| |
Microsoft do something vaguely sensible |
| |
monkeyson2 (10:53 4/3/2008)
Phlamethrower (11:46 4/3/2008)
flibble (14:32 4/3/2008)
jmb (15:01 4/3/2008)
flibble (15:15 4/3/2008)
monkeyson2 (12:47 18/3/2008)
moss (13:05 18/3/2008)
moss (13:33 4/3/2008)
VincceH (13:52 4/3/2008)
moss (15:00 4/3/2008)
monkeyson2 (14:17 4/3/2008)
|
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #106624, posted by monkeyson2 at 10:53, 4/3/2008 |
 Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx
Yay! |
| |
 [ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #106625, posted by Phlamethrower at 11:46, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106624 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
We’ve decided that IE8 will, by default, interpret web content in the most standards compliant way it can. Still doesn't mean it's actually going to be standards compliant, though. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #106626, posted by moss at 13:33, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106624 |
Posts: 9348
|
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx
Yay! Bloody hell! And after all the fuss about it, I thought they'd dig their heels in, at least for the next couple of versions...
That's fantastic. All credit to them. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
VinceH |
Message #106627, posted by VincceH at 13:52, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106626 |
 Lowering the tone since the dawn of time
Posts: 1600
|
All credit to them. Looking at it with a somewhat more cynical eye, this arguably means that they can release a browser only slightly improved in terms of compatibility/interoperability, and hide from the flack behind claims of "but we're trying - look, we said we would!" |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #106628, posted by monkeyson2 at 14:17, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106626 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/03/03/microsoft-s-interoperability-principles-and-ie8.aspx
Yay! Bloody hell! And after all the fuss about it, I thought they'd dig their heels in, at least for the next couple of versions...
That's fantastic. All credit to them.
They'll probably spoil everything by doing something evil with Silverlight  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #106629, posted by flibble at 14:32, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106625 |
Posts: 892
|
We’ve decided that IE8 will, by default, interpret web content in the most standards compliant way it can. Still doesn't mean it's actually going to be standards compliant, though.
Which standards?
The obsolete ones?
The broken ones?
The vague ones?
The pie in the sky ones?
Dear w3, no standards without reference implementations. Ta. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #106630, posted by moss at 15:00, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106627 |
Posts: 9348
|
All credit to them. Looking at it with a somewhat more cynical eye, this arguably means that they can release a browser only slightly improved in terms of compatibility/interoperability, and hide from the flack behind claims of "but we're trying - look, we said we would!"
To be fair, IE8 does pass Acid2. So that's a major step up from IE7. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
JMB |
Message #106631, posted by jmb at 15:01, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106629 |
Member
Posts: 467
|
Which standards? Insert whole AST here.
The obsolete ones?
The broken ones?
The vague ones?
The pie in the sky ones? Well, that's 99.999% of standards documents covered, what about the rest?
Dear w3, no standards without reference implementations. Ta. I think Amaya says it all, really.  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Peter Howkins |
Message #106632, posted by flibble at 15:15, 4/3/2008, in reply to message #106631 |
Posts: 892
|
Well, that's 99.999% of standards documents covered, what about the rest? If you can find them, I'll code them  |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
Phil Mellor |
Message #106792, posted by monkeyson2 at 12:47, 18/3/2008, in reply to message #106632 |
Please don't let them make me be a monkey butler
Posts: 12380
|
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
John Hoare |
Message #106793, posted by moss at 13:05, 18/3/2008, in reply to message #106792 |
Posts: 9348
|
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/items/2008/03/17.html I completely understand where he's coming from, and he makes some very good points, but I think there's two problems with that article.
Firstly, the split between pragmatists and idealists isn't as clear cut as the article says - many people have sympathies with both. Me, for a start. Eric Meyer, to name a very prominent other. The author of the article, for a third. It's just not that simple.
Secondly, I think the terms pragmatist and idealist for this situation is a bit simplistic in any case. The 'idealists' who think that making IE8 conform to IE7 mode by default will cause trouble aren't just saying that just to be idealistic - they have very real worries about the actual effect this will have on the web. Now, whether you agree with them or not is irrelevant - the point is, they're thinking in terms of the *actual*, identifiable effect this could have on things. Isn't that looking at things from a pragmatic point of view, as well as an idealistic one?
As I say, it's a good article - but it simplifies things too much. The issue is more complex than that. |
| |
[ Log in to reply ] |
| |
|
