HTML 5 & Internet Explorer 6 - IE6

[morestar]

So I read this article just now about IE6 and how there will be plenty of problems with HTML 5 code.

IE6 Must Die for the Web to Move On

What's your take? As developers how to we promote more compatible browsers to our friends, family and co-workers (or the boss)?

I use all browsers for testing and FireFox for browsing AND upgraded to IE8.

Could the problem with the masses not upgrading be due to the fact that many upon many people don't even know they can update?

Anyways, I just wanted to post a link to the article because it seemed pretty interesting.

Have fun!

[lordspace]

there are sites that they have even a counter

[kgun]

Don't worry. IE 6 will become less and less important. IMO there are other more serious problems with I.E.

Microsoft invented the XMLHttpRequest object (the heart in todays AJAX applications) in 1999. Other companies and W3C soon adopted the standard, but in good Microsoft tradition they used another IMO worse solution.

IE 8 and below is not even W3C DOM compliant.

There are some important links regarding FaceBook etc at the bottom of this AdSchoolWorld: Social Media Optimization page.

We may ask: Is Microsoft's intention to monopolize (corner) the web and make their own standard?

There are other much more important questions / problems:

W3C abandons XHTML2, Increases Resources for HTML5

What about the Canvas tag etc.

http://www.webproworld.com/web-progr...tml#post330575 ???

We are still striving with the bad HTML dialect of XML. It is too early to know the future.

http://www.webproworld.com/google-di...tml#post339093 ?? when more and more new are introduced?

[morestar]

wow i tried the canvas tag: Tryit Editor v1.4

I didn't even know we had a canvas tag in HTML - but note currently only FireFox, Chrome, and Opera supports the canvas - not IE6.

[wige]

The canvas tag is part of an unofficial specification, and not part of the current HTML specs. This is the reason Microsoft gives for not supporting it, claiming that all the CSS issues that were in IE6 and 7 were the result of adopting an unofficial version of the CSS standard that was different from the final version which the other browsers, released after IE6, had time to implement. They claim that they expect the canvas tag to undergo similar changes before becoming official, and want to wait to support it.

It should also be noted that Canvas is considered proprietary intellectual property of Apple, and Apple has sent Cease and Desist orders to browser authors implementing the tag, including the author of WebKit, the rendering engine for, of all things, the default Apple browser, Safari. Apple did rework the license terms to comply with W3C so that the tag can become royalty free. However, until the W3C makes Canvas part of an official specification, the element will still be considered proprietary and must be licensed by any browser which implements it.

[Luwana]

I have several clients still using IE 6 because they are either afraid to upgrade or don't know there was one available. I'm pretty sure you can't upgrade out of it until you install XP service pack 3 and before you can do that there is a big warning that comes up and says to back up your system incase there's a problem - that stops them in their tracks and they figure if it's not broke they're not going to break it.

[techmaniac]

I've stated numerous times that IE6 is worthless crapware and developers shouldn't continue to code for it. We must bring an end to the life of an outdated piece of junk that didn't support the standards at the time of release and is woefully amiss of current standards and practices.

Please join me in refusing to support IE6 and coding a message that the end is near.

Your message should read:

"You seem to be stuck in 2001, and can't find the way out. As we are now nearing 2010, I would suggest you upgrade to a relevant browser:"

Link to FF, Safari, Chrome (anything else but IE), then finish with:

As of 'date', we will no longer support Internet Explorer 6. Some features and items will not display properly and your experience on this site will be degraded. Sincerely, MGMT"

It is time to put the stake in the heart of this vampire.

[advancedmerchant]

Creating sites on the bleeding edge of technology will leave users behind. If you want to be there, so be it. If you are looking for customers, you play to THEIR space.

Back to your original question - Until someone makes a compelling arguement, Joe Average just dosen't want to go through the time and effort to upgrade a browser. What does it gain them? The Internet looks just dandy right now, with the browser I have, (IE6), thank you very much. Don't flame me with security issues, Joe Average has the security software that came with his PC, and he pays for updates on his credit card annually... so that is all he thinks he needs (security wise).

There is always the powerful "if it ain't broke" arguement. How many have had problems after a Windows Update? How do you convince Joe Average to "take the chance"? Like upgrading the cams in your engine, it may be faster, more powerful, get better mileage, etc. but very very few people do it.

Learn to live with IE6, software inertia will keep it here for a long, long time.

[morestar]

Learn to live with IE6, software inertia will keep it here for a long, long time.

...well that would depend on your view of a 'long time' and now that IE8 has been released it's bound to change and probably quicker than we think.

[DesignComm]

I guess I've been out of it for too long.

HTML was supposed to die with version 4.01, when we made the switch to XHTML 1.0, and 2.0 was quickly bringing up the rear. The 7.0 browsers, particularly Netscape, were optimized for XHTML 1.0, and really would not render sites properly that were done with HTML. Is it me, or are we taking a huge step backward? How did we ever get back to HTML? Someone, please bring me up to speed.

The W3C originally intended for the Internet to be driven by XML, and it was only because of two browser developers, who shall remain nameless, but whom I'm sure most of you know about, tried to make the Internet proprietary, and hence quickly wrote their own versions of HTML in a race to quickly release each of their browsers first. As you old timers will recall, the early two browsers were deliberately engineered so that sites would only work in one or the other, so for Web designers it was a nightmare, because clients didn't want to have to pay to have two sites created-one built for each browser. Oops! I said the early two browsers didn't I? Now what were those browsers names, and who were the developers again? Hmm.

Well, back to the language thing. Had greed and self-interest not been an issue, we would not be having this conversation today. It would seem, however, that we're moving back to square one, again, because of the browser companies, and well, greed and self-interest. XHTML 1.0 pretty much took care of the problems with CSS and PNG's, etc.,

There has to be a standard that is put in place regarding a universal language for the Net, and all browser developers should be forced to comply. At this point in time, if we revisit the 7.0 browser technology in which the "big two" became compliant with what the W3C had put out there, i.e., XHTML 1.0, and abandon everything before that, we should be okay. The only problem is, that, yes, people are still running older systems with older browsers, many I think because of cost. That being said, we must look at the other part of the equation.

At this point in time, we are at a crossroads with Mac OS becoming more Windows-like, and vice versa. Essentially, we're moving toward a universal operating system which is both good and bad. With regard to the Web, it's an opportunity for Apple and Microsoft to work with their own technologies, as well as collaborating with the other browser and software developers to agree on a language standard from this point forward-not only for the Net, but also for all software in general.

People should not have to constantly pay for expensive upgrades because of propriety, and built-in obsolescence. With the kind of universal standard that the W3C has strived for from the beginning, there should not, nor have ever been, issues with backward compatibility, or conflicts with operating systems.

I put to all of you, that if all the key players get on the same page, now, and put greed and propriety aside, the problem with resolve itself. Once we have a universal standard that is enforced, as people begin to upgrade and catch up finally, there will not be any more compatibility issues, because we will have what's been lacking all along: consistency. What ever happened to that federal law about universal access anyway? Did some individuals forget about that? Oh that's right, there's that whole thing with money and politics, and who has the most powerful lobby. Silly me!