to update IE for over half a decade, are unlikely to be repeated with the rise of Firefox, Safari and other competing browsers.)

* Hope that web developers raise a hue and cry when they hear about this change, and Microsoft relents.

* Hope that IE's market share continues to shrink to the point where it is significantly less relevant, and site authors don't particularly care about this behavior.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:10 AM by loggin

My god I swear most people here are either idiots or have got their own heads so far up their own a@#~s that they just can't see the light of day.

Paul why would people still need to be coding for IE6 ? I know of a lot of charities out there running dinosaurs for computers, they rely on the good will of people to get by, they help the less fortunate and unemployed (hell some of these I know are still running IE5).

So before anyone starts jumping up and down and demanding the past should just be brushed under the carpet spare a thought the small (business) man and those less fortunate than yourselves....

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:22 AM by game kid

@loggin: Indeed.  You know, I have a good business plan:  complain to a big software company that their browser is not compatible, then wait for them to offer multiple VirtualPC images for this problem and even an idea to fix it!  Then when they're done, let's then whine that it's not the right idea at all and spam Operafox like we usually do!  That'll give the IE team a clear road ahead.

One thing's for sure, consistency is not one of the oft-requested standards.  If MS rejects this I'm betting good money on a dozen "I could read this Archive.org'd page in IE7 and now I can't!" posts.

That said, I'd much prefer the frame-security attribute last mentioned on the IEBlog be a meta-tag too.  Maybe 'name="X-Frame-Security" content="frameid1=restricted,frameid2=normal,framename3=blah"'.  That would mean no waiting for HTML5 to add a standard security attribute.  Not that anyone here is waiting for HTML5 to spam Operafox.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:34 AM by Asbjørn

This is a very very bad idea. Just make this "Super standards mode" the default in standards mode, and leave quirks mode alone (if it shouldn't just be removed). If people want their sites to work in a modern browser they should just follow the standards. The idea about letting the user (not the web developer) switch to an older rendering engine sounds good. For once just break that backwards compatability!

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:48 AM by Microsoft Impeding & Undermining Web Standards Since 2001

No surprises here, Microsoft continues to impede and undermine web standards. Hey IE team, this is 2008, not 2001. Stop living in the past, no one wants to code stupid workarounds for IE6 and if websites still uses IE6 code it probably isn't up to date with the current content.

Then again this is a waste of time, even microsoft.com is rendered in quirks mode on all other browsers, way to go there when it comes to standards compliance.

http://img251.imageshack.us/img251/997/msvj5.png

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:49 AM by David Naylor

This is crazy, but I guess I understand your reasoning.

Although I still can't help feeling ... *so what* if ancient, forgotten websites don't look pixel perfect in the latest browsers? Any website owners that care about it's users will have active development.

This decision just makes me more determined to keep spreading the Firefox love. I was hoping IE8 would be an equal alternative, but alas.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:49 AM by Rowan

Keep in mind that breaking the rendering of old sites wouldn't necessarily make them unusable, some maybe, but not all.

I think it would be much better to provide an opt-OUT meta tag that forced a webpage to ignore IE8's new rendering changes, this way people can fix their sites with a single line of HTML. It would take any technical person less than 5 minutes to fix an 'old' site. I could fix 100 sites in one day with this approach.

I'll be flabbergasted if other browsers implement this meta tag.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:50 AM by Mr. Quirck

It's probably best to not introduce yet another IE specific token (i.e. quirk). Most websites probably look good (enough) in standards mode (as they already do in FireFox today). If you keep allowing web-developers (or amateurs in some cases) to use their hacks and quirks then you continue to send a wrong signal. This way, these quirks will continue to live on forever. We need to move forward on this legacy issue, not stand still.

It's like continuing to support 32-bit versions of Windows. That way, it'll be difficult to finally push people to 64-bit and thus applications will not be updated for x64 (compatibility).

Please discuss this issue further in the IE team. It's quite important.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 5:51 AM by David Naylor

This also means that the Acid2 test in it's true form *WON'T* render correctly.

# Bollocks

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:11 AM by Ryan

What a load of horse dung. No modern browsers require a special tag to function correctly. Firefox has managed to wrangle a good 30-40% of your market share without having to worry about breaking sites. All you need is a decent rendering system, but you don't have it - period.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:12 AM by Stifu

Yes, it's a bit saddening that those who make efforts to follow standards have to deal with such annoyances, while those who don't care at all and made a badly coded site 10 years ago get away with it for free.

Still, things aren't that bad, at least IE8 will be easier to work with. It's just that I wish Microsoft would care more about pushing standards rather than supporting lame sites.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:30 AM by Thomas Tallyce

http://alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype

"the IE team began work on a completely new rendering engine for IE8—one that followed the CSS 2.1 spec as closely as possible"

Ah, so Trident is dead at last - hurray!

What's the new engine called, out of interest?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:31 AM by David Naylor

After having read the article at ALA, I'm seriously worried.

I hope (and believe) the other browser makers aren't stupid enough to tag along (haha!) with this idea of locking a web page to a certain rendering engine. It's an awful idea.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:41 AM by cwilso

@Xepol - I think @Nemeseri answered you pretty well.  We shouldn't just "break" developers (sites), because the ones who immediate suffer are our users.

@jm - I'm not focused on encouraging developers to go back and change all existing content - or at least not to the point of forcing them to have to do it between now and when we ship IE8.

@Peter Michaux, @Brandon Bloom - if we identify as something other than IE, we shut ourselves out to a whole DIFFERENT set of sites.  The problem is that sites are, in fact, tested against specific browsers and versions; this changes to a model that reflects that.

@Stifu - I said that: "(Of course, for content that is developed to a later standard that isn’t deployed yet, you can expect different things.)"

@sami, @kimblin, @ruemere, @Webdesign, et al - any method that requires end users to switch between modes to get the page to "work right" is broken.  Most users don't know about quirks mode, and don't (and shouldn't) need to care.

@Little Dave - we actually proposed a conditional-comments-like syntax for CSS a couple of years ago to the CSS WG, and were roundly denied by most of the other members of the group.  I still think it would be a good idea, personally.

@M T - that would only make more sense if we wanted to put the burden on users.

@Rowan - no.  IE7 compatibility for quirks and "standards" mode is the minimum bar.

@Takazudo - what makes you think I don't understand how we got here?  I do; that doesn't change my answer for the least damaging way out.

@Paul:

>By the time IE8 comes out there shouldn't be a reason for people coding to IE6 standards...

Actually, they still will be; and they'll still be coding for IE7 too.  Oh, and most importantly, there's tons of content that's already developed that will still be there.

@Thomas Tallyce - it's called Trident.  Trident is more than just the layout and rendering engine bit - it's the parser, core storage, object model, etc.

# Convergence not divergence

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:40 AM by George Ornbo

I'm not too sure about this approach. It is going down the route of user agent specific code at a time when we are getting very close to being able to code using standards based code alone.

Coding sites properly is the responsibility of the developer. Developers are not just coding for IE on Windows, but many other browsers and platforms. To date IE has been the worst browser in the market, even though it has the largest market share. I'm enthused by what I'm hear coming out of the IE8 camp, but surely you want to encourage convergence rather than divergence?

The standards are written and accepted by the community and almost all browser manufacturers. Why introduce new criteria outside of these? Sticking to standards will also allow IE to put the responsibility back on developers to use an accepted and standard way of creating websites.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:41 AM by Ajo

I think it would be the best (as mentioned before) to leave the quirks mode alone, since these are the 'old sites'. However the developers who did the effort to make IE7 work in normal mode are (probably) also the ones who want to make their site work with IE8. The same goed more or less for the users. Users with IE7 probably also update to IE8. The ones with IE6 or lower can use quirks mode..

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:47 AM by Thomas Tallyce

I'm afraid that, on this occasion, I agree with most of the posters here that this is a very regressive step and I think the Webstandards folk really should be ashamed of going along with this.

There may have been some layout compat problems when IE7 launched, but the world has not fallen apart, and the IE7 Trident is certainly a major improvement on IE6 Trident.

I still don't really see why this metatag 'solution' should be needed. The only sites that are really going to need serious checking of layout are the kind of sites that are done by people who understand CSS and therefore more likely to be actively maintained.

People using table tags and other stuff are surely not likely to be affected for the simple reason that IE already implements all of the basics, and the vast majority of CSS stuff to the standards, with only more complex floats and other more complex areas less consistently supported (but again, IE7 Trident got alot of that closure to other browser vendors' implementations).

I think we just have to accept within the web development community that some breakage will occur as the web moves on. The same has happened in the security and other arenas. Otherwise we face the bad old world of browser sniffing, which surely we all tried to move away from years ago?

And also, how does this solve the issue of maintaining support for older browsers? Do we now have to maintain two copies of a site, one with the meta tag and one without? I'd say the use of the odd CSS hack is far preferable to that kind of situation.

I really hope that other browser vendors do not implement that and that the IE team think very seriously again about the consequences of implementing this. Compatibility is important but we have to accept that some breakage CAN occur as the web is a constantly evolving medium, and that people have to accept that.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:50 AM by Stifu

cwilso: thanks for having taken the time to answer, despite all the negativity. ;)

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 6:57 AM by Simp's

MS, please reconsider your position ! We want a standard IE8 !

Let's have the IE8 Standards mode on by default.

Having IE7 standards mode on by default so as not to break older uncompliant sites is nonsense. If IE7 broke so many sites when it came out they are either still broken with that engine or have been fixed, most of the time by using conditional comments.

What's the point of coming up with standards solutions to call in IE specific CSS if there useless in IE8 ?

Please don't do it !

<!--[if !IE]> <-->

<style type="text/css" title="Default" media="screen, projection">

/* <![CDATA[ \*/

@import "styles.css";

/* ]]> */

</style>

<!-- <![endif]-->

<!--[if gte IE 6]>

<link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="styles.css" media="screen, projection" title="Default" />

<![if lte IE 7]><link rel="stylesheet" type="text/css" href="ie/styles.css" media="screen, projection" title="Default" /><![endif]>

<![endif]-->

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:03 AM by David Naylor

George Ornbo: "I'm not too sure about this approach. It is going down the route of user agent specific code at a time when we are getting very close to being able to code using standards based code alone."

I completely agree. We're so close now, and they decide to go and destroy it all?

Thomas Tallyce: "I really hope that other browser vendors do not implement that and that the IE team think very seriously again about the consequences of implementing this. Compatibility is important but we have to accept that some breakage CAN occur as the web is a constantly evolving medium, and that people have to accept that."

You nailed it there.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:09 AM by rc

@cwilso

It's all good, but what you are going to do with future versions of IE? One more "extra mode" in IE 9, then again a new rendering mode in IE 10, and so on? Can you answer the question?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:24 AM by Bart

@cwilco: Basically, you're rewarding those web developers who've done it wrong and don't care about standards; validating them in their pigheaded ways by smothering any chance of a single standards-based internet.

The internet as it exists right now is still in its infant-years; and you're weighing it down with a soon-to-be infinite amount of baggage to carry around for the rest of its days.

Worst. Decision. Ever.

(Also, I have to say that the badly named web standards project has made itself quite impossible by supporting and advocating this farce. I hope its members realize that...)

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:34 AM by Mo

Congratulations, it's definitely the best solution for the time being.

But what makes me afraid is the fact that you don't see it as a temporary solution for IE8, but even want other browser vendors to adopt it. Which would mean you're breaking the web, but in another way.

Please let this be a solution only for IE8. As soon as 90% of all pages on the web are standards compliant, release IE9, which will only have one rendering engine: the most standards compliant one.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:38 AM by Thomas Tallyce

@bart

I don't think it's fair to call non-standardista developers pigheaded - one of the real benefits of the web is the low barrier to entry. The fact that we do have standards means that those more advanced developers can leverage these to take advantage of them. But if we all had to write everything to 100% perfect code from the standard, the web wouldn't be nearly as big as it is now because no-one would be able to start so easily. (I agree with your other points though.)

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:44 AM by macx

What a shame, MS! Just implement a full support of web standards and no web develoeper has to take care about the compatibility after you send out updates from your browser. Wake up!

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 7:52 AM by JackP

Chris,

thanks for listening.

As I said on ALA, I'd prefer it if it went according to the whole DOCTYPE thing, but I understand why you've felt the need to go down this route.

And since you've come up with something that can be implemented within standards, using a meta tag - like I requested on your blog - that won't break anything else, I'm content with that.

It really does feel like MS have listened, here. Maybe it's not the answer that would have been ideal (for standards advocates) but it's a compromise we (for the most part) can live with; and that you can live with.

So big thanks to yourselves and to WaSP for this.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:17 AM by billybob

All your good work on IE8 with the ACID test has been undone by this one move.  I cannot believe you are placing the interests of 200 websites over that of millions and millions that actually take the time to adhere to standards.

Today is a sad day for the web, there are many of us that are truly disappointed with your attitude.  Same old Microsoft.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:26 AM by Joe

Man, there are some insane posters in these comments.  IE (like other browsers) are client / server systems where HTTP/HTML is the client/server protocol.  If servers support a specific version of that protocol then you need to support that version by default and opt-in to new behavior - just like any client/server system.

I would have thought this was obvious.  End users don't really care about web standards.  Nor should they.  Web Standards are there to make the server programmers' lives easier when dealing with more than one client.  

Most of comments sound like they are written by programmers with no real awareness of production systems.  Standards support is a medium/long term cost saver for businesses.  Changing the default behavior in a browser is a short term expense - it will require development effort to fix immediately.  This is therefore the right choice - you still get the best of both worlds.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:29 AM by Ian

Sorry, while I understand your reasoning I think the result of that thought process is astonishingly bad.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:30 AM by Skorpnok

What a load of crap this is, whingey, whiney, moomy, poopy, crap. "Oh, we broke lots of websites last time and people got over it and nothing awful happened, but we don't want to do it again because we're so worried for our customers". Yeah right. How about "we want to make sure that people have to code specifically for out browser, so we keep adding proprietary crap into it"? You're a mess Microsoft, from your crappo Vista right down to your poopy IE.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:45 AM by Wraith Daquell

I commend Microsoft for such a move.

For those that wonder what sort of rendering techniques Microsoft will use in future browsers, the answer is quite simple: it will use the same Meta tag. If the site renders fine without it, then good. If you add the tag and the site renders great, you should never have to change it. If you want to support the latest/greatest standards, just bump the number up in the tag.

Eventually, when sites are updated more completely, this sort of behavior will be dropped. For now, it's the only way to go. Developers, please do not be so closed-minded as to suppose that your sites are the only important ones. Many of the top vendors do not support standards mode, and it would be in poor taste to break their sites.

(and remember that the Meta tag is not proprietary, and than other browsers have added *real* proprietary markup to their rendering engines)

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:46 AM by steppres

I really don't understand this at all. Every major site targets standards compliant browsers, and uses conditional comments to hack together suitable layouts for IE. How exactly is making IE8 standards compliant going to "break the web"? It just doesn't make any sense, we can already target older version of IE (and the current mashup, IE7) with conditional comments, and it's not like IE8 is just going to drop with not warning. If HTML monkeys are going to have to mess with the code to get IE8 to run in this ALL NEW standards compliant mode, why not just use conditional comments to target IE7 and code in a compliant fashion? This new scheme is just ridiculous. So you're trying to say that IE7 standards compliant mode is actually just IE7 mode? And in how many versions time is IE going to evolve into this wonderous standards compliant (I'm getting sick of saying that) browser that MS has kept dangling in front of us? Jesus, this makes me sick.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:51 AM by debasys

I beg you, please make the browser standards compliant.

Website publishers have a responsibility, to check their web pages from time to time , with new browser versions coming. So will they, with IE8, and will rectify if their site breaks. You don't have to bother on behalf of web developers.

And browser vendors also have one responsibility. To make a standards-compliant browser.

So do it. Just do it. I beg you.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:51 AM by Drew

I've been a web developer for about 4 years now, and IE has been the cause of many extra hours and days of work.  I keep hoping that maybe in the next release you'll get it right.  I can code one web site, and it'll work... IE, Firefox, Safari, whatever... but no. Yet again, I have to jump through special hoops for IE.

Like many people have said here in the comments, Firefox and Safari don't have any "special modes", and they're grabbing market share just fine with standards compliance.

I understand the need to be backwards compatible, so please hear this suggestion!

Make it an OPTION to work in IE7 or IE6 or whatever mode.  But make it DEFAULT to run IE8 "super standards" (this should be called standards mode) mode.  If, namely, a company or business is running on old software, they can upgrade to IE8, and change the OPTION to run as it used to.  But for all the millions of home users out there, let them run the latest and greatest.  Why do I have to tell/make them (in the way of a meta tag) to be current?  Why do all the web developers in the world have to "be in the know" and know to put an IE8 meta tag in?  Why can't the few businesses that still need IE5.5 modes be notified to change the OPTION for IE7 mode?  The people that need backwards compatibility will be "very aware" of how an update will affect their company anyway... why can't this be their burden and not everyone elses?

As others have said, when does this end?  What tags will IE9 require?  How will they differ from the IE8 tags? The IE7 tags? The IE6 tags? etc, etc...

This sucks...

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:51 AM by Drew

I've been a web developer for about 4 years now, and IE has been the cause of many extra hours and days of work.  I keep hoping that maybe in the next release you'll get it right.  I can code one web site, and it'll work... IE, Firefox, Safari, whatever... but no. Yet again, I have to jump through special hoops for IE.

Like many people have said here in the comments, Firefox and Safari don't have any "special modes", and they're grabbing market share just fine with standards compliance.

I understand the need to be backwards compatible, so please hear this suggestion!

Make it an OPTION to work in IE7 or IE6 or whatever mode.  But make it DEFAULT to run IE8 "super standards" (this should be called standards mode) mode.  If, namely, a company or business is running on old software, they can upgrade to IE8, and change the OPTION to run as it used to.  But for all the millions of home users out there, let them run the latest and greatest.  Why do I have to tell/make them (in the way of a meta tag) to be current?  Why do all the web developers in the world have to "be in the know" and know to put an IE8 meta tag in?  Why can't the few businesses that still need IE5.5 modes be notified to change the OPTION for IE7 mode?  The people that need backwards compatibility will be "very aware" of how an update will affect their company anyway... why can't this be their burden and not everyone elses?

As others have said, when does this end?  What tags will IE9 require?  How will they differ from the IE8 tags? The IE7 tags? The IE6 tags? etc, etc...

This sucks...

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:52 AM by Stuart Johnston

This appears to be a Microsoft centric solution to a Microsoft centric problem which is exasperated by years of poor web authoring.  Good web authoring is timeless regardless of what user agents come and go.  Web authors who reley on poor user agents to judge visual feedback keep the good guys in jobs.  

This issue has little to do with web development and more to do with Microsoft's lack of willingness to engage.  Suggest: push out a version of MS Firefox - save some money and everyone's time.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:52 AM by SvenGroot

I have to add my vote that this is a bad idea.

Some of you guys know me, I develop add-ins for IE, I love IE. This is a bad idea.

It means that standards-compliant sites that exist today won't work as they should in IE8. Standards mode should be the default. You've set the precedent now with IE7 that people shouldn't rely on browser bugs. Continue that precedent.

The rule for sites should become: if it's a browser (or a version of a browser) I don't know, I give them the most standards-compliant version of my content I have.

IE more than any other browser has the power to enforce this.

Please reconsider.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:54 AM by SvenGroot

How about this: give us standards mode by default for application/xhtml+xml documents?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 8:57 AM by lockoom

So, and now you guys expect that with this super-duper meta tag some websites wont be:

>> "opted in” to standards mode by a tool that generated their content << by accident. You guys have lost connection to reality. Dream on.

BTW: Look at your market share as it's probably the last time you see it that high.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:02 AM by David Zülke

Why not just switch on this standards mode for XHTML pages that are served as application/xhtml+xml ? Everyone can do that with an apache directive or a one-liner in his PHP/ASP/blah code. That breaks absolutely no BC because IE today doesn't understand that one. Just be sure to send the same in the Accept request header, and all is fine. Switch it on for HTML5 and all following standards, too, and you don't have any BC nightmare.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:20 AM by disgusted

'“Standards mode” remains the same as IE7, and compatible with current content.'

(So it's not REALLY standards mode is it? It's just IE7 mode)

'If you (the page developer) really want the best standards support IE8 can give, you can get it by inserting a simple <meta> element.'

(Oh great, more needless screwing around for another version of IE! This is exactly what we all wanted! Hurrah for the IE Team! At this rate, by the time your browser is standards compliant we'll all be emotionless robots and living in Hyperspace.)

THANK YOU so much for this, I was warming to the idea of IE8, but this post has shocked me back to reality. Some advice; just keep these "revelations" to yourselves from now on and stop antagonizing 'page developers' with these  updates. Final note on how not to break the web; stop developing IE8. Just let IE die. It's over people.

# Two modes are enough

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:24 AM by Mikko Rantalainen

The web content authors that opted in to "standards mode" should author to the standards or fall back to quirks mode. The quirks mode should mean "do what I mean, not what I wrote" a.k.a. "please, try to fix it for me". Standards mode should be about standards. The meta workaround should be reserved for those that want to use the "standards" mode (IE7 mode?).

# Code to standards, not browsers

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:28 AM by Blaise Kal

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]>.

# Standards mode should be OPT-OUT instead of OPT-IN!

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:31 AM by SchizoDuckie

What i think wóuld be a good idea is to turn this exactly around: add a meta tag or http header to sites that need to be rendered by IE8 in 'crappy-mode', 'ie6 mode' or 'ie7 mode' and kick it into standards compliant mode by default. That way, the rest of the web will work as it was once visioned and you only need to adjust whole webservers serving for old sites. One could upgrade to IE8 ánd you can still trigger quirksmode if neccesary.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:36 AM by James D. Schwarzmeier

Unlike the majority of other posters here, I have to say that I agree with this approach.  I currently wok on a team that maintains a suite 20 large web-based applications.  If I had to guess, I would say there's serveral (if not 10s) of millions of lines of code.  If the layout engine radically changed, it would literally take years to fully test everything and update everything to be compatible.  It's not that we're lazy or "behind the times" -- it's just that the sheer volume of code makes it impossible to simply turn on a dime.

No, this is a VERY GOOD THING.  Once we start seeing IE8 betas come out, I guarantee our new pages will be as standards-compliant as possible.  But it's kinda pretentious to see everyone here saying "so what?".  If it breaks mission-critical code, it IS a big deal!

The big thing is that this is a cross-browser solution, and will become neccesary for ALL browsers in the future.  Many like to act that it's somehow a matter of IE being non-standards compliant and other browsers being standards-compliant.  Actually, standards continue to evolve and every browser is at a different point in supporting the latest standards (Firefox 2, the current official release, doesn't support ACID2).  When other browsers begin supporting large chunks of CSS3 or the next major release of ECMAScript or whatever other web technologies come down the line, they too will need version targeting.

# Interop�rabilit� et r�trocompatibilit� avec Internet Explorer 8 : � vos meta !

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:36 AM by Victor BRITO - Webmaster

Moralit� : renseignez sans erreur de frappe ni oubli une DTD HTML 4 ou XHTML et pensez aux meta et aux en-t�tes c�t� serveur et vous ferez avancer durablement l'impl�mentation des standards.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:43 AM by Bart

One Mozilla developer's response to this:

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/01/post_2.html

http://weblogs.mozillazine.org/roc/archives/2008/01/slipping_the_ba.html

Should make interesting reading for pretty much everyone here. I very much suspect Opera and Safari devs agree completely with him.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 9:57 AM by SchizoDuckie

@ James D. Schwarzmeier that is a VERY selfish post you're making there. The fact that you don't want to update your crappy old code makes us *ALL* have to adjust our way of working for the rest of our lives? LOL And then once you finally update your code to IE 8, IE 10 might come out and we have to re-invent some other way?

NO! THAT is the BAD thing!

There SHOULD be an option to trigger IE 8 to use old rendering engines but it should be disabled by DEFAULT and you should have to adjust your old crappy code to trigger that so that old stuff can be fased out.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:06 AM by oogust

I strongly believe that this is a bad idea.

You cant make things future compatible when building a site. You simply have to suck up you code and fix it for new releases.

Yet another step backwards for Microsoft. Why don't you just let it use the word rendering engine?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:08 AM by Ronald

So you are planning to give webdevelopers YET ANOTHER option to test. I'm sure everybody who is forced to work with IE is delighted.

Ship Firefox by default in Windows 7, this will certainly be the cheaper option for both micosoft and the world over another testpath and development.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:13 AM by AD

You are not enablers, you are hinderers.  You will look back with regret on these decisions.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:27 AM by Feeling angry and betrayed

Reading over the post and comments I remain unconvinced of this approach. Personally it seems like the best way is to just have a standards and quirks mode in IE8 and have quirks render like IE7 while standards mode is the true standards mode, no opt in or version targeting. Since there was already the rush as people with poorly coded sites (either through their own fault or because they inherited a behemoth with millions of pages) found that IE7 didn't have the same faults of IE6 and people fixed their work, I think that IE8 using the IE7 rendering mode for its quirks mode won't cause any real problem.

The web is supposed to keep evolving and even self taught people should have picked up on this and learned some forward thinking code writing. It's so ridiculous to even be here, you guys were on the verge of being hero's fixing the web and then we suddenly get this post saying "no, sorry, you have to recode for our special needs to fix the web."

Internet Explorer is not a beautiful and unique snowflake, it is not some princess that deserves special treatment. We've already had to treat it specially for long enough and we are getting fed up with it. We were happy when IE8 rendered the ACID2 test, but now finding out it takes special conditions that mean IE8 doesn't actually pass the test is like a kick in the teeth of our slowly starting to smile face.

Do the right thing for once and shame on the WaSP for going along with this.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:29 AM by Chris Cox

Could we at least have actual Standards Mode triggered by either using HTML5 or using XHTML1.1+ with application/xhtml+xml?

That would at least give us a method by which we could activate it using completely compliant markup, which wouldn't break previous versions because they don't support application/xhtml+xml, ergo anyone who uses it is resigned to browser-sniffing anyway.

There should be a clearly-defined divide between standards and quirks, and it should mean just that. If your browser is capable of supporting standards, it should draw the line at those standards, with everything else consigned to the same category as unmaintained HTML3 tag soup.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:30 AM by Stifu

I'm still confused as of why other browser vendors could possibly be interested in also supporting this meta tag.

Valid sites already work fine with these browsers, and they already have Quirks mode for bad sites. What's the point?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:34 AM by loggin

I think all the standista's here need to spend a day volunteering for their local job club/back to work charities to get back to reality, you'll find most of the machines in these places have been donated and are really quite dilapidated, just 3 years ago I helped a charity get 20 or so Win95 machines on their network so the disabled/unemployed could get on the net to search for work.

Now I'm not sure about how best to implement a backwards compatible mode in IE8, and whilst I want to be able to code one way for all it strikes me as ignorance and arrogance as to the way it seems that people seem to think that once IE8 comes out that they can drop support for older browsers (IE6 and down), I'm afraid to say that in the most part we're stuck with doing crappy work around's for those browsers for a good few years yet.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:36 AM by Marcelo Wolfgang

I think that you worsening my worst nightmare, so now we have to code for Firefox and fix the layout for ie6 and ie7 and now ie8. I at least that ie8 will not need fixes if the code works right at firefox ... but I wouldn't bet on it.

Can't you make the upgrade a requirement on ie6 and ie7 at least ?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:42 AM by Eric

Why changing the current way? the brouwser should comply to the standards and not otherwise. In this case i'd rather see IE8 with a new way of parsing a website and not using new tags to use other rendering sources.

@Microsoft; do it good for once... make your browser smaller and more strict! :)

# re: Joe is right

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:44 AM by George Jones

Joe has it right:

>> If servers support a specific version of that protocol then you need to support that version by default and opt-in to new behavior - just like any client/server system.

The cries for "make it work in super standards mode by default" must be coming from people who prefer to make their money by charging their clients to fix their sites when a new browser version becomes popular.

I think the meta tag is a good solution.  It lets your old code and pages continue working, while you can embrace the standards for new development.   Then when **you** determine that your website's visitors have moved away from an old browser, you can update that code when you feel like it, instead of being thrown into a panic whenever IE++ happens.

One counter-argument could be that it hurts alternative browsers by encouraging coding to the old quirks mode, not using a doc type, not using the meta tag, and then users complain when it doesn't render properly in Firefox/Safari/Whatever.  My response is - how is this MS's fault?  It is obviously the web developer's fault in this case, and he is the one who will look bad when his page breaks in other browsers.  Second point - how is this different than the current situation?  And how are those browsers faring right now?

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 10:50 AM by billybob

"One counter-argument could be that it hurts alternative browsers by encouraging coding to the old quirks mode, not using a doc type, not using the meta tag, and then users complain when it doesn't render properly in Firefox/Safari/Whatever.  My response is - how is this MS's fault?"

Because MS promoted MSHTML above standards compliant HTML for years in an attempt to dominate the web.  Not to mention all the ActiveX that still exists.

You could reverse the question and ask why is it everyone elses problem when Microsoft cannot render to the standards, and why should we have to clean up because everything prior to IE6 is a total mess.  Remember the kind of rubbish Word used to output as HTML?  It was designed to kill Netscape.  Microsoft only seems to like standards when they are dictating them.

# re: Compatibility and IE8

Tuesday, January 22, 2008 11:02 AM by Chris

So, just to be clear on this, if I were to use

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">

... this would cause quirks mode in IE 5, 6 and 7, correct? If so, then adding this new <meta> element would trigger standards