Compatibility and IE 8

Jens Meiert, January 28, 2008 / March 4, 2008.

This entry is filed under Web Development.

You certainly already heard about Microsoft’s great opt-in to the browser version I tested with strategy introducing practically mandatory HTML modifications (or a specific HTTP header, respectively) like <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=8" />; at least you scanned Aaron Gustafson’s festive presentation over at A List Apart. However, please do not use this meta element.

Assuming that you don’t only know the initial articles mentioned above but also feedback from at least Ian and Mike there’s a good opportunity for me just to summarize the three main issues with this development:

It is anti-competitive, incompatible with both theory and practice, and ridiculous. It is anti-competitive because, like Ian already explains, it might actually be quite an effective way of dramatically increasing the costs of entering or competing in the browser market. It is neither backwards nor forwards compatible while requiring modification of “quite a few” web pages; it collides with the vision to basically write documents and keep them untouched (reminds us of Conditional Comments, doesn’t it?), changing their presentation by use of CSS only and knowing that they work when new browser versions are shipped. It is ridiculous just because of opt-in to the browser version I tested with.

So I agree with Ian, taking advantage of wise words already spoken: Therefore I recommend not including the meta tag, or, if you are forced to include it, making sure it says "IE=7", even once IE 8 ships.

Update (March 4, 2008)

Microsoft decided for course correction.

Enjoy some popular posts, probably including contemporaries:

Comments

On January 28, 18:42 CET, Duluoz said:

…it collides with the vision to basically write documents and keep them untouched…

I think that’s reason enough not to use it! Why is this a difficult concept for Microsoft? Why do we have to keep slapping their hands like little children who keep doing something they shouldn’t be doing?
On January 28, 21:05 CET, Phil said:

I’ll be moving onto the HTML5 DOCTYPE, which won’t be affected, as soon as I can, however I don’t see how not using the meta tag is going to work.

All it means is that IE users will be penalised as they won’t benefit from your site using the latest technology available in the other browsers.

Frankly, I feel that a protest like this will not only fall upon deaf ears, but have the effect as if it were spoken by a mute too.
On January 29, 3:45 CET, Ben Buchanan said:

I’d add that if you are forced to set a version, people should consider using server headers instead to keep their markup clean.
On January 29, 11:54 CET, Jens Meiert said:

David, that is the big question, right …

Phil, hopefully not, maybe there is a chance that this plan gets dropped anyway. Opening our mouths is certainly the least we can do.

Ben, of course, guess we’re happy to hear that this will be possible anyway …
On January 30, 16:56 CET, Tomasz Staniak said:

As far as I can agree with the idea MS proposed, I can’t understand the way it’s executed.

Also, what is quite laughable for me - MS which has no objections when upping the hardware requirements and breaking compatibility with software relating on features and bugs of Windows, has problems with breaking with the “compatibility” of IE6/IE7.

IMHO - MS, give us a good browser, and the rest will follow.
On February 8, 19:20 CET, Brad Kemper said:

I can’t say that I agree with you on this. The DOCTYPE tag was used as a switch for much the same reason: so that existing pages without it would not break, but those who did use it could get more standards based behavior. So now we have a similar tag that will allow old IE pages to not break, but those who will use it can get more standards based behavior from IE browsers.

If this results in more people adopting the latest version of IE (because it won’t break all the corporate apps), then I am all for it. Once IE6 market-share becomes insignificant, then I can stop writing 2 or 3 versions of so many of my style rules (one for standards, one for IE6, and often one for IE7). I would much rather write just one, even if it meant adding a extra tag to the HTML. I would prefer the tag to be in the CSS file (so that I didn’t have to add it to so many pages), but the point is to get rid of having to handle IE6-7.

With the site I am on now, about half of the IE users are still on IE6. I believe this is because so many businesses have refused to upgrade to IE7 (because it breaks their Web apps), and so many people access the Web from work.
On February 10, 11:47 CET, Jens Meiert said:

The DOCTYPE tag was used as a switch for much the same reason

But it’s quite a different animal, just by taking into account numerous sites that didn’t use any document type at all before and that setting a document type at least spoke for certain knowledge of standards ~~[…]~~.

The practice Microsoft introduces will not benefit anyone, I fear, and objections from both developers and implementors/vendors appear to be more than legitimate.

Jens Meiert