Compatibility, or “Just Don’t Break My Site!”


The information published in this post is now out-of-date and one or more links are invalid.

—IEBlog Editor, 20 August 2012

We’ve had more than a few comments suggesting that IE works too hard at backwards compatibility, and we cater to those people who “don’t code their pages correctly”, or people who otherwise “didn’t do things the right way”.   These comments frequently go on to suggest that we (the IE team) should use our market position to “force people to fix their broken stuff”. 

I’d like to explain why we so adamantly disagree with that position, and why we work so hard at backwards compatibility.

We feel it is vitally important for web sites and applications that worked with yesterday’s IE work with today’s IE, and continue to work with tomorrow’s IE.  We feel this is a deeply held expectation by the millions of IE users.

In XPSP2, we sometimes had quite a struggle balancing the need to increase the security of the browsing experience and platform with living up to our compatibility responsibility. 

Part of this struggle was because we have an incredible number of different users and developers using IE in many different ways, and we have to take all of those customers into consideration when developing and testing changes to our code base, especially security changes. Any change we make, be it a hot fix request from one particular customer, a security fix based on investigation external or internal, a fix to an issue reported through Windows Error Reporting, or a simple bug fix, could have potentially far ranging consequences throughout our user base.  

Does all this mean we can’t (or shouldn’t) make changes? No, not at all.  We can and will continue evolve IE towards better functionality, security, and stability.  But it does mean that we need to move carefully with deep consideration of the impact of our changes. 

We may take steps to mitigate compatibility issues with changes we want to make.  For example, in Internet Explorer 6 we introduced the strict doctype to allow us to improve our CSS implementation without impacting existing HTML pages.  We expect to use similar techniques for future enhancements where we might affect existing content.

One of the most difficult tradeoffs is when a change pits one set of customers against another set.  Make the change, and N millions of customers are happy and K millions of customers are unhappy.  Don’t make the change, and the N and the K reverse.  As we were making changes for IE for XP SP2, when we found ourselves back against the wall like that, we chose security over compatibility.  And if you read the industry press, you can guess how many N millions of customers are happy with our choices and how many K millions of customers are unhappy about it.

With Windows XP SP2 we had an open beta program so that we could make changes to improve compatibility based on customer feedback, and we reached out to developers to help them get compatible when security considerations warranted causing some level of incompatibility.  In the end, we believe that with XP SP2 we have the balance about right.

Thanks
Dave Massy

Comments (94)

  1. Anonymous says:

    Hi Dave,

    This is great to hear! It is constantly what I’m telling people. Missing tags, mismatched tags, the forgotten semicolon in javascript. Are these really reasons to dismiss an entire web page? No. Should companies and professionals create well formed HTML? Of course. But there are so many hobbists not to mention the millions of families and friends that create web pages to inform loved ones. Why should their little spot on the web be trashed because browser developers are too lazy to put in the extra effort. Anyone can write a parser that checks tags and whatnot dismissing any page with an error. It is the browser that can handle these small mistakes and still render something readable that is truly useful.

    Then you have the small businesses that use WYSIWIG programs to create their pages. Valid tags are going to get deprecated, so all of their websites should be rendered useless in the next browser update…. That’s rediculous. Keep doing what you’re doing. IE has it right and that is shown by the huge market share it still commands despite the competition and doomsayer media doing their best to oust it. Ken.

  2. Anonymous says:

    > Missing tags, mismatched tags, the forgotten semicolon in javascript. Are these really reasons to dismiss an entire web page? No.

    I sort of have to disagree with you there. Consider especially the case of a missing closing-comment tag.

    By allowing sloppy code to go through, you’re not allowing developers to get an accurate world-view of their pages during the development process.

    I’d like to see a browser that can be switched into "strict interprative mode" for developers, but defaults to "loose interprative mode" for browsing. Of necessity, any site that works in strict mode should still work in loose mode.

    This will allow developers to catch the missing semicolons, tags, etc., while still grandfathering in all the existing bad code out there that worked in the loose rendering model of previous versions of IE.

    WYSIWYG (I think you have a Freudian slip there… what you see is what *I* get?)

    On the other hand, if you’re just adding functionality I don’t see how sites could break.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Is it telling that there is only one comment on this page? I think that’s an inidication that the two people who have written on this page are completely oblivious to the world of "web standards". There are millions of web designers and developers that are just waiting for Microsoft to finally give up on its goal of trying to standardize the web for themselves and not follow the recommendations that the W3 has layed out and that ALL OTHER BROWSERS are adhering to.

    The world would be a much nicer place to live in if IE finally got around to doing the same!

  4. Anonymous says:

    I dont see how fixing bugs like these:

    http://www.positioniseverything.net/explorer.html

    and adding more CSS support would break existing applications. This just sounds like a bad excuse of being the browser with the worst standars support. You did improve the CSS and DOM support from version 5 to 6, why just not continue doing it?

  5. Anonymous says:

    I also want the C++ compiler to understand that when I write if( i = 0 ) then I actually meant i == 0 instead of just breaking my code. There’s tons of hobbyists who do not understand C++ well, so Microsoft, stop breaking our code 🙂

  6. Anonymous says:

    Maurits – thats exactly what the strict doctype is kinda doing, although once you leave it switched on…

  7. Anonymous says:

    "There are millions of web designers and developers that are just waiting for Microsoft to finally give up on its goal of trying to standardize the web for themselves and not follow the recommendations that the W3 has layed out and that ALL OTHER BROWSERS are adhering to."

    I partially agree with this, in that in an ideal world all browsers should be designed to render pages to the w3c standards. However, if the IE rendering engine were to all of a sudden be fixed, all websites that actually *rely* on bugs in IE would appear broken to 90% of web users. Whether the site contains invalid markup is irrelevant to the vast majority of people… It would appear to them that the new IE breaks most websites. This is obviously not an ideal situation.

    I think that being able to specify strict doctypes and have IE render html to the standards is a nice compromise. However it’s still not even close to working adequately in that fashion yet.

  8. Anonymous says:

    How can you possibly make a big thing of the dozen or so little things on positioniseverything when you have browsers out there that are so unbelievably non-conforming to standards that it isn’t funny anymore. Take mozilla for instance. Do a search on bugzilla for SSL. There are 283 open bugs, page through and you’ll see about 3 dozen SSL security standards that mozilla fails to comply with. *Security Standards* Ouch! Other searches (security, hang, freeze, crash) read through and discover that close to 1 out of every 15 of these thousands are due to standards non-compliance. Maybe security isn’t important, fine. Let’s talk straight semantics. One of the rising stars in web development is being able to call web services from the client. Very cool stuff. But…mozilla can’t seem to get a handle on those standards either. Try using a W3C compliant WSDL that uses complex types…your out of luck.

    Now for the punchline go to this link in IE:

    https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/

    Is that hilarious or what? They can’t even get an SSL certificate to work properly on their own bug tracking site. If you want compliance with standards use IE.

    Sure the HTML/CSS bugs on the website above are annoying. But I’d rather use the easy to use hasDisplay property or the Holly Hack any day than find work arounds for security failures. Ken.

  9. Anonymous says:

    More and more web developers are developing in Mozilla these days. More and more are developing sites that look fine in Mozilla, Opera and Safari only to discover they look completely wrong in IE. This is a growing trend Microsoft can’t afford to ignore.

    As for IE’s compatibility, it leaves the rendering engine in a barmy and unpredictible state. I spend ages this week hunting down a bug whereby our sidebar was not appearing at all. I found that it was because padding-left was set on an h1 inside the banner, which is completely outside of the context of the sidebar. Why should the left (and only left) padding on an h1 element inside a banner div affect a totally separate sidebar that’s absolutely positioned?

  10. Anonymous says:

    I sure hope that eventually MS bites the bullet. As mentioned previously in these comments, C++ has "millions of hobbyists" but it would just be stupid to care for their mistakes in every release of VS… don’t ruin our code!

    I think, if you were to poll the average serious web developer they would feel pretty strongly *against* the way the IE team sees backward compatibility. Surely these people are worth listening to? Pleeeeease?

  11. Anonymous says:

    I wish people didn’t feel the need to promote other browsers and bash stuff here. Compare all you want, but unrelated bugs and "Firefox is great" just don’t do any good. You can get that stuff anywhere but where else will you find information straight from the IE team?

    The thing I wonder about with IE’s compatibility is, what do you do with rendering bugs in strict mode? Do you break pages that rely on those bugs, or do you end up with multiple strict modes?

    Non-strict parsing was a bad idea. Now you have all that old broken markup, much of which no one will ever touch again. IMO the best approach would be to continue allowing it, but put one of those warning bars across the top of the page to discourage new broken markup.

  12. Anonymous says:

    [quote]However, if the IE rendering engine were to all of a sudden be fixed, all websites that actually *rely* on bugs in IE would appear broken to 90% of web users.[/quote]

    The way for IE to handle this is to fix those rendering bugs completely. That way, to won’t render the hacks, and it should render fine without the hacks.

  13. Anonymous says:

    I wrote something about this: http://annevankesteren.nl/archives/2004/06/standard-compliant-ie

    Using the XHTML MIME-type to trigger full standard compliant mode IE could continue not breaking the web, while supporting standards for those we need it.

  14. Anonymous says:

    lowercase josh! That’s exactly what i was thinking! Like in FireFox when it blocks a popup, IE could have the same kind of bar, but for particular html discrepancies! nice… are you listening IE team? 🙂

  15. Anonymous says:

    Anne, I totally agree with you! IE should have standard support in application/xhtml+xml, while still support the crappy old bug/features in text/html.

  16. Anonymous says:

    > I’d like to see a browser that can be switched into "strict interprative mode" for developers, but defaults to "loose interprative mode" for browsing. Of necessity, any site that works in strict mode should still work in loose mode.

    I would fully agree. As a developer, it would be extremely useful to be able to switch one’s browser into a (strictly) development mode where ONLY valid pages display.

  17. Anonymous says:

    That’s a nice story.

    Fact of the matter though is that my PC really didn’t like XPSP2, if it was human it would get a fever and start sneezing.

    I took the SP off and I’m not gonna install it again before it’s a little bit less likely to screw up my computer.

    Good luck

  18. Anonymous says:

    It’s good to see that you care so much for backwards compatibility. Is that why you removed the support for the Netscape plugin API sometime around version 5.5???

    Every browser apart from IE supports this API for plugins (Opera, Firefox, Mozilla, Netscape, various Linux browsers), and IE used to support it back in the days it was playing catchup. But in 5.5 you removed it I guess in an attempt to make people just write IE only (ActiveX) plugins. A decision which is to blame for some of your biggest security holes.

    So please cut the crap about you caring about backwards compatibility, you only care when it suite Microsoft.

    The only benefit I see for IE keeping the sloppy backwards compatibility is to give a disadvantage to the rival browsers. Some hobbyist creates a site it looks fine in IE, they then hear about Firefox (for example) see the page looks bad and then posts F1R3F0X 1Z TH3 SUX0RZ all over the forums.

    The important thing is to move the web forward, not hold it back. If a new standard conflicts with some of IE’s backward compatibility code then the backwards compatibility MUST go. Please stop holding back the web and stop the crap that maintaining backwards compatibility is in our interests. It’s not! The whole Netscape plugin issue proves that Microsoft does what suits Microsoft, users be damned.

  19. Anonymous says:

    Internet Explorer should stop compensating for the bad code of the past, and work in the official code of today, and more importantly.

    I use Firefox, and it is VERY RARE that a web page doesn’t display perfectly.

    In Internet Explorer (which I stopped using for security reasons) valid pages should be displayed correctly, and if the user sees a page broken they can force IE to use the old engine.

    Regards,

    Stephen O’Brien

    StopIE.com

  20. Anonymous says:

    > forgotten semicolon in javascript

    Javascript doesn’t require semicolons. The parser is required to add an "implicit semicolon" wherever necessary

  21. Anonymous says:

    > Every browser apart from IE supports

    > this API for plugins (Opera, Firefox,

    > Mozilla, Netscape, various Linux

    > browsers), and IE used to support it

    > back in the days it was playing

    > catchup. But in 5.5 you removed it I

    > guess in an attempt to make people

    > just write IE only (ActiveX) plugins.

    Internet Explorer’s support for Netscape plugins comes from an ActiveX plugin, plugin.ocx, that loaded the appropriate Netscape plugin for the MIME type. I have IE 6 SP 1 and plugin.ocx is still there. Of course, the reverse is impossible, since the COM-based interface of ActiveX plugins is so much better than the obsolescent and ad-hoc interface of the Netscape plugin API. So you’re wrong on both accounts

    > A decision which is to blame for some

    > of your biggest security holes.

    No. Netscape plugins not only are loaded through an ActiveX control, but nothing in their API protects them. They are still scriptable, run as native code and are initialized with untrusted input. ActiveX is a powerful and solid technology, there’s nothing intrinsically broken about it

    The real issues are IE allowing scripts to instantiate any ActiveX control, and lots of UI issues (warning the user when failing the operation period would have been better, and other such things). And badly written controls, but the IE team can’t do a lot about it

  22. Anonymous says:

    This whole web standard stuff isn’t about backward compatibility. We – developers – have to work twice more because we have to make a standard compliant webpage and an ie_bugfixed version. All the old and not-so-well-made pages will have their problems if IE would use W3 standards? Perhaps. But decide which is the best: having some buggy old hobby-pages or have these bugs conserved forever.

    I would chose to respect web standards and if the IE team is only thinking of ‘backward compatibility’, pray for the success of Firefox. (or any other real browser)

  23. Anonymous says:

    I think what this post is trying to say is

    "A lot of our user base is corporate intranets with web apps that abuse bugs in IE. If we fix the bugs, the web apps will break. Then they’ll be updated to be standards compliant.

    "Once they’re standards compliant, the companies can switch over to Firefox, Safari, or whatever other browser they want.

    "Therefore, fixing the bugs would lead to a (possibly dramatic) drop in our market share. Since we have to do what’s best for the shareholder, we can’t fix our bugs, or we have to at least be very slow and cautious about doing it."

    P.S.: bugzilla.mozilla.org’s security certificate is issued to (bugzilla|bonsai|tinderbox|despot|mecha).mozilla.org–apparently IE doesn’t understand that syntax.

    P.P.S.: Why is there no preview button?

  24. Anonymous says:

    The real problems are not caused by attempting to maintain backwards compatibility. The real problems are caused by not bothering to conform to spec.

    For instance, missing units for non-zero lengths in CSS. The specification clearly states that the rule should be ignored. Internet Explorer treats them as pixels.

    This means that when somebody is checking their work in just Internet Explorer (the vast majority of the ‘hobbyists’ Ken refers to when defending Microsoft), they aren’t going to be aware of their mistake. It means that they are going to be destroying the layout for anybody not using Internet Explorer. It does web authors and non-Internet Explorer users a disservice. But as long as the web authors don’t realise this, and the non-Internet Explorer users don’t realise what causes it, I guess Microsoft can get away with it, right?

    If Microsoft were to fix this issue, the only people who would notice are the ones whose sites were already broken in other browsers. And it might break temporarily, but it would be quickly fixed, and it would _raise_ the reliability of the website, as it would be fixed for _all_ browsers. But the status quo is that there are tremendous amounts of clueless developers out there generating what _appears_ to be bugs in other browsers – so it’s in Microsoft’s interests for these websites to remain broken and to deviate from spec.

  25. Anonymous says:

    I’m sorry, but this post doesn’t really say we’re not going to be fixing bugs or moving towards better functionality.

    The first three paragraphs really capture the entire point of this post.

  26. Anonymous says:

    > I’m sorry, but this post doesn’t really say we’re not going to be fixing bugs or moving towards better functionality.

    It indicates that you are probably not going to fix _certain_ bugs:

    > We feel it is vitally important for web sites and applications that worked with yesterday’s IE work with today’s IE, and continue to work with tomorrow’s IE.

    There are bugs in Internet Explorer that, if fixed, would break some websites. The deviation from spec. I noted earlier is an example of one of them.

  27. Anonymous says:

    Hey, that’s sweet – they’ve started deleting comments! And all I did was point to the fact that the US law requires the owners of websites to make them perfectly accessible to people with various disabilities and that MS is liable for new lawsuits because their pathetic excuse for a browser doesn’t really like pages that are made according to standards because it’s so full of bugs it’s hard to make it interpret valid HTML+CSS.

    Go, Microsoft! Censorship über alles!

  28. Anonymous says:

    I deleted your earlier post because I felt it broke our posting guidelines. The tone and language were just a bit too abusive and insulting.

    Feel free to repost it if you like, if you can leave the insults and abuse out.

  29. Anonymous says:

    Bruce

    "… moving towards better functionality"

    If by this you mean adding (say) tabbed browsing or RSS/Atom feed reading support into the browser app, can we hope that this will come *after* you have at least matched the standards support already achieved by Gecko and Opera?

    If you really do have to manage with limited development and test man-hours, then it is core capability that has to come before the consumer-facing bells and whistles, however necessary it may appear to play ‘catch-up’.

    "we have an incredible number of different users and developers using IE in many different ways …"

    You’ve had a couple of really good suggestions in these comments on ways to keep the browser product both backwards compatible, and standards-compliant and secure going forward.

    IE (the browser product) can never function as a ‘universal canvas’, so don’t go there. The features required by those delivering convincing web applications are properly the province of custom hosts for WebBrowser and MSHTML; for example, customers of our Zeepe rich client framework are wiring together and deploying some really complex and powerful systems of the sort that cannot (and should never be allowed to) run in the browser.

    Just my 2c.

  30. Anonymous says:

    Gee, what an unexpected post. Never in my 2 years of reading blogs focused on web development have I heard that Microsoft believes they are doing the right thing by maintaining bug compatibility.

    Right.

    Actually, I’m tired of hearing it. Stop saying it. No one thinks its even the real motive at this point (even if it is).

    And for those of you who look to Mozilla’s bug tracking site for ammo, I have two things to say. First, I hope you’re not MVPs. MVP is a good program. I have been fortunate to get an MVP award once or twice (Halloween always brings fond memories), and maybe someday I’ll do something to deserve it again. But sometimes the awardees in that program lose perspective and I hate to see that program lose credibility. Second, let’s see Microsoft’s bugzilla.

  31. Anonymous says:

    In other words, you deleted my post because I said "stop the crap". Ask any decent web developer what he thinks about IE – i’m pretty sure that the word "crap" will appear in the first three words of his answer.

    I honestly don’t understand why the IE dev team isn’t doing anything to improve the browser. You’re holding the web back.

  32. Anonymous says:

    MVP program is just BS. "Dont ever talk bad about Microsoft, ok?"

    IE maintaining backward compatibility with obviously INCORRECT behavior is just plain dumb. Or "its just business… nothing personal"

    I can relate to that last saying… in a sense, think about how difficult it has to be to be an IE team dev and have to test blantantly incorrect HTML to make sure it shows up properly?

    IE for me is a love-hate relationship… the only reason its so popular is because it’s bundled with the OS… [we cant possibly separate IE from the OS… yeah sure…]

  33. Anonymous says:

    Well.

    It would be nice if Microsoft would actually stick to it. For instance, patch MS03-015 has broken IE by adding the apostrophe character to the set of "unsafe" URL characters. It escapes me how a character in a URL can be "unsafe" (except for the different meaning used for that term in RFC2396), and why server programmers all over the world should change their URL-generating code to workaround a bug in IE.

    To make things worse, the problem only occurs when the URL triggers content to be passed to an external plugin (such as Acrobat).

    BTW: the problem could be trivially solved by IE escaping the apostrophe as "x27" before passing it on to whatever considers it "unsafe".

    And yes, there is an open support case about this problem. For almost a year now.

    Best regards, Julian

  34. Anonymous says:

    This biggest sin of the internet was to put the name of the browser in the HTTP protocol. This invites browser oriented code instead of standard code.

    I call here all the browser manufacturers: stop identifying, just tell the version of each protocol you implemented.

    Site builders must use a Validator to make their site standard.

    If C++ compilers behaved like browsers, one couln’t port any C++ code!

  35. Anonymous says:

    Isnt this what doctype switching is for? You have standard compliance mode (correctly implemented css, html) and quirks mode (backwards compability for html, css).

    Fixing the bugs in standard compliance mode will not affect old websites, since they probably dont have a standard compliance doctype.

  36. Anonymous says:

    > I call here all the browser manufacturers: stop identifying, just tell the version of each protocol you implemented.

    This isn’t realistic. The User-Agent header is there so people can work around bugs in particular implementations. Nobody is perfect, and it’s very short-sighted to not allow for a small margin of error.

    The _real_ problem is that once these bugs were identified, the browser developers didn’t fix them.

    > Isnt this what doctype switching is for? You have standard compliance mode (correctly implemented css, html) and quirks mode (backwards compability for html, css).

    Unfortunately, "standards compliance mode" is far from perfect, and even people who trigger this will often rely on bugs in Microsoft’s implementation.

    In the past I have suggested that Microsoft pay attention to a HTTP header that turns on a spec. conforming mode – which is similar to the doctype switching, only better.

  37. Anonymous says:

    Jim: what about the millions of people whose sites are hosted by an ISP, or a webspace provider? We *cannot* monkey with HTTP headers because we simply don’t have access. We can only upload static pages. Any conformance control *has* to be in the source document.

    Not to mention what happens if you obtain a document from some other protocol. HTML, while most often used with HTTP, should not be tied to it, nor vice-versa.

  38. Anonymous says:

    > what about the millions of people whose sites are hosted by an ISP, or a webspace provider? We *cannot* monkey with HTTP headers because we simply don’t have access.

    That’s what meta http-equiv is for.

  39. Anonymous says:

    The early IE rendering engines were developed at a time when the web was developing too fast for its own good. Commerce tends to dictate these things. If it weren’t so then North America wouldn’t be using AC power and AM radio.

    I’m much less concerned about how much extra work it takes me to do CSS builds on sites and much more concerned with whether the end users of the web site are getting the best possible experience. Every site I build is about compromise – getting the best possible standards support with the best possible end user experience. How can you use an accessibility argument to criticize Microsoft for not breaking web user experience?

    That said, I spend about 30% of every project making sites work properly in IE(s) and breaking good semantic structure to force a page to render properly in IE. But that’s the job of a web developer. Do criticize Microsoft creatively. But a competent web developer shouldn’t ever suggest that the IE team break the web for people. But you SHOULD perhaps criticize the company as a whole for underallocating resources to the team…

  40. Anonymous says:

    I’m in the office all day today – Sunday – finishing the build for Capital Health’s new website (local regional health authority). We’re doing the CSS/XHTML/WCAG build. I’m nearly there and it’s looking pretty good. There are a few methodologies that Dave and I have fought over, and it’s been very productive. I’ve had some good discussions with folks from all over the world on my test case for using JavaScript and DOM to balance columns. My conclusion right now is that although Javascript for layout is frought with issues at this point, there are limited cases where it can be applied as long as it is exclusively for visual layout and where the lack of it in no way impedes accessibility. If the real world of the web was closer to the theoretical world of the Semantic Web, then one would regularily use ECMA scripting to modify the Document Object Model rather than using redundant, non-semantic clearing divs, wrapper divs and extraneous intra-document CSS hacks to force layout issues. But the real world dictates alternate strategies. This is one of the reasons that I’m particularly enthralled with one of the recent documents to come out of the W3C this week. "Authoring Techniques for XHTML & HTML Internationalization: Specifying the language of content 1.0" is an excellent resource, but is also an excellent guide. Generally the W3C presents excellent academic recommendations that often are impossible to support in the real world of development. This document actually includes implementation guidelines that recognize implicitely the current browser environment with specific implementation notes for certain particularly obstinate rendering engines. Although I like a group like the W3C to remain somewhat academic and aloof from the real world of implementation (let’s design based on principles moreso than compromises) it’s still important to recognize the fact that the best design actually has to be applied somewhere. To see the converse position – where compromise beats principles hands down every time – check out the latest posting to the IE Blog. Not that I criticize their stance. I want people to trust the web as a publishing medium. Some of the standards enthusiasts who encourage the IE Team to break people’s web experience in the name of Standards support are forgetting that the web is still pretty new and unwieldy. I bet they never used rainbow <hr>s and <blink>, or stayed up all night to wait for their copy of Netscape Navigator 1.0 to download. Suck it up, junior, making web is hard work with problems to solve. Let’s make the web a friendly place. The W3C has also published a first kick at developing a query protocol for the Resource Description Framework. I think RDF is cool….

  41. Anonymous says:

    I think there’s a lot of unfairness in the rhetoric posted on this subject, here and other places like slashdot. The issue of standards and compatibility involves a lot of people with very different, competing, and conflicting interests. As a producer of content I sure do hate writing duplicate code, but I also hate the idea of being allowed to do nothing more with my content than what the W3C thinks appropriate. From my point of view they sometimes call my baby, bathwater, and I don’t like the idea of being obligated to live under the rule of their definitions and imagination Whether you call the extra abilities of Internet explorer bugs or features I supposed strictly depends on what you find useful, and what you have no use for. Obviously looking at this toolbox http://donotgo.com/book.htm I’ve found a lot of Internet explorers "bugs" to be quite useful and friendly– without them my Internet experience would be diminished. Sadly You Internet explorer guys have had to kill some of my favorite bugs (control over the clipboard, and url bookmarklet script size etc) I imagine your pop-up blocker is also not healthy for some of my bugs. I profoundly lament that the rotten liars and cheaters are forcing us to produce content in a much narrower imagination universe.

    Those of you who quickly dismiss the innovation of Internet explorer (quick and easy div placement and movement, cut and paste, and the incredibly powerful filters that I only wish I had another lifetime to explore the possibilities of) are throwing a lot of baby out with the bathwater IMHO. The ever increasing speed of client side processors should be encouraging enhancements to client side JavaScript– in theory very powerful applications can be efficiently coded this way, right inside the browser– the only real obstacle is security, and I think that can be most easily and efficiently fixed by allowing content producers to register (with browser companies) and take accountability for, the content they provide. I also believe this would be a solution to search engine Spam… but that’s a whole other subject.

    As a consumer of web content I want to be able to completely control how I view a web page. I want readily available tools to on the fly wipe-out out wherever I don’t want to see or to be bothered with. Obviously, some content producers consider that a Internet sacrilege. Ultimately it is my opinion that the W3C is listening to more to them, than to me and therefore I find them a greater threat to the Internet I want, than the "evil doers" at Microsoft who do not strictly obey their standards.

    To the I E guys, thanks for not putting my imagination out of business….yet.

    PS I’m not a professional (or even schooled) programmer, so please no critiques regarding my incredibly sloppy code, or any other mistakes in precise literary "syntax"

  42. Anonymous says:

    > As a producer of content I sure do hate writing duplicate code, but I also hate the idea of being allowed to do nothing more with my content than what the W3C thinks appropriate.

    The W3C generally include methods for extending their work. Can you give an example of how the W3C is holding you back?

    > Those of you who quickly dismiss the innovation of Internet explorer… are throwing a lot of baby out with the bathwater IMHO.

    Hey, when Microsoft actually offers useful stuff, I don’t complain. It’s when they do it in a non-standard way that causes problems that I start to criticise. For example, proprietary CSS properties that do new things I would not criticise *if they used a prefix instead of polluting the global namespace*. Mozilla uses a -moz- prefix. KHTML uses a -html- profix. Opera uses an -opera- prefix. Internet Explorer doesn’t use a prefix, forcing future specifications to either copy Microsoft no matter how badly designed it was to begin with, or break things, or use a less intuitive property name for the standard way of doing things.

    > As a consumer of web content I want to be able to completely control how I view a web page. I want readily available tools to on the fly wipe-out out wherever I don’t want to see or to be bothered with. Obviously, some content producers consider that a Internet sacrilege. Ultimately it is my opinion that the W3C is listening to more to them, than to me and therefore I find them a greater threat to the Internet I want, than the "evil doers" at Microsoft who do not strictly obey their standards.

    Microsoft employees were part of the CSS working group that published the CSS specifications. You can’t criticise the W3C for their user-oriented stance without criticising Microsoft for the exact same thing.

    > PS I’m not a professional (or even schooled) programmer, so please no critiques regarding my incredibly sloppy code, or any other mistakes in precise literary "syntax"

    I’ll limit myself to one comment: I would take your comments regarding the specifications more seriously if you had not used incorrect syntax in your web pages. All that says to me is "I haven’t read or understood the specifications I am criticising".

  43. Anonymous says:

    We need to move forward. The sites that don’t work in standards compliant browsers are in the minority (otherwise no one would use Opera, Safari or even Mozilla) so therefore it’s your duty to help move the web forward by supporting new standards and allowing people to push the limits of the web. IE is a sad call from the late nineties when it was a pioneer, it’s become a laughing stock and that’s a real shame.

  44. Anonymous says:

    Most of Microsoft’s CSS extensions were created before the -whatever- convention came about, so I wouldn’t blame them too much for that. I remember early builds of Mozilla supported the "opacity" property long before it was finalised.

  45. Anonymous says:

    Frankly, I don’t care about malformed sites. These are the people that actually build the web, not the web savvy (no matter how much we wish it). IE can render malformed sites for all I care.

    The thing I want is for IE to render well formed sites as they should be without using CSS hacks. If IE properly supported CSS and PNG (and continued to do so), I would be happy.

  46. Anonymous says:

    You mentioned this as one mitigation of compatibility issues. This one needs work. IE6 has some real problems with this feature. Pages that validate, and that look and act as expected in IE5.x and Mozilla, will break utterly and bizarrely in IE6 when a "strict switch" doctype is used. We have seen this so much since IE6 came out that our development rule is not to use any doctype statement which could put IE6 into this very quirky mode.

    Recently a technical writer came to me with such a page. Looked as desired in IE5.x, the code validated and I confirmed the layout in Mozilla. IE6 displayed the layout in a way hard to describe without symbolist poetry. As it turned out, Dreamweaver had helpfully added a strict switch doctype.

    Once we deleted that, all was fine in all test environments.

    Brett

  47. Anonymous says:

    Dave Massy explains IE’s compatibility choices…

  48. Anonymous says:

    *sigh* it’s simple, if you want the web to move forward you have to sacrifice some compatibility for the sake of correctness. However, there’s no point in getting rid of backwards compatibility if it doesn’t interfere with published standards.

    I’m sure that a lot of people would be very happy if we just removed the backwards compatibility that conflicts with the standards and left the rest in – that seems to be the way of the other browsers, I can’t see any other mainstream browser that forces standards they all have some backward degree of compatibility.

    So please, move the web forward, support the standards, you only have to drop compatibility if the standards conflict with the current situation.

  49. Anonymous says:

    Ken — the next time you post up here, I’d like to see a link to your site. If you’re so expeienced, I’d like some proof. From what I read, it sounds like you don’t have that much talent, or that much knowledge. Who paid you to play devil’s advocate?

    Backwards compatibility does not have to be sacrificed for the advancement of standards technology, nor vice versa. That type of mindset is what makes the difference between an industry leader, and an industry follower. All I see Microsoft is doing is forcing the industry to further stagnate – why else, if other smaller companies have not seen such fear in this issue?

    You can keep your bugs for older, or doctype less pages — and build new MS WYSIWYG editors and Doctype pages to conform to standards. That leaves open a whole new market, but I don’t see it happening.

    And remember, with all the hacks I have in my Websites to make them work for IE, I’ll have to go back and fix it too if you update. But believe me, I want you to break it, I’d be happy with that — as long as you break it by using standards.

    It’s sad, because there’s a part of me that started with Microsoft, and I’d really like to love this company — but I don’t. I don’t think Microsoft cares for it’s developers at all, I think it cares for it’s own goals and wishes to shift us in the path they choose. How can you say that what a developer wants is not reflective of the industry? We build the sites that are engaging to users?

  50. Anonymous says:

    I agree with "Dave".

    The backwards compatibility ain’t the problem per se. But when such compatibility conflicts with current standards, it has to go.

    There might be a few intranet-applications that rely on the IE-bugs, but catering to those is throwing good money after bad. Every serious web-project right now spend up to 30% of their time applying fixes to various MSIE bugs – time is money – ergo: MSFT cost a lot of businesses a lot of development money because of their lax support for standards.

    MSIE is turning my hair grey, is it our fate then to always have an old dinosaur that make our lives complicated? It used to be NS4 now it is MSIE6?

  51. Anonymous says:

    How many of the websites out there, with DOCTYPEs that trigger standards mode, don’t actually work with Opera, KHTML, Gecko, and a hypothetical better IE6? 1%? 0.1%?

    I don’t think anyone seriously expects IE to break support for DOCTYPE-less sites, but a lot of us would like you to finish what IE6 started.

  52. Anonymous says:

    >""<

  53. Anonymous says:

    In my opinion, there is one WWW and there should be one standard. Imagine if car manufacturers hadn’t agreed on the mechanisms for operating a vehicle. You’d have to learn how to drive a car all over again everytime you wanted to drive something made by a different company. This would be frustrating to consumers, and I think the same principle will inevitably apply to IE. Whether anyone likes it or not, the computer proficiency of the average individual is steadily rising. As more people grow wise about options other than Microsoft, they’ll see benefits with the other options and MS will be forced to compete on a level playing field. People will want standards-compliance, and if MS wants to keep customers they’ll have to offer it. Of course, this requires not being forced into a browser by your operating system, but it looks like MS’s stranglehold on the OS market is quickly loosening. I think the day will come that Microsoft is forced to innovate on the same playing field as the rest of the industry. That’s when we’ll see if they really can make the best software out there anymore.

  54. Anonymous says:

    I think IE would be going along the right track to maintain it’s current behaviour for pages that don’t specify a doctype, but why are we STILL waiting for standards compliance in strict mode? If a page says it’s html4 or xhtml then treat it as such – if it breaks, the author can either fix it, or remove the doctype declaration.

    Fix the css implementation, and I’ll no longer have one of the key reasons I have to convert people to Firefox. Although I prefer non-Microsoft solutions, I really don’t care what my users have, so long as it doesn’t make life more difficult for me.

    My tip of the day – drop the IE rendering engine, and build on top of Gecko; open source isn’t something to fear 😉

  55. Anonymous says:

    I work for local government. Some applications that we use internally require Internet Explorer and, if the IE team ceased their policy of maintaining backwards compatibility, these applications would need to be updated. This may involve internal development work or procuring new systems. Inevitably there would be costs associated with this and these costs would ultimately fall on the taxpayer. That is, *you* would have to pay for it.

  56. Anonymous says:

    Dear Richard, this may surprise you, but – the world isn’t the US.

  57. Anonymous says:

    This post does bring up some good points. When you consider the licensing of Internet Explorer (a commercial product) vs. Mozilla (an open-source free product), several differences arrive.

    Now, Internet Explorer’s rendering engine was developed and used before W3C standards were such a big deal. There are MANY commercial products that rely on IE’s current rendering engine to create the correct output. Removing backwards compatibility with that would be suicide for Microsoft, much larger than the problem with Firefox’s increasing market share.

    Sure, if it was just "hobby" websites that would be broken, I wouldn’t have a problem with a complete standards compliant IE. But the fact of the matter is IE is used both as a client’s browser and an integrated portion of applications.

    I too work as a software engineer for the government. There have been several internal projects I’ve seen that break with a standards compliant web browser.

    I know the frustration of seeing a cool new CSS feature you’d love to do on your website, only to find IE doesn’t support it. The hacks that most users go through right now are ridiculous. My support goes for the idea that all standards that do NOT interfere with current rendering should be met, and any other proprietary standards should be slowly fazed out (.NET 1.1 brought breaking changes).

    I guess the real blame for holding the web back lies partly on Microsoft for not having the insight to comply with standards when they were first published, and partly on developers who program specifically for IE.

  58. Anonymous says:

    My original suggestion for a browser that operates in "lenient mode" by default, but which can be forced into "strict mode" while developing, is a generalization of the DOCTYPE thing.

    A DOCTYPE is a switch on a page. What I’m suggesting is a switch in the Preferences panel that can say:

    * Give me a big ugly error message if there’s a problem with the page I’m looking at

    * Just figure it out as best you can

    The first option is useful for developers when looking at sites you develop.

    The second option is useful when looking at other sites.

    The general rule I’m trying to convey here is:

    BE LENIENT IN WHAT YOU CONSUME

    BE STRICT IN WHAT YOU PRODUCE

    This has various analogs in other areas, but is particularly pertinent for web development.

  59. Anonymous says:

    please, i’ve been waiting for your ie port to texas instruments-99 for years.. when is it coming? 🙁

  60. Anonymous says:

    It seems to me an update to IE that contained some fashion of a meta tag that can force IE to render in truly w3c compliant mode would be the simplist answer (as someone else has mentioned).

    Sites developed without such a meta tag in place would be unaffected, and new sites developed with that meta tag in place could be coded with the minimal amount of hacks to work as intended.

    Wouldn’t something that simple for the ‘end developer’ be a route to consider?

  61. Anonymous says:

    Calvin, that would be mega-neat, but I doubt it will happen any time soon; in fact, 2010. sounds like a nice year for Microsoft to release IE7 which finally supports transparent PNG images.

  62. Anonymous says:

    um, unknOwn, did I suggest that the world was the US? I didn’t mean to and I didn’t realise that I did.

    I don’t live in the US so I’ve no idea why I would suggest that.

  63. Anonymous says:

    "realise"… I’m guessing UK 🙂

  64. Anonymous says:

    Why does this website not validate?

  65. Anonymous says:

    Well then, the world is not the UK 😉

  66. Anonymous says:

    It’s great that when slashdot writes something that might give IE the slightest positive comment then you’re pasting it on your front page, but when it’s saying things against Microsoft it’s just a useless site full of zealots.

    If you don’t like slashdot, never cite one of its stories, don’t be selective.

  67. Anonymous says:

    Erm that was meant for the other thread!

  68. Anonymous says:

    Ken writes:

    <em>

    Is that hilarious or what? They can’t even get an SSL certificate to work properly on their own bug tracking site. If you want compliance with standards use IE.

    </em>

    Uh, what are you talking about? Did you even read the cert’s details? The cert’s completely valid, it’s just that IE doesn’t support certs across multiple subdomains.

  69. Anonymous says:

    <em>

    It seems to me an update to IE that contained some fashion of a meta tag that can force IE to render in truly w3c compliant mode would be the simplist answer (as someone else has mentioned).

    </em>

    That’s done already: it’s called strict mode, and it’s triggered by the presence of the appropriate !DOCTYPE in the page.

    What I think would be best is if MSHTML rendering engine was forked into a strict version and a quirks version. The quirks version would be frozen at the place where IE6 is now. The strict version would have development continued upon it. This would have the carrot of supporting existing sites with the stick of not supporting newer features, forcing them to use standards compliant markup to take advantage of new features.

  70. Anonymous says:

    Bugger! I’m just after realising that I’m after entering my email address rather than my site URL in those last two comments by accident. If somebody’d correct that, I’d appreciate it. No big deal though.

  71. Anonymous says:

    > That’s done already: it’s called strict mode, and it’s triggered by the presence of the appropriate !DOCTYPE in the page.

    Yes, but that mode is also buggy and doesn’t follow spec., so there will be sites that rely on those bugs. If Microsoft fix those bugs and just roll them into strict mode, they’ll be breaking those sites, which they don’t want to do.

    This is why I suggested authors actually ask for the new rendering engine instead of having it used by default in common situations. Or, to avoid this situation in future, allow authors to ask for a specific rendering version, e.g.:

    X-IE-Render: 2

    Where 0 is quirks mode, 1 is strict mode, and 2 is the next version that Microsoft attempt to get things right with. Five years down the line, they can drop support for 0 and introduce 3 if they didn’t manage to get things right with 2.

    It must be a horrific mess to maintain multiple rendering engines, but they are doing it already, and trying to kludge compliance with specifications into an already broken rendering engine while keeping compatibility with buggy websites must be far harder and more risky.

  72. Anonymous says:

    I really like Jim’s idea. The only way to have complete compliance is one step at a time. For example, remember Microsoft’s proprietary MARQUEE tag? That’s pretty much been phased out.

    If W3C could implement a header tag that would specify what version of their recommendations the page follows, then the rendering engine could work the way we want. As time goes on (e.g. 2+ years), we would have complete compliance with all W3C standards.

  73. Anonymous says:

    Its not "backwards compatibility" its "backwards incompatibility". Its the freak extensions that professionals distain. Step 1: quit creating freakish extensions. Step 2: phase out the past garbage that pollutes the web. Then there will (eventually) be no issue with the "backwards incompatibility" that IE currently strives for and achieves.

  74. Anonymous says:

    This post is just a silly excuse. MS ran so fast to get to the no. 1 spot in the browserworld, that they forgot to do a proper job. Now looking back, MS sees the mess they’ve created with IE (and Frontpage) and come up with the user as an excuse. It _should_ be obvious that holding back the web is _not_ good for the users, however, it’s been said that for IE to change course, it takes time for the top to realise the new course is better.

    Which brings up the question: why post this article here? You know it’s not read by your users, it’s read by developers. Look at the reactions. I can only say: "a penny for your thoughts" ’cause I’m wondering if you guys are reading the replies and thinking: "oops, we could we be wrong" or thinking: "they’re just developers, who cares about them or their extra time spent tweaking for IE" or thinking: "… "

  75. Anonymous says:

    when someone creates a web page he/she is NOT a IE user, even if he/she wants to. The code must be valid for all browsers!

    Now finally the tides are turning… When firefox has say 20% or 30% market share nobody will create IE only pages anymore.

  76. Anonymous says:

    .. is that Microsoft tolerates hobbyists who have no clue how to write correct HTML and punishes those of the pro developers who actually try to do the right thing – get the site working in Safari, Opera, FFox/Mozilla and IE…

    And suprise – getting it to work in IE is always the hardest part..

  77. Anonymous says:

    I have to disagree with those who say that supporting the bugs/nonstandard stuff is ok as long as IE gets better standards support.

    By continuing to support bugs/nonstandard code, Microsoft is encouraging apathy on the part of sloppy website designers. Without any pressure to fix their sites, this tolerance allows a large part of the web to persist being inaccessible to any browser that doesn’t go to great lengths to duplicate the numerous bugs and quirks of past IE versions. Thereby making the web inaccessible to the myriad of new devices that do not run some form of Windows+IE.

    This is something that’s not in the interest of a company that truly cares about the health and well-being of the web. This IS in the interest of a company who has less-than-admirable ulterior motives. Microsoft’s action (not words in some PR pseudo-blog) here will determine which they are.

    Since when is supporting old bugs a good policy? Bugs are bugs and should be fixed, not left to fester and encouraging sites to actually DEPEND on them. That is utter nonsense. The only reason that so many sites depend on them now is because MS has (intentonally) neglected for so long their responsibility of coding to the accepted standards of the internet. Why "intentionally"? Browser lock-in. IE-dependence on one hand, and needing a "fixed" version of IE involving paying for XP so you can get SP2? All too convenient for raking in extra profits.

    The time to eliminate the bugs is NOW. The longer you wait, the worse the problem gets. Microsoft needs to take the hardline and just stop supporting them, if they are to remain true to this image they are trying to spin about themselves. Until IE just drops/fixes the bugs, websites won’t wake-up and finally get fixed so that they use standard code, making the job of web designers easier like they’ve been longing for so many years now.

  78. Anonymous says:

    Your ‘backwards compatability’ arguement just wont hold up forever guys. Allowing these ‘hobbists’ to continue wih their sloppy code is like telling them its ok to do a half-assed job. It’s not ok. When Macromedia release AS 2.0 half of my scripts were broken and needed to be fixed, so what did I do? Well, I didn’t complain about fixing them. I am glad they took the time to update the maturing actionscipt language to provide more reliable results, even if that means I have to change my code a little. By the time you release the new version of IE with Longhorn, the damage will be done and your dominance in the market will have withered away, making the significance of this new, hopefully standard complaint browser, no more important than any other Microsoft update. Developers have already made the switch to Mozilla. Coding their websites to W3 standards, and providing alternate fixes for the IE ‘bugs’. By 2006 there will be nothing left for you.

  79. Anonymous says:

    I’m curious about something, Rick: what was wrong with your scripts before Macromedia broke them with AS 2.0?

    Did you have regular, functioning scripts, or was there something unusual about them that made the AS 2.0 changes incompatible?

  80. Anonymous says:

    So basically… after reading through the post’s comments, I’d give everyone the main points it in a bulleted form combined with my own retorts… save yourself the time:

    * IE doesn’t conform to web standards

    – (well duh)

    * Microsoft uses the excuse of maintaining backwards compatibility to allow them to continue to support broken (X)HTML

    – (well.. thats fair enough actually)

    * The IE dev team is more concerned over security than adding new features, which will come with the advent of Longhorn

    – (considering Microsoft’s record profits, yet high employee turnover… why not move more employees to the IE project? Or for a simple solution to all the security holes… release IE as Open Source

    …Then we’ll have protests about IE being propriety, well here comes the clue-train, and the last stop is you: No-one with the right mind would use IE because there are already better open-source alternatives, such as the Gecko renderer, the Firefox browser, and loads more besides.

    * Microsoft is more concerned about shareholders and the mass-market than the people who CREATED THE MARKET IN THE FIRST PLACE

    – (the internet would not be where it is today if it weren’t for the efforts of web developers, much like myself and the millions of others who feel strongly of IE’s depreciation amongst Microsoft’s HQ, by turning their backs on the real innovators for the purpose of making more money, they’re losing out the opportunity of making more money in the future…. I can see parellels between Microsoft and IE with EA and Westwood Studios (long live Westwood, Kane lives in death))

    * Regarding "hobbyists"

    Hobbyists are mainly what we affectionatly call "newbs", they troll around on WebMonkey.com and TutorialForums.com, there, most (if not all) of the members there are fully aware of web-standards and encourage beginners to adopt said standards from the get-go and thus, not be corrupted with depreciated code (death to <marquee>)

    Secondly, Hobbyists do NOT create websites with any real information on them, usually they set up an account on Angelfire or Tripod and get all hyped up about it for the first few weeks, then the site becomes a cobweb full of link-rot and stagnant content ("omfg! t’was my 13th birthday last weekend in July 2002!")

    …The so-called "Mom and Pop" market… when they create websites, much in the same fashion as the people who use Microsoft’s "PictureIt!" or "PhotoStory", are more likely to use something like FrontPage-Express, FrontPage, or some "Happy-Family-Website-Page-Creator 1999"

    I’m aware it wouldn’t be the Microsoft’s fault if the latter were to be employed, but FrontPage (and its little brother) are both Microsoft products, and thus… it is Microsofts fault for:

    a) Creating editors that produce broken code

    b) Creating a browser than works with broken code

    …Then have the nerve to tell us they need to support broken code

    WHEN ITS THEIR OWN FAULT!

    Okay… so I can give them a little slack…

    FrontPage Express (98 and IE5 editions) were both made before the HTML4.0 specification was finalised, and HTML3.02 was the language of the time… and as we all know… HTML3.02 = teh l0se!

    But then we hit back again

    Microsoft ASP.Net 1.0, 1.1, and the 2.0 Beta

    The built-in web-controls serve HTML3.02 content up, when HTML4.01 code could easily have sufficed, if not XHTML1.0

    And ASP.Net is a recent innovation, released AFTER the XHTML1.0 spec

    Result being, I have to re-author all the controls to work the way they NEED to work

    Again, Microsoft is breaking the internet and using their own "product features" as an excuse to keep their browser in the past.

    So finally, I pitch this one question:

    If Microsoft is so commited to web-standards, then why do *NONE* of the sites, mini-sites, or pages under Microsoft.com or MSN.com validate as compliant (X)HTML? (Above 3.02)

    …As a recent StopDesign investigation showed that if Microsoft switched to XHTML, their bandwidth costs could be reduced by up to **62%**:

    URI: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/

    -W3b

  81. Anonymous says:

    quote:

    As a recent StopDesign investigation showed that if Microsoft switched to XHTML, their bandwidth costs could be reduced by up to **62%**:

    URI: http://www.stopdesign.com/articles/throwing_tables/

    That is such a wonderful and great argument! But I get the feeling that although this is a weblog where people can comment, the editors are not reading the comments, or not caring, because how could one argue with these kind of examples? They obviously can’t, or only by using the enduser and their feedback as a bulletproof shield.

    My question: Helllloooooooo? Anyone of the editors listening here? Care to comment on this? Probably not. Then why don’t you shut this weblog off, or at least the comments, because this is ridiculous!!

  82. Anonymous says:

    We, the IE team, have absolutely no day-to-day responsibility for how Microsoft.com, MSN, MSDN, Hotmail, or any other Microsoft website decides to code their pages. Even this blog is being hosted for us, and frankly we have better things to do than fiddle with the blog code.

    If you click the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of Microsoft.com, you can get to a form where you send feedback to the people who actually work on that site.

  83. Anonymous says:

    >>But there are so many hobbists not to mention the millions of families and friends that create web pages to inform loved ones.

    –an increasing number of people are using msn groups, photo sites and pre-packaged blog templates to accomplish this far more effectively than doing it all on their own. There aren’t that many html ‘hobbists’ and of the ones I do know, they are all quite capable of running their pages through a quick validation and 5 minutes of fixing missing tags before they upload.

    >>the small businesses that use WYSIWIG programs to create their pages.

    — if someone shells out money to buy a WYSIWYG program I’d expect the professional company to make a professional program (even if its made for hobbists) that creates valid html.

    quote -> Should companies and professionals create well formed HTML? Of course.

  84. Anonymous says:

    Ap&oacute;s ler artigo "How Microsoft can support CSS2 without breaking the Web", referenciado no The Web Standards Project, nem precisa ser muito anti-Microsoft para perceber o jogo cruel de Redmond. Segundo uma entrevista citada de Gary Schare, a Microsoft se…

  85. Anonymous says:

    That post from before about darwin…

  86. Anonymous says:

    Pour l’histoire de cette traduction du billet de Chris Wilson, voir mon billet prcdent.

    IE et les Standards

    Tout d’abord, je voudrais me prsenter. Mon nom est Chris Wilson ; Je suis le directeur de programme pour la…