I feel happy, too...

...that someone got it.  Thanks, Hal - standards compliance and not breaking existing websites are, in fact, why I show up to work.

BTW, I will be at Web Directions North 08, MIX08, and (this just in) SXSW08.

Comments

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  I suppose we're mostly worried that the solution you've come up with feels so obviously engineered to be perpetuated ad infinitum. This surely shouldn't be an issue the next time around with IE9, because IE8 will get things correct. Right?

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  First off, Happy Birthday! Now, why couldn't you post the meta tag to the IE Blog?... that was like the ONLY thing in your post that I was looking for... (us up-to-date folks knew everything else) thanks, trevor

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  @thacker: yes. @Robin: hope springs eternal.  :)  to be honest, I've argued on that side (one big breaking change), but the jury remains out.  New DOCTYPEs always help, though.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Well, new DOCTYPEs or MIME types (application/xhtml+xml, I'm looking at you).

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  I remain thoroughly unconvinced that the proposal is a sensible way forward. But the other news that major work has been done to improve the rendering with a new engine is really important and very promising. I can't imagine how difficult it must have been to refactor the current engine! Thanks Chris for your ongoing advocacy within your team.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Chris, There is one point you did not mention in your post: what will be the rules for the default rendering mode when X-UA-Compatible is not used.  Obviously it will be IE7-like for current web content, but, as noted by Robin, there is some latitude for other choices (e.g. it could be IE8-like, or even better, for pages with an HTML5 DOCTYPE, or an XHTML MIME type).  Has some decision been made about this possibility, or do you (all of the IE team) leave it open for the future? Thanks for the informative (although bound to start heated discussions) post, and (late) happy birthday!

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  ... Note that I'm not asking you whether IE8 will support XHTML (including MIME type), since nothing has been announced about it yet.  My question is about what has been decided for the first version that will support XHTML (whatever this version will be).

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Are there any doctypes that do not require this new meta tag to render with the IE8 rendering engine?

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  @Steve - sure.  Any unknown (i.e. not widely deployed) DOCTYPE.  HTML5, for example.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Hi Chris, I really respect the work you and your team have done with Internet Explorer 7. The fact that IE8 may pass the acid2 test is even better news. After reading the post on msdn this morning I sat down and thought over the whole process of IE selecting a rendering mode. I ended up coming to the same conclusion as Jeremy - http://adactio.com/journal/1402/. I think this is a really, really good idea but the thought of excluding the meta tag and having IE default to IE7 worries me. I think the default mode assuming a valid doctype is selected should be the latest and greatest version of IE. As long as you give web developers enough heads up, we can add the meta tag to our site before a new version of the browser comes out. As IE becomes more and more standards compliant there may even be a day where we won't need the meta tag anymore.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  So, wait, the rest of the browser crew doesn't "gets it" and doesn't wants to break existing websites? How fun... @tracker: In practice, millions of web pages will be implemented using the "IE=8" mode and firefox & others will have to mimic IE8. For other browser, it's basically getting back to the 90's. For IE it's nice, of course, and I guess that's all what matters for Microsoft. How typical... Pretending that a flag that it is intended to specify different behaviours for different browsers and then talking about caring about standards is /ironic/ at least. There's a well know place for solving this and it's the doctype, just request the W3C to decide something about this, a browser-specific flag is only going to hurt the web.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  What web developers (At least Me) really want is a standards compliant browser.  Where I do not need to provide work-arounds in order to achieve the correct rendering. When the transition from IE6 -> IE7 happened we all had to modify our sites,  this was so we/I could leverage the enhanced rendering capabilities of IE7.  Then we used work-arounds to get IE6 to render correctly. Rather than buck this trend with half baked ideas, please consider why we/I would love a standards compliant browser. On a entirely different note:   What is IE's / Mircosoft's objection to making use of pre-existing web rendering kits like KDE-HTML / Webkit.  Surely as a whole community it would be better to invest all efforts into one defacto render kit than the current mess we have.  I understand you may need to swallow a lot of pride there.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Chris I will support you with conditional comments in the CSS on the CSS WG list. /* [IE standard] */ A default IE8 standard mode with standard compliant code or the above comment in the CSS to force IE8 into standard mode with the presence of non standard selectors * html or *+html or IE conditional comments <!--[if IE]>. This won't cause a repeat of the situation when IE7 came out and this doesn't cause IE version lock-in which the new metas would.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  What will the compatMode property (http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms533687.aspx) return when the Super Standard Mode is activated?

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Diego, As frustrated as I have been with designing sites that work in IE, I think you've being overly harsh on Microsoft here. If you read the IEBlog they make a really valid point - they shouldn't break compatibility for the existing websites out there. When your software is ubiquitous as IE is, you can't just tabula rasa for the next version - what's more important, existing established websites that would need to spend thousands to fix things if they break when a new browser comes out, or supporting new sites designed by experienced developers who (mostly) know how to cater for quirks mode? I fully support the IE team in this and believe they're doing the right thing. One meta tag isn't perfect but it's infinitely better than a thousand workarounds.

• Anonymous
  January 22, 2008
  Hi Chris, I'm kind of double posting here as I did on IEblog - only because I'd like to say something that I think may make things better:

• the meta switch is a good idea: it's standards-compliant, useful, and accessible to both CSS and Javascript without having to parse a (conditional) comment, using normal syntax (CSS: meta[X-UA-Compatibility], Javascript getElementsByTagName('meta').getAttribute...
• making it default for all unknown doctypes is a given, I guess future 'proper' XHTML support will use it too However, considering that most content generators and editors usually use Transitional and/or Frameset doctypes, could you (the IE team) consider making Strict (X)HTML use the Super Standard mode too? Since Strict documents are supposed to be compatible with HTML 5, it would make sense. You're right, users shouldn't have to manually switch engines; however, you MUST absolutely notify users/developers when IE 8 uses IE 7 rendering, and mark it as an Error (equivalent to Jscript error) - otherwise we'll all be stuck in the Dark Ages of Buggy rendering. One other helper: I understand that IE 5 must be supported until 2014 (as long as windows 2000 will be supported); but then, the IE 7/8 engine (not the UI!) should also be backported to Win 2000 and IE 6 buried. That would leave IE5 as 'Quirks' and IE 7/8+ s the 'only' engines to support. 'You' pulled the plug on IE 5.5, please do so on IE 6... I know, it's not that easy.

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2008
  I really think it's kind of silly that IE8 will require a proprietary tag in order to render webpages correctly.  I understand the goal of attempting to prevent existing pages from breaking, but it shouldn't require that everyone who wants the correct standardized behavior follow proprietary non-standardized practices. I propose that the IE8 team consider a different approach: When the webpage has an appropriate DOCTYPE, the page will be rendered in the strictest standards mode that applies to the version specified in that DOCTYPE. When the webpage does not have an appropriate DOCTYPE, the page will be rendered using IE5 "quirks mode." Provide a couple mechanisms through which the webpage can declaratively request rendering using the quirks of any specific rendering engine through either META tags, DOCTYPE or HTTP headers.  Publish this mechanism well in advance as to permit existing sites to prepare for quirky rendering. I think this satisfies all requirements.  It does require existing sites to make a single change, which can probably be satisfied by simply adding a custom HTTP header to the configuration of the site.  All other sites would render as expected, and since no special settings would need to be put into place IE8 would pass the ACID2 test properly. I completely understand that MS doesn't want to annoy customers by breaking websites, but really you should have thought of that over a decade ago.  The only way to make up for it is to do it right, by default.  Provide simple migration mechanisms if need be, but don't require a custom tag for proper rendering.  You won't pass ACID2, and neither the web developers nor the savvy web users will appreciate it.

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2008

1. For "Internet" and "Trusted sites" zone, do IE8 standards mode the default.
2. For Intranet and Local Computer, keep old mode.
3. Please ship a tool that automatically batch adds the tag to non-standards sites/pages.
4. Please make IE8 at least on Windows 2000, if not 9x. If you don't set IE8 standards mode as the default, mainstream sites today which STILL REFUSE to render properly in Opera and which work only in Firefox and IE will continue to do so. Please stop doing injustice to Opera.

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2008
  I think breaking the web would actually be a good thing. Give the people a meta-tag to switch IE8 back to IE6 and if it's needed they'll use that. But meanwhile they can see that IE8 has better standard support and perhaps alter their websites to cater for the 'new' web. This way the 'old' web will not linger on indefinetly as it will with the current proposal....

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2008
  Thank you, Wilson. Are there any doctypes that do not require this new meta tag to render with the IE8 rendering engine?

• Anonymous
  January 24, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 24, 2008
  Chris, please can you clarify something? You said that the IE8 engine will be used for HTML5 because its doctype is unknown. Once it becomes known will future versions of IE use the engine from the point at which it becomes known, or continue to use the latest engine? Also, do you have any idea how long will an old version of the IE engine continue to be supported?

• Anonymous
  January 24, 2008
  Chris, just a short note.  If the rendering engine chosen is from an earlier version, please accept the conditional comments for that version too.  So, if IE8 defaults to IE7 standards mode rendering when no X-UA-Compatible value is present, accept the all the same conditional comments that IE7 would.

• Anonymous
  January 24, 2008
  Chris, sorry, but I didn't yet understand what I've seen there just now. Is this all just an proposal yet or is this the thing thah will actually go into IE8?

• Anonymous
  January 25, 2008
  Oh, sorry another question as well. Will the Meta-Element be case insensitive and available in HTML-Syntax as well? <meta /> as shown in Gustavson's article is XHTML.

• Anonymous
  January 26, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 26, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 27, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  January 27, 2008
  @Jeremy Keith: you're on.  I added the Booze-up to my Upcoming.

• Anonymous
  January 29, 2008
  You haven't indicated if IE8 is a Vista only browser, or an XP and up browser. I'd also like to indicate, that as I'm sure you've noticed, the left panel of this blog is rather-near impossible to read. I would suggest some CSS opacity? (cough, cough, IE-alpha) to layer the content above the image, or just add a whitewash to the image itself. I realize that the platform is more your gig, than web pages themselves, but ask yourself if you saw a house painted in plaid, would you consider hiring the painters to work on your next project?

• Anonymous
  January 31, 2008
  Chris, could you guys make the default rendering engine (used when the user agent compatibility tag is not present) changeable in the advanced options of the browser (defaulted of course to the current IE7 rendering engine) ?

• Anonymous
  February 01, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 03, 2008
  I realize that the platform is more your gig, than web pages themselves, but ask yourself if you saw a house painted in plaid, would you consider hiring the painters to work on your next project?

• Anonymous
  February 03, 2008
  What happens when IE9 comes out and someone wants IE9 to use its newest rendering engine but for IE8 to use the IE7 rendering engine?

• Anonymous
  February 07, 2008
  Simpler, better, solution : change the user-agent. Don't identify as IE. Sites won't know it's IE, so they'll send it standards-based code without trying to cater for old bugs. Problem solved. If you think it's necesary, you could still suport a method (such as this meta tag) for sites to request the use of an old engine. Just make 'edge' the default. PLEASE?

• Anonymous
  February 18, 2008
  I hope I'm not too late to join this party (if I am, see you next post ;).  Anyway, here's my version-switching question: I'm concerned that version-switching is just a secret password unless Microsoft is willing to enforce it. Say 5 years go by, and all the "bad" web developers get the message that if they want their site to work in the latest versions of all browsers, they should add <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge"> in the header of their document.  In other words, the same forces that conspired to make doctype-switching worthless have now conspired to make version-switching worthless too. If that happened, would IE.next.next break the web, or start using something like <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible-Era" content="IE=web2.0 NS=AOL">, which would be changed whenever the bad developers heard about it?

  • Andrew Sayers

• Anonymous
  February 20, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 21, 2008
  Hi Chris You must be on holidays. Question. Will IE8=edge still fall for *+html which targets IE7? Please Microsoft break the web.

• Anonymous
  February 21, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  February 21, 2008
  Hi Chris. What I mean is when IE8 is in standard mode, is IE8 going to use style rules that an author has given IE7 +html div {min-height:1%} / hasLayout trigger */ I know that some IE team member(s) has already tested some of my test cases on my site.

• Anonymous
  March 04, 2008
  Chris, it would be interesting to hear your take on todays announcement.

• Anonymous
  March 04, 2008
  This is good news. Any update on Microsofts attitude to ecmascript 4 aka Javascript 2. Will Ms endorse ecmascript 4?

• Anonymous
  March 05, 2008
  Yes, I the ECMA-script thought struck me too...

• Anonymous
  March 05, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 05, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  March 08, 2008
  Chris, I really like to tell you how good IE8b1 feels so far. This is probably one of the greatest milestones I've ever seen for the web (and its standards). Congratulations and good luck finishing IE8!

• Anonymous
  March 11, 2008
  Yes, congratulations on a good week all round last week.  Needless to say, I withdraw my question.

  • Andrew

• Anonymous
  March 12, 2008
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  May 03, 2008
  Hope the team can make the IE8 done.

• Anonymous
  July 13, 2008
  I do is to web map programming, the map shows that this is the use of the mosaic map TABLE eg: <table> <tr> <td> <img src = "0_0.png" </ td> <td> <img src = "0_1.png" </ td> <td> <img src = "0_2.png" </ td> </ tr> </ table> But when I open this page often do not show the picture, I must be in the picture of regional mouse click can show that, Firefox can be directly displayed without onclick, I do not know what it is because I am distressed!

• Anonymous
  July 26, 2008
  Chris, I really like to tell you how good IE8b1 feels so far. This is probably one of the greatest milestones I've ever seen for the web (and its standards). Congratulations and good luck finishing IE8!

• Anonymous
  September 01, 2008
  딸국질은 횡경막의 경련에 의해서 일어 나는 것으로 쇼크를 준다거나 잠시 호흡을 멈추면 낫는다. 하지만 경우에 따라정신적 부담감으로 빨리 멎지 않을 때가 있다. 멈추게 하는제일 좋은 방법은 심호흡을 한 뒤 견딜 수 있는데까지 숨을 쉬지 않는 것이다. 또는 숨을 멈춘채 찬물을 조금씩 마셔도효과가 있다. 그래도 가라 앉지 않으면 조용히 숨을 내쉬면 서 아랫배를 들이밀거나 때때로 배에 힘을 가득 준 뒤 호흡 을 멈추는 복식호흡도 좋다. 출처:http://cafe.daum.net/lifebean

• Anonymous
  October 16, 2008
  The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less... mainstream.

• Anonymous
  October 20, 2008
  A really well explained article and has given me a nice idea for a project!

• Anonymous
  December 30, 2008
  sesli chat sohbet arkadaslık kızlar msn liseli kizlarsesli chat sohbet arkadaslık kızlar msn liseli kizlar

• Anonymous
  December 30, 2008
  www.trpanel.com sohbet panel chat panelş

• Anonymous
  January 16, 2009
  I must be in the picture of regional mouse click can show that, Firefox can be directly displayed without onclick,

• Anonymous
  April 19, 2009
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  April 19, 2009
  Another option is to give businesses a local policy/GPO option for the new IE that SA's can set on their clients to determine how the IE engine of that workstations will react depending on the security zone of the site IE is working with. Sites in the Internet zone will use Doctype only, rendering the most standards based when the standards DocType is used. thank you

• Anonymous
  April 21, 2009
  The comment has been removed

• Anonymous
  April 21, 2009
  The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less... mainstream.

• Anonymous
  April 21, 2009
  The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less... mainstream...

• Anonymous
  April 21, 2009
  <td> <img src = "0_0.png" </ td> <td> <img src = "0_1.png" </ td> <td> <img src = "0_2.png" </ td> </ tr>

• Anonymous
  May 13, 2009
  The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less... mainstream.

• Anonymous
  May 16, 2009
  First off, Happy Birthday! Now, why couldn't you post the meta tag to the IE Blog?... that was like the ONLY thing in your post that I was looking for... (us up-to-date folks knew everything else) thanks, trevor

• Anonymous
  May 31, 2009
  냉장고는 한번 설치하면 계속 사용하기 때문에 전력소모율이 매우 높다. 한 가정의 한 달 전기요금 중 냉장고가 4분의 1을 차지한다는 통계도 있다. 냉장고는 자주 여닫을수록, 보관하는 음식물이 많을수록 전력소모량이 많다. 냉장고에는 음식물을 60%가량 채우는 것이 적당하다. 방열기에먼지가 끼면 효율이 떨어지므로 자주 청소해야 전력소모를 줄일 수 있다 0000 출처:다음카페 생활의지혜!

• Anonymous
  June 03, 2009
  I... The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less

• Anonymous
  June 13, 2009
  The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less... mainstream...

• Anonymous
  July 04, 2009
  This is fantastic. I am going to add it to my sites. Thanks!

• Anonymous
  July 25, 2009
  Thank You very mach.. re: Not that you need me to tell you this... Bu başlığı ne diye istiyorsunuz?

• Anonymous
  August 30, 2009
  dostlugun kardeslıgın bulustugu tek seslı goruntulu sıtesı www.sesliland.com.. ıyıseyırler

• Anonymous
  October 22, 2009
  Thank You very mach.. re: Not that you need me to tell you this... Bu başlığı ne diye istiyorsunuz?

• Anonymous
  November 04, 2009
  Lol, Vista gibi değil pek çok kişi ve bu fark, Microsoft varsayalım. Ancak, yerine çok yakında Vista ile çok issuues olarak onlar için düzeltmek için çalıştı shouldn've yeni OC getirme. Kendim veya benim ekran dokunmaktan bile ekrana "sinema" da çok iş için ellerimi yetiştirme görmüyorum. Ben lazer fare kullanıyorum ve ancak bu ekranın bir ucundan diğerine geçmek için hareket. Emin, insanlar benim gibi gibi faydasız şeyler telefonlar "eyecandy", ancak yükseltir sadece i olduğu gibi-telefonlar, kısa bir süre sonra fark edeceksiniz bu kadar saçmalık.

• Anonymous
  December 22, 2009
  Seslicik.Com Sesli Chat Sesli Sohbet

• Anonymous
  December 22, 2009
  Seslicik.Com Kamerali Chat Kamerali Sohbet

• Anonymous
  January 11, 2010
  This is fantastic. I am going to add it to my sites. Thanks!

• Anonymous
  January 11, 2010
  This is fantastic. I am going to add it to my sites. Thanks!

• Anonymous
  January 16, 2010
  This is a quarterly growth figure. It is standard practice in the United States to report growth data on an annual basis. thanks admin

• Anonymous
  January 16, 2010
  This is a quarterly growth figure. It is standard practice in the United States to report growth data on an annual basis.

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2010
  Thank you editors for the topic.Its include a lot of useful informations.i join this blog i couldnt see unnecessary arguments and it makes us happy thnx all moderator n editors. Thnx For www.videoklip.net and www.videoklip.eu www.ne-nerede.com www.seslichat.eu

• Anonymous
  March 01, 2010
  This is fantastic. I am going to add it to my sites. Thanks!

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  Tiklakop, www.tiklakop.com, seslichat, seslisohbet, chat, sohbet, kameralı sohbet, kameralı chat, sesli siteler, sesli site

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  Tiklakop, www.tiklakop.net, seslichat, seslisohbet, chat, sohbet, kameralı sohbet, kameralı chat, sesli siteler, sesli site

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  Tiklakop, www.tiklakop.org, seslichat, seslisohbet, chat, sohbet, kameralı sohbet, kameralı chat, sesli siteler, sesli site

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  Seslidizayn, Seslipanel, Panel Satısı, Sesli Chat Kurulumu, Sesli Site Kurulumu, Sesli Panel,

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  Seslibilisim, Seslipanel, Panel Satısı, Sesli Chat Kurulumu, Sesli Site Kurulumu, Sesli Panel,

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  Gncpanel, Seslipanel, Panel Satısı, Sesli Chat Kurulumu, Sesli Site Kurulumu, Sesli Panel,

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  seslistar, www.seslistar.com, seslichat, seslisohbet, chat, sohbet, kameralı sohbet, kameralı chat, sesli siteler, sesli site

• Anonymous
  April 17, 2010
  seslisuper, www.seslisuper.com, seslichat, seslisohbet, chat, sohbet, kameralı sohbet, kameralı chat, sesli siteler, sesli site

• Anonymous
  April 19, 2010
  Thank you for the information your provide.

• Anonymous
  April 20, 2010
  Seslipanel,Sesli chat panelleri,Sesli sohbet panelleri

• Anonymous
  May 27, 2010
  oto anahtarı

• Anonymous
  May 27, 2010
  thank you very much

• Anonymous
  May 27, 2010
  thanks

• Anonymous
  May 27, 2010
  thank you

• Anonymous
  September 14, 2010
  www.isvicresesli.com sesli sohbet sesli chat sitesi bekleriz...

• Anonymous
  September 30, 2010
  sesli chat odalarımıza hepinizii bekleriz

• Anonymous
  January 23, 2011
  Great!!! thanks for sharing this information to us!

• Anonymous
  March 03, 2011
  I am happy to find this very useful for me, as it contains lot of information. I always prefer to read the quality content <a href="http://www.alimezdegi.com">Estetik</a>

• Anonymous
  April 28, 2011
  The thing is this just doesn't really do it for me, prefer something a little less... mainstream

• Anonymous
  July 18, 2011
  radyo dinle online radyo dinle canlı radyo dinle http://www.bankoelitfm.net