5 ms·

Thank goodness. IE 11 has enough warts and weirdness; having to deal with all the brokenness in IE 8 was driving my front-end colleagues to alcoholism... I ha

by douche 11y ago

Thank goodness. IE 11 has enough warts and weirdness; having to deal with all the brokenness in IE 8 was driving my front-end colleagues to alcoholism... I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome...

Flenser 11y ago
IE11 has an IE7 compatibility mode so line-of-business apps are going to be targeting IE7 for a long time to come. One of my employer's clients is only now willing to pay to upgrade from IE5.5 rendering on IE8 to IE7 on 11.
- polskibus 11y ago
  Ie11 compat. mode is not the same as in older versions of ie.
- flomo 11y ago
  I was involved in a similar discussion and the logic was hilarious. "Browser standards change too often." (!?) "So we're only to support an old buggy implementation of the specs that is sorta emulated in one modern browser." They sounded like they were afraid of having their security blanket ripped away. If you still have some IE5 stuff, my guess is that you have to bring it up to the HTML5 table layout zone. And then you need to back polyfill a bunch of stuff to deal with the "IE7 mode" requirement.
isomorphic 11y ago
> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome... I understand the sentiment, but to be clear: Ideally we do not want any one vendor with a majority browser share. Otherwise someone will get complacent and we'll have a repeat of the dark times (IE6). Having multiple browser vendors is good for the web.
- debaserab2 11y ago
  Yeah... but I kinda wouldn't mind if they were all using the same open source rendering engine under the hood.
  - carey 11y ago
    Which one? Because we have a supplier's site that doesn't seem to work in post-Blink Chrome.
  - kristopolous 11y ago
    As a counter, you can pervert the dual sourcing argument here and come up with something similar.
  - UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
    ... But that's exactly what they're saying we DON'T want. A lot of browsers re-used IE 6's rendering engine because it had a monopoly. That only made the situation worse. A browser's rendering engine is the ONLY part that matters, and if anyone has a monopoly that is "bad" because competition helps innovation. Each rendering engine winds up, for good and bad, with a small group of people deciding what features do and do not get put in. If they simply decide that feature Y doesn't get put in, and that rendering engine has a monopoly then feature Y is a non-entity as far as the web is concerned. For example, if Google controlled the web's primary rendering engine do you think Do Not Track would be in it? NO! It took all of their major competition to add it before they did, starting with IE.
    - jsmeaton 11y ago
      > A browser's rendering engine is the ONLY part that matters Active X would like to disagree with you. We're currently dealing with a massive (revenue/company) product that only runs under IE < 10 because it still uses Active X. I don't think a common rendering engine is at all a bad thing. Maybe two to keep them honest. But blink + webkit + trident (?) + Gecko (?) seem like wasted engineering talent.
voltagex_ 11y ago
Make sure you're raising issues on Microsoft Connect for those warts - the dev team does listen. I'm not affiliated, but I reported issues for Xbox One's Edge browser and got a positive response. Time will tell if it actually gets fixed, though.
masklinn 11y ago
> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome... Yes I also long for the return of the IE6 days when only one browser mattered and what it did was law. Not. Seriously folks we've already done software monopolies (not just in browsers either), it always ends up in tears. If a browser is terrible refuse to support it or ask for extra time/money for its support, but do not condone, suggest or recommend browser monopoly.
- sbarre 11y ago
  For the last few years now, we've been charging at least 20% more for the front-end dev portion of a job when IE8 support was required beyond graceful degradation. 2015 is really the year where we saw the majority of our clients drop support for IE8 altogether. Most of them showed sub-2% browser share and dropping fast in their analytics..
eitland 11y ago
> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome... Replace that with IE and many of us have experienced it, we more or less had to beg for time to test in other browsers. It was kind of a dream but more of a nightmare and I hope we don't go back there soon, neither with IE nor with Chrome.

by douche 11y ago

Flenser 11y ago

IE11 has an IE7 compatibility mode so line-of-business apps are going to be targeting IE7 for a long time to come. One of my employer's clients is only now willing to pay to upgrade from IE5.5 rendering on IE8 to IE7 on 11.

polskibus 11y ago
Ie11 compat. mode is not the same as in older versions of ie.
flomo 11y ago
I was involved in a similar discussion and the logic was hilarious. "Browser standards change too often." (!?) "So we're only to support an old buggy implementation of the specs that is sorta emulated in one modern browser." They sounded like they were afraid of having their security blanket ripped away. If you still have some IE5 stuff, my guess is that you have to bring it up to the HTML5 table layout zone. And then you need to back polyfill a bunch of stuff to deal with the "IE7 mode" requirement.

isomorphic 11y ago

> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome... I understand the sentiment, but to be clear: Ideally we do not want any one vendor with a majority browser share. Otherwise someone will get complacent and we'll have a repeat of the dark times (IE6). Having multiple browser vendors is good for the web.

debaserab2 11y ago
Yeah... but I kinda wouldn't mind if they were all using the same open source rendering engine under the hood.
- carey 11y ago
  Which one? Because we have a supplier's site that doesn't seem to work in post-Blink Chrome.
- kristopolous 11y ago
  As a counter, you can pervert the dual sourcing argument here and come up with something similar.
- UnoriginalGuy 11y ago
  ... But that's exactly what they're saying we DON'T want. A lot of browsers re-used IE 6's rendering engine because it had a monopoly. That only made the situation worse. A browser's rendering engine is the ONLY part that matters, and if anyone has a monopoly that is "bad" because competition helps innovation. Each rendering engine winds up, for good and bad, with a small group of people deciding what features do and do not get put in. If they simply decide that feature Y doesn't get put in, and that rendering engine has a monopoly then feature Y is a non-entity as far as the web is concerned. For example, if Google controlled the web's primary rendering engine do you think Do Not Track would be in it? NO! It took all of their major competition to add it before they did, starting with IE.
  - jsmeaton 11y ago
    > A browser's rendering engine is the ONLY part that matters Active X would like to disagree with you. We're currently dealing with a massive (revenue/company) product that only runs under IE < 10 because it still uses Active X. I don't think a common rendering engine is at all a bad thing. Maybe two to keep them honest. But blink + webkit + trident (?) + Gecko (?) seem like wasted engineering talent.

voltagex_ 11y ago

Make sure you're raising issues on Microsoft Connect for those warts - the dev team does listen. I'm not affiliated, but I reported issues for Xbox One's Edge browser and got a positive response. Time will tell if it actually gets fixed, though.

masklinn 11y ago

> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome... Yes I also long for the return of the IE6 days when only one browser mattered and what it did was law. Not. Seriously folks we've already done software monopolies (not just in browsers either), it always ends up in tears. If a browser is terrible refuse to support it or ask for extra time/money for its support, but do not condone, suggest or recommend browser monopoly.

sbarre 11y ago
For the last few years now, we've been charging at least 20% more for the front-end dev portion of a job when IE8 support was required beyond graceful degradation. 2015 is really the year where we saw the majority of our clients drop support for IE8 altogether. Most of them showed sub-2% browser share and dropping fast in their analytics..

eitland 11y ago

> I have a beautiful dream sometimes, where I go to work, and I only have to care about supporting Chrome... Replace that with IE and many of us have experienced it, we more or less had to beg for time to test in other browsers. It was kind of a dream but more of a nightmare and I hope we don't go back there soon, neither with IE nor with Chrome.