jQuery 1.5.1 Supports IE9

Last week the jQuery team announced the release of jQuery 1.5.1. This is a bug fix release to jQuery 1.5 that includes a particularly exciting note:

“jQuery now supports Internet Explorer 9 as a top level browser.”

This means all known issues with IE9 have been resolved and new issues will be resolved before future versions of jQuery are released.

On behalf of the IE team, I want to thank the jQuery team and contributors for their efforts to support IE9 and for their continued work on an awesome JavaScript library.

Please download and use the latest version of jQuery to get your site ready for IE9.

—Tony Ross, Program Manager, Internet Explorer

Comments (47)

  1. Damiano says:

    Very nice Work! 🙂

  2. Waiting... says:

    Good work IE team. Now where is Steve with his totally irrelevant "mommy I am unable to test my websites on old IE versions" post?

  3. Jace says:

    Will you be sending the jQuery team a cake? 🙂

  4. 6205 says:

    The cake is a lie 🙂

  5. Tim Broddin says:

    Does this mean that IE9 breaks all the sites which use a version of jQuery prior to 1.5.1?

  6. André R. says:

    I like the fact that you guys totally skipped mentioning anything about the last part regarding this in the jQuery post 🙂

       "All known bugs have been fixed and/or been reported to the IE team for resolution in the final release"

  7. Tony Ross [MSFT] says:

    @Tim Broddin

    No, many aspects of prior jQuery versions work just fine with IE9. The known issues related to specific interactions that could cause problems.

  8. Mikael Söderström says:

    If a site that is using jQuery doesn´t work in IE9, you can use the compatibility mode.

  9. Dave Methvin [jQuery] says:

    @Tim Broddin: The major IE9 blocker we fixed in 1.5.1 was one we introduced in 1.5; we assumed IE9 needed a workaround that it no longer needs (yay!). That particular problem shouldn't affect people using older versions of jQuery.

    @André R: There was one obscure failure in our unit tests reported to the IE team, related to IE9 not throwing an error on the invalid selector ":nth-child(-)".  If you use valid selectors there should be no issues. Since then there is one additional bug reported, which we expect to fix in 1.5.2: bugs.jquery.com/…/8381

    All in all, I think both teams are doing pretty well.

  10. jason says:

    Very good news.  Of course it is important to mention that much of the hack-job workarounds done in jQuery are done to support IE since it has always been furthest from complying to standards.

    The great news is that dropping support for IE6 and IE7 (and soon IE8) will mean that we can customize jQuery to remove tons of extra weight that is currently needed to support these legacy IE browser versions.

  11. Stifu says:

    @jason: and how would you do that? Just dive into the jQuery sources and remove stuff by yourself?

  12. TEXT-SHADOW says:

    But IE9 don't support TEXT-SHADOW……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….badbabdbad………………………………………!!!!

  13. willpeavy.com says:

    Congrats to both the jQuery and IE teams.

    Is there any chance that jQuery could one day be included as a native library in Chakra?

  14. mymickey says:

    IE WEB THE  sorrow

  15. LockeVN says:

    Nice!! Many thanks

  16. mahmoud says:

    Congratulations ^_^

  17. Barney says:

    @willpeavy.com – no jQuery will never ship as embedded code inside Chakra (or any browser) as it would not work well when it comes to versioning etc.  In addition although (IMHO) jQuery is by far the best JavaScript library out there we've seen time and time again that Monopolies do not work and they stifle innovation.  Competition is needed to keep innovation strong – and diversity is needed because sometimes you need different things.  e.g. there are some great JS libs dedicated to animations and sprites… others to form controls, others for media, etc.

    If you are going the ASP MVC route, you've got jQuery built in now… and better yet, using the Google or Yahoo or whomever's CDN works better since the code may already be loaded before the user hits your site… and regardless the load is one less item on your site.

  18. Chris Quirke says:

    OneBar – OK, as long as it supports the same Search functionality, but it doesn't.  There's a bug involved, too.

    Specifically, I often do a search, then change the search engine to repeat the same search elsewhere.  I can't find a way to do this in IE9's OneBox, because the search ends up as an engine-specific URL, and changing search engines appears to do nothing (the engine icon does not change) until you search something else; then that search is applied with the new engine, even tho the old engine's icon is still displayed.

    As tested on Win7 Pro 64.

    Sorry to comment here; I tried to do it to a more appropriate post (User Experience…), but could find no UI to drop a comment there.

  19. Brian LePore says:


    While it may be troublesome, and definitely requires additional attributes for the script tag to show what version you're using, running native copies of a JavaScript library from the disk instead of from the Web is not an insurmountable task. I am the developer of the Local Load extension for Firefox ( http://www.getlocalload.com ) that allows you to do just that (yes, I am a few versions behind in popular JS libraries, I have been meaning to get to that and test for Firefox 4).

    BTW, what is up with there being three characters with screwed up encodings before Tony Ross' name in the article? I'm seeing them rendered incorrectly in IE9 and Firefox 3.6.

  20. ie9 bad css3 implemantation says:

    ie9 dont render correctly border-radius on an fieldset. the border  rendered are square.

  21. JE says:

    May sites like word press sites have the jquery versies encoded in them.

    So they are not likely to upgrade  any time soon

  22. jQuery integration says:

    I hope someday browsers will include precompiled versions of major JavaScript libraries like jQuery with a standard way to check if the version you are looking for is already there.  If the check fails for the precompiled library then you just link to the .js file like usual.

    Would save a lot of download time and bandwidth.

  23. Howard says:

    @ie9 bad css3 implementation – looks like they re-broke bug #419 in the RC release.


    Hopefully there is one release before the final to iron out all the remaining kinks, fix innerHTML, fix the addressbar problems, add a spellchecker and widespread geolocation accuracy issues.

  24. James says:

    Sorry for the Off Topic, but what are the internal default values of IE9 for MaxConnectionsPerServer and MaxConnectionsPer1_0Server?


  25. DanglingPointer says:


    BTW, there being a hiccup in tinyMCE js plugin in IE9's native mode. It turns the textarea into steel. Changing the mode to 7/8 make it run smoothly.

    ~ Please provide the "Create Download" button, so user can enter manual URL to save a file, resource or the entire webpage within the download manager: connect.microsoft.com/…/625057

  26. DanglingPointer says:

    Also, on IE9's native mode, the fifth test fails:  tinymce.moxiecode.com/…/tinymce.Formatter_apply.html  Use the compatibility mode and it works!

    tinymce.moxiecode.com/…/remove.html uses Java plugin. FF renders it perfectly fine. But IE9 crashes the page in such a way that the back-button on the page dismounts/forget the previously viewed pages list for that tab.

  27. @Dave Methvin [jQuery] says:

    It seems that there is another one. document [dot] recalc msdn.microsoft.com/…/ms536685%28v=vs.85%29.aspx is missing in IE9. We used this method on IE 8 to workaround issues with dynamically loading CSS would produce a "1 item remaining" bug.

  28. Björn says:

    Old jQuery versions should mostly work fine since they don't use browser sniffing for quite some time now, but its child jQuery UI does, so I wonder how older versions of latter library are able to cope with IE9.

  29. hAl says:

    @Dave Methvin [jQuery]

    The recalc example on the article you reffered to seems to work fine in IE9 RC


  30. nikos says:

    please, support history manipulation in final ie9 (pushState + replaceState + onpopstate)

  31. Tom says:

    @Chris Quirke: Enter search term in OneBar to search with Search Engine X. As you pointed out, this will replace your search term with the Search Engine X URL. Now, click the magnifier icon in the OneBar. The URL is replaced with the original query. Click the icon for Search Engine Y and you can repeat the same search without retyping it.

  32. Mario says:

    hello, I have a Question regarding my IE9. has there been any updates since last week?

  33. Rob says:

    Why are some people congratulating the IE Team. They didn't do anything. It was the hard work of the jQuery team that made this work and, considering how awful a job trying to get anything to work in IE9 is, I pity them for feeling they had to do this.

  34. @ Rob says:

    Rob, your mom has been waiting outside the school for 20 minutes. Please leave your drama club friends and go meet her.

  35. Windows xp says:

    HELLO MICROSOFT!  Hey you guys could always make an installer for windows xp that has the IE8 interface, that has support for html5 and the others added in IE9 but just remove tracking protection and activeX filtering and the stuff that windows xp can't hold… ( I copied the ieframe.dll from my windows7 computer to my windows xp and than the Microosft IE9 installer let me install the web browser on windows xp.)

  36. @Windows xp says:

    Ooo… Really ? Can someone else confirm that? Please write some blog on this one.. people will love that.

  37. die XP die says:

    Of course it can be done. Its only politics, nothing more…

  38. IE9 lover says:

    @Windows xp   is right! i tried it!

  39. IE for xp says:

    There is an Internet explorer for Windows xp its called Firecocks! XD http://getfirecocks.com and after installing

  40. AntiLuddite says:

    Ha ha I tried to install IE9 on the pathetic XP. The OS immediately crashed and BSOD into oblivion. When I restarted my ENTIRE hard drive was BLANK. I then dumped the pathetic XP, installed Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit, and now running the beautiful IE9 RC smoothly.

    Thank you Microsoft for ditching the pathetic XP.

  41. ChrisTX says:

    @Windows xp

    It could be indeed done. However, this would introduce issues, such as the IE team having to add a lot of compatibility code, improving the WIC port most likely and having a version with and one without hardware acceleration. Since XP is out of mainstream support, I really don't see a compelling reason why they would do that. By making IE9 Windows Vista/7 only, they can profit of the vastly improved API which was the main point.

    Hardware acceleration isn't the only thing XP would lack either:

    Mandatory Integrity Control required for sandboxing? No check. SEHOP? No check. Cryptography NG? No check. Windows Imaging Component? Half a check, only the pre-Windows 7 component is available for XP. Direct2D? No check. Media Foundation? No check.

    IE9 on XP would not be able to deliver any kind of quality enhancements over IE8 while meaning a major #ifdef'ing for the IE team. So why exactly would they do this? The security and performance of IE on Vista/7 would not be anywhere near comparable to what that could deliver. Not to mention the small API improvements (ie threading primitives) that NT6 delivered.

    XP is dead, get over it.

  42. Windows xp says:

    No XP Isn't dead!  Make Another version of IE  but called It "Internet Explorer for xp"  There is a version of Internet explorer for mac called Internet explorer for mac   Why not Internet explorer for xp?   Come on Microsoft please?  That is the least you can do for us for charging so much for windows 7

  43. deiirr says:

    good info

  44. hAl says:

    @ Windows xp

    "No XP Isn't dead!  Make Another version of IE  but called It "Internet Explorer for xp"

    They already did.

    It's called IE8

  45. willpeavy.com says:


    "no jQuery will never ship as embedded code inside Chakra (or any browser)"

    That's a strong claim, that, I believe will soon be proven incorrect.

    "as it would not work well when it comes to versioning etc."

    Versioning could be handled through a header or meta element.

    "In addition although (IMHO) jQuery is by far the best JavaScript library out there we've seen time and time again that Monopolies do not work and they stifle innovation."  

    Most will agree that monopolies are bad. But who said anything about native jQuery being exclusive to Chakra? You could throw in Prototype, YUI, etc as native libs as well.

    "using the Google or Yahoo or whomever's CDN works better since the code may already be loaded before the user hits your site… and regardless the load is one less item on your site."

    CDNs are fast, but native libs would be faster.