SPAM-LOW: RE: [thelist] Internet Explorer 7

[Justin @ pxLabs]

>a) Web developers aren't the primary users of IE - end users are


Interesting viewpoint, Ken.

I tend to think that Web standards is just as important, if not more so than security. Then again, I've built a (profitable) business on creating standards compliant sites that, although are built for IE (among other browsers), have to be built around IE's "stupidity", for lack of a better word.

Are we (the developers) going to sit around and wait for MS to get their act together and release a stable, secure, standards compliant product, or are we going to say "Cuff off, Microsoft!" and start using something better?

I know, this is a cavalier attitude to have, but look at it from this point of view. If MS refuses to support IE 5.2 for the Mac as far as the msn.com homepage goes, then why should I bother? Because I have an obligation to my customers and their customers to do so, putting aside all the feelings of disgust and derision I have for Microsoft.

At some point, folks, we have to draw the line and say enough is enough. Until that happens, we are going to simply be like the fellas in Apple's 1984 ad; clones and slaves of a billion-dollar organization holding the entire web development community hostage at the whim of a madman who would rather release a browser based on nothing more than security updates. A foolish move, and one which will further degrade the loyalty that their remaining customers have for them.

- Justin



Ken Schaefer wrote:

>: -----Original Message-----
>: From: thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org
>[mailto:thelist-bounces at lists.evolt.org] On
>: Behalf Of Rob Smith
>: Subject: RE: [thelist] Internet Explorer 7
>: 
>: >Here's a link to the announcement:
>: >http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2005/02/15/373104.aspx
>: 
>: >No mention at all from the IE team about better web standards support,
>: 
>: Agreed. I perused through the Blog while people are congratulating them on
>: the new security fixes, a LOT of people used this opportunity to complain
>: about the lack of support for web standards.
>
>Well, security fixes are kinda important... :-)
>
>: Doesn't it make you feel warm and fuzzy inside that MS 
>: doesn't put the practicality and primary use of IE
>: (web developers) at the higher priority.
>
>This is where you are wrong:
>a) Web developers aren't the primary users of IE - end users are
>b) There is an enormous amount of legacy code out there (and not on public
>websites) that relies on the various bits owned by IE. By enormous, we'd be
>talking about billions of lines of code (or more). Microsoft has obviously
>chosen not to break backwards compatibility for ISVs and large customers to
>make changes to rendering in IE. I think they're drawn a line underneath
>Trident (the current IE rendering engine). Do not wait for anything to be
>changed there - it appears that the next rendering engine will come in
>Longhorn
>
>:They'd rather fix security bugs, than fix the aesthetic ones.
>
>Well, if it came down to fixing one or the other, I would go with security
>rather than aesthetic things. Of course, I'd prefer both to be fixed, but
>security is much more important that rendering stuff. And lots of people have
>been telling Microsoft that for a long, long time.
>
>And IE's poor security record is one of the reasons I tell non-expert SOHO
>computer users to use Firefox instead of IE...
>
>Cheers
>Ken
>  
>