IE8 will have multiple render modes


Recommended Posts

There's no stance to be taken when you follow the proper standards. I just don't care, I'll follow standards.

Maybe I am not making myself very clear, but I don't think you understood the point.

Not every web page is standards based, and many aren't maintained. If we have all browsers just rendering standards based, then there are plenty that will just stop working properly.

Now, blame that on who you with. I agree that Microsoft are responsible for the situation. But we are where we are, and that is a fact. A pragmatic approach needs to be taken going forward which brings the best balance between not breaking all of these pages, and yet allowing standards based rendering for pages which are built in a standards based way (which most are now). This proposal is meant to tackle exactly that, and not to stunt the use of standards.

If you have a better solution which deals with the many facets of this problem in a pragmatic and sensible way then I am sure that Microsoft and WaSP would love to hear from you...

Maybe I am not making myself very clear, but I don't think you understood the point.

Not every web page is standards based, and many aren't maintained. If we have all browsers just rendering standards based, then there are plenty that will just stop working properly.

Now, blame that on who you with. I agree that Microsoft are responsible for the situation. But we are where we are, and that is a fact. A pragmatic approach needs to be taken going forward which brings the best balance between not breaking all of these pages, and yet allowing standards based rendering for pages which are built in a standards based way (which most are now). This proposal is meant to tackle exactly that, and not to stunt the use of standards.

If you have a better solution which deals with the many facets of this problem in a pragmatic and sensible way then I am sure that Microsoft and WaSP would love to hear from you...

I totally agree Microsoft are in between a rock and hard place, but eventually they will have to take the tough decision of making IE standards compliant by default. It's not feasible for IE to avoid being standards compliant until every last web page in the world is updated. The reality is pages will have to break if it's ever to happen.

If IE8 just renders like IE7 by default only those of us who care about web standards will bother to use IE8 super standards mode, meanwhile broken pages will still remain broken and bad developers will still be able to making broken websites, further adding to the problem.

In the end if a tough decision isn't made soon it'll just be an even more vicious circle than its already become.

When AOL had Netscape, they made sure that it could render most of the websites out there (95%+ was what they managed I think), and that was years ago), So there's no way 90% of websites are IE7 (or lower) only.

The problem is with the hacks, properly implemented (using conditional comments that include a version number) won't break anything, improperly implemented (assume that only IE will pass a certain CSS rule incorrectly, and then include the hacks for all browsers) makes stuff break (IE7 fixed a lot of issues with CSS parsing, but didn't greatly expand CSS support, so the hacks broke and they got CSS code they couldn't render)

Basically, MS screwed up (by not fixing their engine earlier, when they could have*), and now it's come back to bite them on the ass.

* Look at the box model bug, it's been in IE for ages but they didn't fix it until IE7 (fully), they could have corrected the behavior and sent out a hotfix, but didn't (look at Firefox, in one release they broke floats with cleared elements, they released an update to fix it, meaning nobody has to worry about the bad behavior)

When AOL had Netscape, they made sure that it could render most of the websites out there (95%+ was what they managed I think), and that was years ago).

Source?

Oh boy... I already hated this idea in Netscape, now why, oh why does Microsoft have to copy it and reintroduce it years later?

In theory, each engine should render the same way, so the result should be the same, but the method used to display the result may differ.

It's because IE6 lacked of standards that AOL had to do it in Netscape, because the whole FF engine was way different (way better) and rendered this completely differently, but why does MS... in 2008... have to do this?

Oh boy... I already hated this idea in Netscape, now why, oh why does Microsoft have to copy it and reintroduce it years later?

In theory, each engine should render the same way, so the result should be the same, but the method used to display the result may differ.

It's because IE6 lacked of standards that AOL had to do it in Netscape, because the whole FF engine was way different (way better) and rendered this completely differently, but why does MS... in 2008... have to do this?

So that it doesnt break existing websites.

But if existing websites display well in FF and bad in IE, it means that they're standard and not broken.

If they display well in IE but not in FF, chances are that the website IS broken.

So if IE8 complies to the real standards, like FF does, there's no problem, right?

Yeah, but that's not what they're worried about.

They're worried about sites using hacks for older versions which will still apply to IE8 (Which is what happened with IE7, it could render sites better so IE6 hacks started breaking because sites didn't bother to make sure the hacks only applied to IE6).

So they're worried about breaking badly written (IMO) sites that use standards mode, but which are unmaintained (because I'd fire the designers if they didn't know IE7 was coming)

So you would rather code sites/web apps (not sure which you build) that don't work on 90% of the browsers out there?

I'm surprised you stay in business at all.

I code both that work on 100% of browsers out there, thanks very much. I code to standards, ensuring that even Lynx works (because I have to do accessibility to the max), verifying at every step and then fixing / hacking for IE versions dating back to 5.01 depending on what the clients has installed (I don't support IE5.2/Mac any more). What I want is a version of IE that doesn't need repeated telling, above and beyond what all the other mode-switching browsers require, to render a standards compliant page that I send it in standards mode. I've never advocated a standards-only-or-be-damned approach to rendering and I don't see why you're lumping me in with all of those who do.

I fully appreciate the need for being able to render the old non-compliant pages. I disagree with making the default rendering mode (regardless of what is sent) a previous version unless I add extra unnecessary cruft to an already compliant page. Defaulting to fallback ensures that non-compliant sites continue to be developed as they will "work" and stagnate the web even more than the Dark Ages of IE6.

A possible good idea was to have some kind of notification that although a page was claiming to be compliant, it wasn't. It wouldn't have to be huge, something like the RSS icon would do in the address bar (the warning icon that Fx HTML validator produces would be just right; a yellow triangle with an exclamation mark). Tooltip would point out site is non-compliant and that if it looks squiffy, that is why. An option to render in an alternative mode could be offered. There could even be optional "report to webmaster" that sends to webmaster@domain. Enough of those and a current site would get the maintenance it needs. If it doesn't, then that is not my problem. Users would get fed up of going to a site that continually reports that it is lying about itself and go to an alternative.

Legacy sites are a different beast as by their very nature, they aren't going to get updated and are simply there as a resource. If you can get the content out of it then who cares how they render? Chances are they will only work in IE < 7 anyway.

Intranets and internal webapps are another different beast. They tend to be coded to a certain version of IE and to hell with any other browser (or version). That is a problem for corporate admins to solve, not something to turn around and inflict on external sites and developers. Just because some BigCo uses IE5.5 on Windows 2000 with legacy NT4 Workstation and won't upgrade internally is their deal.

I heard that using the HTML 5 doctype may by itself (without any IE 8 junk added) let the site run in "full" standards mode both on IE 8, Firefox, Opera, and whatever have you. So that could be a way out of this mess. The proposed HTML 5 doctype would simply be: <!DOCTYPE html>. See more here: http://ejohn.org/blog/html5-doctype/

So I'll probably switch to that DOCTYPE, although I'm still a bit annoyed that MS is forcing me to do either this or introducing their homebrewn meta tags to let my websites use the standards mode. It's also still a cludge, because my "HTML 5" page might still be an HTML 4.01 page, and just a hack to make IE 8 (and *hopefully* IE 9+!) render it right.

In my misguided mind, I thought using the official W3 doctypes like e.g. XHTML 1.0 or HTML 4.01 would be the end of this mad story. If a site is saying it's using XHTML 1.0 Strict, why the hell should IE 8 assume it's written for IE 7 standards mode?

Edited by Jugalator

It looks like the HTML5 pages will still need the meta tags (they already activate standards mode in IE, so they wouldn't activate super standards mode in IE8 unless MS decide HTML5 is to be treated differently than other specs)

It looks like the HTML5 pages will still need the meta tags (they already activate standards mode in IE, so they wouldn't activate super standards mode in IE8 unless MS decide HTML5 is to be treated differently than other specs)

This looks to be a source of these news:

“Steve”: Are there any doctypes that do not require this new meta tag to render with the IE8 rendering engine?

Chris Wilson: @Steve - sure. Any unknown (i.e. not widely deployed) DOCTYPE. HTML5, for example.

http://intertwingly.net/blog/2008/01/23/Su...ing-Quirks-Mode

Although with that wording, I guess it's anyone's guess what Microsoft might do if HTML5 becomes more "widely deployed" in the future. Will they then too tie the web standard to render with a specific IE version's quirks mode? This also of course makes it tough for competing browser vendors in keeping e.g. an XHTML 1.0 page as similar as possible as to how IE 7 would have rendered it to avoid problems, since MS refuse to have those pages render for the latest standards unless the page explicitly tells it to render on IE 8 (or maybe IE 9 or whatever in the future). Gah...

Edited by Jugalator

I think Microsoft needs to use super-standards mode by default and cut this non-standard bull.

Sevan: Internet Explorer 8 will contain multiple render engines that will render pages in "Super Standards" mode which is new in Internet Explorer 8, standards mode as defined by Internet Explorer 7, or quirks mode as defined by Internet Explorer 6.

“Steve”: Are there any doctypes that do not require this new meta tag to render with the IE8 rendering engine?

Chris Wilson: @Steve - sure. Any unknown (i.e. not widely deployed) DOCTYPE. HTML5, for example.

That is really dumb. That means that I can send

&lt;!DOCTYPE scoobydoo&gt;

without a HTTP header / <meta /> tag and it will render in IE8 standards mode whereas sending

&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"&gt;

without a HTTP header / <meta /> tag will render in "downlevel" (IE7) mode.

What Microsoft dont and never have got is that they caused this problem and its not one easily fixed.

When one builds a website one has to take into account all the different browsers it will be displayed on. Thanks to the differences between IE 5.5 / 6 / 7 this is becoming a nightmare, not to mention Firefox and Safari support. Although Firefox and Safari (with IE 7) tent to follow the rules.

Ehh, maybe I'm just confused (I'll go with what Chris Wilson says any day over something I read on a site), HTML5 is already treated as standards mode in IE6 and 7, so i assume it would be the same in IE8 (or maybe IE6 and 7 already treat any unknown doctypes as always running in standards mode, but that doesn't explain why it would fall back to quirks mode when it hit XHTML pages with the XML PI, since it couldn't parse the doctype then)

Anyway, unless you really want to, nobody should be using HTML5 at the moment, it's only a working draft at the W3C (heavy implementation at this state is going to lead to the same problems IE had with rendering bugs, people assumed it was supposed to happen)

That is really dumb. That means that I can send
&lt;!DOCTYPE scoobydoo&gt;

without a HTTP header / <meta /> tag and it will render in IE8 standards mode whereas sending

&lt;!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"&gt;

without a HTTP header / <meta /> tag will render in "downlevel" (IE7) mode.

LOL +1

Microsoft and standards compliance is all talk and no change. You can see it in everything they do. Usually it's not an attempt at the 3 Es though, just complete ignorance of the demand out there.

Ehh, maybe I'm just confused (I'll go with what Chris Wilson says any day over something I read on a site), HTML5 is already treated as standards mode in IE6 and 7, so i assume it would be the same in IE8 (or maybe IE6 and 7 already treat any unknown doctypes as always running in standards mode, but that doesn't explain why it would fall back to quirks mode when it hit XHTML pages with the XML PI, since it couldn't parse the doctype then)

Anyway, unless you really want to, nobody should be using HTML5 at the moment, it's only a working draft at the W3C (heavy implementation at this state is going to lead to the same problems IE had with rendering bugs, people assumed it was supposed to happen)

Using HTML5 will be ok if you are willing to adapt as the spec changes.

If you adapt then there's no problem, but if people start using it and assume rendering bugs are intended we'll have the same problems all over again.

If it renders like IE7 by default novice developers will continue to developer for IE7 rendering, which will only make the problem worse.

sorry MS but i'm not adding an extra meta tag just to make my pages render in your browser. I'm going to continue serving my pages according to the latest standards, and if IE8 is competent it'll render the pages without hacks.

Sorry this isn't about you but the customer and their needs. Bad developer......

sorry MS but i'm not adding an extra meta tag just to make my pages render in your browser. I'm going to continue serving my pages according to the latest standards, and if IE8 is competent it'll render the pages without hacks.

Well, if everyone transitions to IE8 and you don't transition your page as well, you are left in the dust and not IE8.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • The sweet release of death has never looked more appealing.
    • Meh, just another dongle-haven downgrade compared to my Surface Pro 7+. Whenever I decide to upgrade in the next decade or so, it certainly won't be another microslop Surface with this enshitification trend they've been having after the Surface Pro 7+. Hopefully a future generation of the Framework 12 will be a real upgrade...
    • This could exactly be how our Sun ends but it's not as simple by Sayan Sen Image by Drew Rae via Pexels An international team led by Université de Montréal (University of Montreal) PhD student Érika Le Bourdais has found that the ancient white dwarf star LSPM J0207+3331 is still pulling in planetary debris, even though it has been cooling for about three billion years. White dwarfs are dense, Earth-sized stellar remnants left behind when Sun-like stars exhaust their nuclear fuel and shed their outer layers. The star, located 145 light-years away in the constellation Triangulum, is the oldest and coldest white dwarf known to have a surrounding disk of dust. The star was first spotted in 2019 by a citizen scientist through the Backyard Worlds: Planet 9 project. Its cool temperature immediately suggested that it was very old, since white dwarfs gradually lose heat over time. Using the W. M. Keck telescopes in Hawaii, astronomers later confirmed that the star shows infrared signals consistent with dust rings formed by asteroids breaking apart under its strong gravity. Such infrared excesses occur when a star emits more infrared light than expected, often because warm dust surrounding it absorbs and re-radiates energy. “This discovery challenges our understanding of planetary system evolution,” said Le Bourdais. “The fact that we still see planetary debris being accreted three billion years after the star became a white dwarf suggests that asteroids, comets, and even planets can remain in orbit around these stars for a very long time.” Spectroscopic analysis—a technique that studies light to identify the chemical elements present in an object—revealed thirteen heavy elements in the star’s atmosphere: sodium, magnesium, aluminium, silicon, calcium, titanium, chromium, manganese, iron, cobalt, nickel, copper, and strontium. Normally, heavy elements sink quickly in hydrogen-rich white dwarfs, making them hard to detect. “We expected to see only a few elements, but we found dozens!” explained Le Bourdais. The research paper adds more detail. The absence of carbon features suggests the debris came from a carbon-volatile-depleted source. The abundance pattern shows slight deficits of magnesium and silicon compared to iron but otherwise resembles Earth-like material. This points to a differentiated rocky body—one whose materials have separated into distinct layers such as a metallic core and rocky mantle—with a metallic core fraction higher than Earth’s. In other words, the star is accreting the remains of a large rocky object, similar in structure to Earth or the asteroid Vesta. “White dwarfs offer one of the only ways we can directly measure the composition of exoplanets,” said Patrick Dufour, co-author and professor at Université de Montréal. “When planetary debris come too close, they are torn apart by the star’s gravity and end up polluting its atmosphere, leaving a detailed chemical fingerprint of its composition.” The team also detected weak Ca II H & K line core emission, making this only the second known isolated polluted white dwarf to show this feature. These are specific spectral signatures produced by ionised calcium and can indicate unusual physical activity in a star’s upper atmosphere. The finding suggests that extra physical processes may be happening in or above the star’s upper atmosphere. The study stresses the importance of including heavy elements in model atmosphere calculations, since leaving them out can distort the inferred structure and lead to inaccurate stellar parameters. Earlier work suggested the star’s infrared excess came from two dust rings. The new analysis shows that a single silicate dust disk—a ring composed largely of rock-forming minerals rich in silicon and oxygen—can explain the observed signal at 11.6 μm, simplifying the picture of the system’s structure. The question of how debris ended up falling into the star so late remains open. One idea is that giant planets in the system slowly destabilised smaller bodies over billions of years. Another possibility is that a passing star disturbed the orbits of debris. “Future observations with the James Webb Space Telescope or archival data found in the European Space Agency’s Gaia mission could help distinguish between a planetary rearrangement and the gravitational effect of a close stellar encounter,” said John Debes, co-author and researcher at the Space Telescope Science Institute. Dufour noted that hydrogen-rich white dwarfs are the most common type, and the coolest among them are the oldest stars in the galaxy. “We didn't have the habit of looking for signs of accretion in them. This unique case motivates us to expand our search to more of these stars.” The findings show that even after billions of years, planetary systems can remain active and complex. Substantial accretion events—the gradual accumulation of surrounding material onto a celestial object—can still occur long after a star’s death, offering a rare window into the composition and fate of distant worlds. Source: University of Montreal, IOPScience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • Doesn't DDG mainly use Bing?
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Month Later
      B2Proxy earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Year In
      MadMung0 earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Week One Done
      jefred earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Apprentice
      JoeyNeo went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Week One Done
      oliviaexpo earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      485
    2. 2
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      228
    3. 3
      Skyfrog
      70
    4. 4
      FloatingFatMan
      58
    5. 5
      neufuse
      56
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!