Microsoft Confirms IE8 Has 3 Render Modes 525
Dak RIT writes "In a blog post this week, Microsoft's IE Platform Architect, Chris Wilson, confirmed that IE8 will use three distinct modes to render web pages. The first two modes will render pages the same as IE7, depending on whether or not a DOCTYPE is provided ('Quirks Mode' and 'Standards Mode'). However, in order to take advantage of the improved standards compliance in IE8, Web developers will have to opt-in by adding an additional meta tag to their web pages. This improved standards mode is the same that was recently reported to pass the Acid 2 test, as was discussed here."
Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
I have to add a fucking tag to say I'm compliant? That's insane.... Those that fuck up compliancy should be punished. Heck, no, if I specify XHTML strict, it should render strict. The doctype does say enough. Those who want to adhere to standards just say "strict" and that's it. We do not need an additional tag. The doctype is not broken as he says in the article. You fuckers broke it!
There you have it... It wasn't rendering accurately... Who's at fault, eh?
He's simply not realising that adding another tag will have the same effect as the doctype... And in 5 years will have a 4th rendering mode. Great! Long live standards, those that I can choose!
This is a misguided attempt of someone trying to keep backwards compatibility. The standards are open and published, adhere to them.
Just Like Before (Score:4, Insightful)
Did I catch that right? (Score:4, Insightful)
let me see if I get this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
At least their decision isn't going to mess with any other browsers.
A good first step (Score:3, Insightful)
OOXMLish (Score:5, Insightful)
<render-like-IE6>
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
You really expected true standards compliance? I am SHOCKED! SHOCKED I tell you!
Re:Just Like Before (Score:4, Insightful)
The comments on the blog to the tone of "break the web" are amusing. I'd like to see the face of a CIO when his architect tells him that the corporate-wide upgrade to IE8 broke half the apps on the intranet because, you know, some technorati bloggers with snazzy-looking web sites signed the W3C suicide pact and wanted everyone to do the same.
Or, use Firefox and convince everyone to do as well. That's what I've been doing lately. Maybe IE8 will pull me back, but IE7 sure has heck didn't.
3 modes are: Quirks, standards, & super standa (Score:2, Insightful)
2. "Standards mode" remains the same as IE7, and compatible with current content.
3. ["super standards"], you []get it by inserting a simple element.
Why to do have to add a tag to "say" it's standard.
Change the name of mode 2 to "Almost standard" and get people to use that tag there!
I, for one, welcome... (Score:3, Insightful)
On a serious note, it makes some sense why they require you to opt-in. Reason being, that alot of websites are designed to "hack" Internet Explorer to look right and forcing all of those sites to be updated to the new standards will take time.
It's easier to force all new websites or updated websites opt-in rather than forcing ALL websites to update to the new Internet Explorer.
Forcing? Look on the bright side. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just Like Before (Score:5, Insightful)
It would make more sense... (Score:3, Insightful)
How could it have passed Acid2? (Score:5, Insightful)
So how could IE8 possibly have passed the Acid2 test? The test page doesn't contain the magic META tag that IE needs to pass the test!
please kill the tagging beta (Score:1, Insightful)
Is this really helpful to anyone, anyone at all?
Tagging sucks and is also stupid and unhelpful. Can we kill it now, please?
Re:Not seeing the logic here... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:How could it have passed Acid2? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:let me see if I get this ... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know that was a joke, but the answer is no, it uses a standard HTML tag.
Which is used to add a non-standard HTTP header, "X-UA-Compatible". Standard HTML, non-standard HTTP.
Which leads to the great possibility of a webpage looking different on the local computer compared to the server it was originally downloaded from...
No the best, but better than I had hoped for. (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Don't try to support standards properly.
2) Obey the DOCTYPE, even though many programs and people put it on old pages which aren't going to render properly in a standards-compliant browser
3) Add a new flag that means "Yes, I promise I know about standards".
For years, they have been doing (1). It would be nice if they did (2), and just broke all the badly written IE 6 pages with an improper DOCTYPE. But they aren't going to do that, their users don't want them to do that, and to be honest I don't either. That leaves them with adding a new flag which lets people admit they know about standards.
In their favour, they are:
1) Designing the option in such a way other browsers can be extended by it
2) You can pass it as a HTML header, so if you want just add it to your apache config, and all pages on your website will be rendered in IE8 cleanly (this is the option I intend to take).
Yes, this isn't perfect and it is evil Microsoft, but it's bettered than I'd hoped for. I'm looking forward to popping the option into my apache config and seeing if IE8 really is standards compliant.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it isn't DOCTYPE switch that failed, but it was Microsoft that failed to implement the standards and set the proper expectations with their developers and their customers; and then faked the standards mode for their own benefit to be backward compatible to the broken rendering mode they had before. Nice twist to the truth though - would have probably made it through some junior VB script kiddies if it was more sugar coded.
Re:An awful first step (Score:4, Insightful)
Stan
So when they release IE 15 (Score:3, Insightful)
Sounds wonderful.
Re:Did I catch that right? (Score:3, Insightful)
Requiring a non-standard tag to be part of a standards-compliant page isn't standards-compliant. The standards says nothing about adding tags that aren't part of the standards. How could they?
The real fix here would be for MS to either: support IE 6 in making it standards compliant or report to its customers that it is not standards compliant and that pages written for it are not either. Maybe a good work-around for people who broke their sites by writing to IE 6 would be to add a tag that says to use IE 6's render mode. IT shouldn't be the people following the standards who have to make the change.
What MS is counting on two things with this botch. One is that it's the people who didn't care if anything but IE 6 worked who won't be bothered to update anything. The other is that people who cared enough about standards and cross-browser compatibility to do extra work then will care enough about IE 8 now to do a little extra.
People think Microsoft is a software company. (Score:1, Insightful)
If you want software, choose some other company. If you want abuse, Microsoft is one of the world's larger suppliers of time wasting hassles for technically knowledgeable people.
Billionaires don't need more money. Many billionaires believe they need people to abuse; they want people they think are socially below them. That was the reason for slavery, too; just rich people wanting to feel that they are superior.
My opinion, but in my experience not far wrong.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:2, Insightful)
So, it isn't DOCTYPE switch that failed, but it was Microsoft that failed to implement the standards
Boy would I hate to be the one to break that awfully shocking news to them. Don't suppose they will survive that one, you think?
Anyway. Get over it. Detect your browser version and render your custom CSS. Play like everyone else plays.
Re:Just Like Before (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How could it have passed Acid2? (Score:1, Insightful)
In other words, when IE is running in this standards mode, it can pass Acid2. And I'm pretty sure the IE developers can programmatically enable it for testing. They could even enable it and then browse to sites like, oh, I don't know... the Acid2 test? The fact that you need a META tag to run IE in standards mode doesn't mean that standards mode can't pass Acid2.
Re:Why not create a whitelist for IE6 behaviour? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:let me see if I get this ... (Score:3, Insightful)
You don't have to include the tag. You can use a server-side user-agent browser sniffing check to see whether or not to include the IE-specific meta tag hack!
Of course, the really funny part is that the whole reason they're doing this is that too many people misused the DOCTYPE declaration in the first place -- declaring that their pages should use Strict rendering when in fact they used the old IE6 hacks. So who wants to bet that MS will need to introduce another browser hack for IE9 because too many web developers set this new hack to "IE=edge" or whatever to be "future-proof"?
As they say, make something idiot-proof, and the universe will just invent better idiots. The only problem is that MS feels the compelling urge to cater to these new, improved, uber-idiots.
Re:Just Like Before (Score:4, Insightful)
So, in order to have their cake and eat it too, Microsoft wants IE to be backwards-compatible to IE6 and more modern at the same time. The only way to do that is to make everybody add a redundant tag, and they trashtalk doctype to get their will. But doctype says to which standard a document was written. Microsoft on the other hand wants developers to keep writing pages to browser versions, which is what got us into this mess in the first place.
The correct way to solve this is to make new IE versions identify as something new, like MSWB, and provide an IE6 compatible control for applications which request MSIE. And tell developers to write to standards, not browsers, and test with more than one browser!
WAAAAAIT! (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Wait a second? (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, Microsoft can scratch ACID 2 rendering now, since it will only render in IE 8 with the new meta tag (which should point out to the IE team the error of their ways).
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, it isn't DOCTYPE switch that failed, but it was Microsoft that failed to implement the standards
Boy would I hate to be the one to break that awfully shocking news to them. Don't suppose they will survive that one, you think?
Anyway. Get over it. Detect your browser version and render your custom CSS. Play like everyone else plays.
Or leave it broken for the people without a proper browser.
If it's strict, it's strict. If your browser cannot render strict properly, go and bitch to the manufacturer.
Then opt-out. (Score:5, Insightful)
But more importantly, they are adding a non-standard tag to indicate standards-compliance, which is just fucked up. How about you use a non-standard tag to indicate non-standards-compliance -- to indicate that you want the old way of doing things? How about you just drop your DOCTYPE?
If you don't maintain your website enough to even be able to do that, I don't see how that's Microsoft's fault. And it really pisses me off that Microsoft has the audacity to demand that the rest of the world code specifically for IE. You had to do that before, anyway, but this is the first time they've publicly admitted it. Can we have our antitrust suit back, please?
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
And that is not an excuse.
Firefox is not bugfree -- it leaks like a sieve (or "fragments"), chewing up half your RAM. Konqueror is not bugfree -- it crashes maybe every day or two for me. I'm sure Safari and Opera each have their own bugs.
But I can relatively easily make a website -- even a web app -- which works the same way in Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, Opera, and so on. This is the first 90% of the project. The other 90% is making it work on IE.
Why is it unrealistic to ask people to follow the standard, and to let IE be buggy? Why should we be working around Microsoft's bugs for them?
Perhaps, but has it occurred to you that this is exactly what DOCTYPEs are for? So that when XHTML 6.0 comes out, browsers will still be able to deal with XHTML 5?
Re:No the best, but better than I had hoped for. (Score:3, Insightful)
If there's any justice, some day some government will fine Microsoft a hundred trillion dollars, not specifically for being a monopolist, but for being completely incompetent. I think the reason they want to keep their code, protocols and formats a secret is because the real secret is that for all that money, Microsoft may be occupied by the biggest pack of mental retards the world has ever known.
Re:Not seeing the logic here... (Score:4, Insightful)
It is like developing Perl or C with full warnings turned on. It can be a pain to satisfy every pedantic complaint of the parser, but eventually you learn to do it right the first time and you might even find that the warnings indicate a much more serious error in the program logic.
-matthew
Re:Just Like Before (Score:4, Insightful)
How about option 3: Code to the standards, and ignore specific browsers. Obviously, you want to test it in other browsers to expose flaws in your own code/assumptions, but if a browser doesn't work due to actually being non-standard, I want that to be Not My Problem.
I've spent enough of my life hacking workarounds around Microsoft crap. How about they work around the standard for a change?
They already did, to some extent, with IE7.
Keep in mind, these billions of pages were already broken. They should not have been compatible with anything. Microsoft dropping compatibility for them would actually be a healthy thing, compared with, say, some of the things they broke with Vista.
I'd like to see the face of a CIO when his architect tells him that the corporate-wide upgrade to IE8 broke half the apps on the intranet because, you know,Because, you know, he was a moron who didn't test those apps on IE8 before rolling it out. Didn't know about WSUS, you know. Can I have his job when he's fired for incompetence?
Again: Same thing happened with IE7. Same kind of complaints, same intranets keeping everyone on IE6 for awhile.
The only reason you mention this is the same reason it's not a problem: On intranets, apps tend to be more tied to a single browser, because you can mandate that browser. Because the alternative was even worse -- mandating the install of some custom client-side app, maybe some Visual Basic + Access crap. This same freedom that lets intranet sites be lazy with respect to the standards also allows them to delay IE8 as long as they want -- or, yeah, use Firefox.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't really know what people want from Microsoft now. They screwed up--it's obvious. They know it, we know it, web developers know it. Nevertheless, web developers have had to work around incompatibilities for years. What do you want, for Microsoft to change the rendering engine out from under people? Thousands of websites to stop working in that browser (the one that most people use) until the developers can fix the site? It's a bad situation, and it's Microsoft's fault to begin with, but what solution would you propose that wouldn't inconvenience a lot of end users (both developers and their customers, alike)?
Re:Wait a second? (Score:1, Insightful)
Let's face it, the people dumb enough to be using IE are not the first to be updating. If MS releases a browser that broke sites of say an corporate intraweb site, the sysadmins will not update it, and IE6 will be with us forever.
This is the reason IE7 is still low in market share! A recent polling of my sites indicated 60% percent of IE users are still using IE6. I hate IE6 and do not want to support it anymore, so if this will rid the earth of IE6 then fine.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
Seriously, you're new to this, aren't you? Not only will you have to test your page with browsers running in virtual machines, over the course of time you'll have to test it in IE8 pretending to be IE7, IE8 pretending to be IE6, IE9 pretending to be IE8, IE9 pretending to be IE7, and so on as you change the tag to benefit from newer rendering modes. All those render modes will either use combined code, which means they won't render exactly as the old versions, or they are essentially multiple browsers in one, which means they'll each have their own security vulnerabilities and plugin incompatibilities.
This page is for IE7; deal with it
Added benefit for Microsoft: They get to write their own standards again. If another browser sees that made-for-IE7 tag, it must recreate all of IE7's quirks (and those of IE6 and IE8 and IE9...), i.e. behave like some closed source software from Microsoft. MS DOC deja vu...
I really hope that the other browser developers show MS the finger on this one, because if you thought browsers are memory hogs and security nightmares now, wait until every browser has to implement all its predecessors' quirks and all its predecessors' competitions' quirks.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
No. They should be educated.
Inform them they are using a non-compliant browser and send them to download Firefox.
And if they insist on using a deficient product, it is not my problem.
I am an educator.
Every user I educate is a win for me.
And for everybody else, in the end.
Re:Just Like Before (Score:2, Insightful)
I agree. That is what they should do.
But they won't. Why? Because improving cross-browser compatibility is bad for Microsoft (the very thought of making it possible for customers to escape vendor lock-in is the epitome of heresy!), despite it being good for the world in general.
Since this is a decision that Microsoft has to take (it's their product after all), the outcome should not really surprise anybody: They'll always do what's best for them, regardless of the consequences for others. Nothing new here.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes. To anyone this affects: Your website was broken in the first place. It is partly MS' fault that it was broken, but mostly yours, for not trying it out with other browsers.
Yes. Let them add hacks like <use-fucked-up-block-model>. Don't make the standards compliant people have to add <dont-fuck-up-my-box-model/>.
(Yes, I realize it's an HTTP header. You think that makes it better? I mean, yeah, great -- now "save as" on webpages will break them, unless they're using <http-equiv>. And yes, it's got a browser version number in there!)
I wouldn't. I'd much rather have a little short-term inconvenience, if it means that in the long term, we can forget about all this. Maybe even forgive.
But no, we got the opposite -- something that works in the short term, but will come back to haunt us in the long term. I'm really not looking forward to the <no-really-I-mean-it-standards-compliant-this-time> tag with IE9 in another few years. Nor am I looking forward to IE15 unintentionally introducing a bug in the IE6 compatibility, breaking some decade-old site out of the blue -- I'd much rather it be broken now, when there's a greater chance someone's actually paying attention enough to fix it.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just like any other project in the software world. The first 90% of the project takes 90% of the time, and the last 10% of the project takes 90% of the time.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
The only actual problem is that many IE6-only pages exist which declare a wrong doctype. A solution to that does not need to be extended into a mechanism which makes it a standard compliant behaviour to design to specific browsers and browser versions. The proposed solution puts Microsoft in the position where they can continue to disregard standards, because as long as the document declares for which browser it is written, every other browser has to cope, should this become a standard.
In conclusion, Microsoft could either provide a new browser which faces the same problems as every other browser, i.e. not being recognized as IE and therefore being excluded from certain pages and web applications, alongside a compatibility browser which emulates IE6 for those legacy applications. Or Microsoft could simply push for a new version of HTML, complete with a new doctype, which a new browser version would then render accurately while treating older doctypes like IE7 or IE6 does today. The only thing they really need is a way of saying "this is a new page, no quirks mode, for real" and a new HTML doctype would do that just fine.
What they propose is the same compatibility scheme which has failed miserably in Word: Each version of Word creates its own "standard" of the DOC file format and every successive version has to render all versions of that format. Even Microsoft, despite having the code to the older Word versions, doesn't get that right. Competitors don't even stand a chance because there is no specification and no code to look at. Do you really want that for the web? That kind of mess is exactly why standards and accompanying standards replaced the proprietary Netscape vs. Microsoft tag soup.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh come on. You and the OP should take a second and THINK before running your collective mouths off.
There is nothing wrong with using a special (standards compliant) tag to tell the browser to render differently than normal. In addition to preventing tens of thousands of websites from breaking, there are plenty of CDs and other media containing websites written over the last 10 years. Should all these become unusable just because Microsoft updated their browser? Is adding one tag really that much trouble for you?
I know it's fashionable on Slashdot to say things like "NOT STANDARDS COMPLIANT!?! HOW DARE THEY!!1" (and then get modded up for it!), however the real world requires more tact than that. Coming up with a solution like this that unifies the three Trident rendering modes (quirks, IE6, standard) is pretty elegant. It keeps real old sites from breaking. It keeps sites made in the last 7 years from breaking. Above all, it gives web authors the ability to fine-tune the way their page renders without a bunch of hacks.
Is it ideal? Obviously not, but unless you've got a time machine and can fix the problem, please shut up. Bitching about the past doesn't do anything except give people headaches. It's worth wondering if Microsoft's dedication to backwards-compatibility has anything to do with their success. It's popular around here to say "get with the times" but in the business world, that means money. The supposed "bit rot" is an artificial and man-made result of ignoring this fact.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:People think Microsoft is a software company. (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:People think Microsoft is a software company. (Score:2, Insightful)
I was initially happy that MS wised up and decided to play straight with their browser - happy FOR them - but now I couldn't give a fuck. Talk about a company wasting a chance at recieving a widespread feeling of goodwill from the thinking community - the first since decades, if ever.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wait a second? (Score:5, Insightful)
I am not proud of this but with tight deadlines cross browser standards compliance is the first thing to slip if you know you are developing a corporate intranet and all the client has deployed is IE6. Anyone who insists on developing for other browers in this situation is just wasting time and hence money.
I do not develop complicated dynamic websites as a religion or hobby, I do it as a job so tailor each project to the clients needs, not my own.
Re:People think Microsoft is a software company. (Score:5, Insightful)
As for this quote:
Re:Abuse is all founded on the same mental illness (Score:3, Insightful)
But apparently you keep buying their products.
Microsoft users are funny. Bitch and moan about Microsoft on the one hand, yet bitch and moan any time somebody suggests switching to anything else.
What incentive does Microsoft have to stop "abusing" you? They continually release crap software, and their customers continually throw money at them, expecting that *this* time it'll be different, this time they'll get what was promised. How many times do they have to fool you before you realize what's going on? It's really hard to pity somebody who keeps asking for more.
You've chosen Microsoft, now live with the consequences and stop whining.
Re:Abuse is all founded on the same mental illness (Score:4, Insightful)
So please, name one software product of any consequence (meaning, fifty liners don't count), that has a UI, that has ever, throughout all the history of meaningful software, been absolutely free of gotchas. I've been hammering away at these damned electronic boxes for 19 years, both privately and professionally, and I have yet to ever see even one that didn't offer up *something* stupid. For the size and complexity of the applications that Microsoft produces, they have no more idiocy than anything else.
But, since you're obviously so plugged into the mind of Microsoft (much like the other million Slashdotters), I'll wait here while you put your money where your mouth is.
Re:Abuse is all founded on the same mental illness (Score:2, Insightful)
Heavily used open source software, including GCC, doesn't always work as it should. Are the authors just downright nasty, abusive people? I don't think so, man. You need some sedatives. Sorry about my abusive nature.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:3, Insightful)
Its a lot like hard coding type sizes in a c program; you could write " int a = (int *)malloc(4);" becuase on your platform ints are size 4... but if you wrote the damn thing properly the first time, using the sizeof operator to get the size of an int, it would work EVERYWHERE.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:3, Insightful)
I agree with you in principle, - And as a caveat, I'll point out, I'm only trying to learn to code to standards now - but I think the GP is pointing out, that in order to code to standards and then have a page render well in IE6, is more time consuming than coding specifically for IE6.
I think we would all agree that's relatively short sighted, but many people don't look at the big picture when they are up against a hard deadline. One could argue, that looking back, it would make more sense to code to standards, so when the client deploys IE7, the program wouldn't become archaic.
As I'm learning to code to standards...slowly...I have begun to understand the loathing so many coders have for MS. But they are in a tough spot on this one. It's easy for us to say, "Well it's the designers fault if his site doesn't render well in a compliant browser. But as a business, if IE8 doesn't render my mom's favorite knitting site that was created by some knitter in FrontPage, she isn't going to think that the designer was crap...she'll think it's the new fangled thingy that her son installed (Of course I would install FF, but just supposing...) that isn't working right, and IE8 loses market share.
Hopefully over time, the extra tag will become superfluous as really bad websites are deprecated. And IE9 will be perfect. (Giggles at the funny joke.)
Re:Wait a second? (Score:2, Insightful)
What they need to do is release IE8 with a "surf as IE7" and "surf as IE6" option. So the USER can control it, and the web will be the same. Eventually those pages still coded for IE6 will move on to standards compliance and that button will simply be ignored.
Sad, but true (Score:3, Insightful)
It really sucks for anyone trying to use (or build) a Gecko-based browser that's not Firefox.
Re:MS got the box model right. (Score:4, Insightful)
That is just beyond stupid.
Hell, I'd even be ok if MS had said, "w3c width is stupid, I'll just add a new tag, exwidth which does it the way we think makes sense." Because at least then they could still support the standard width tag to the standard, and render pages written to the standard correctly. If someone found exwidth easier to use, and used it instead those pages would also render fine in IE, and then break elsewhere in other browsers... although I could easily see support for 'exwidth' become a de-facto part of the standard and implemented in netscape/mozilla/firefox/whatever if enough people wanted it and enough pages used it... and that would be fine too. (In that at least we wouldn't have the mess we're in now.)
Bottom line, when your writing to a standard, write to the standard. If you don't like the standard, fine create your own (even if "your own" is just the original with some extensions), but don't write a broken implementation on purpose. It NEVER works out well for anybody. Users, developers, everybody suffers.
Re:MS got the box model right. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Abuse is all founded on the same mental illness (Score:1, Insightful)
MS is a company that has had a) few original ideas but b) HUGE resources - the difference between the two, in addition to their decades of constant, stubborn fuck-ups, smacks of mismanagement and sheer technological incompetence, making them one of the "worst" (inexcusable) software companies out there; or perhaps they simply don't care, as, in spite of all their product's faults, people keep buying them.
All this assumes one browser. (Score:3, Insightful)
The only reason we are having this conversation is the 800-pound-gorilla in the room -- IE is a fucking monopoly.
Were IE not a fucking monopoly, what would happen is, users would see the broken page in a compliant browser. You seem to agree...
But you see, if there was sufficient marketshare for compliant browsers, or if most browsers were mostly compliant, no one would be stupid enough to release a webpage which doesn't work with them. Just as today, people can be called stupid for releasing a page that doesn't work in IE.
Imagine a scenario where there are five browsers, all equally popular. If a page works in four out of those five browsers, do users blame the page, or the browser? If this happens consistently, for a lot of pages, and it's always the same one, don't you think that one browser would be rushing to patch the problem?
And do you honestly think that anyone would have a page that only works in one of the five? That would be like (pardon the analogy) releasing a Ford-only radio, which would actually explode if you put it in a Chevy.
But, you see, IE is a fucking monopoly, so this actually does happen -- people actually do make IE-only sites, targeted towards a specific version of IE. Meanwhile, I try to make standards-compliant sites that render well in Firefox, Konqueror, Safari, and even Lynx, and I try to be in a situation where I don't have to care if IE is broken -- partly because it is more future-proof, in that if IE ever gets it right, that page will render properly in IE, also.
Re:Wait a second? (Score:3, Insightful)
People find it difficult to detect abuse. (Score:3, Insightful)