tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post8596244161801030784..comments2023-06-29T12:07:43.973+01:00Comments on Program Your Own Mind 2: Supporting IE7, that'll cost extra?Anonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03109951687667398737noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2072226399526991149.post-25387045643073517972013-01-08T17:36:21.146+00:002013-01-08T17:36:21.146+00:00"The segmenting of our web has to stop, espec..."The segmenting of our web has to stop, especially that driven by the partisan hatred of Internet Explorer."<br /><br />The "partisan" part would be fair comment if the IE line hadn't partially seceded from the web by intentionally diverging from W3C compliance early in its lifecycle. As my erstwhile colleague @psd is wont to say "The web is agreement". When a browser disagrees with the standards ecosystem due to a bug (e.g. your "quirky Firefox" example) I think it tends to sit better with the psychology of web devs (well, they were at least *trying* to hit standards, we'll work around it). When a browser disagrees (or disagreed) intentionally for the benefit of one company devs tend to want to ignore it, or if they can't ignore it, kill it with fire - even when the company in question is attempting to turn it around, that (anti-) trust was lost a long time ago.<br /><br />This, of course, is just psychology, and your point here is more about professionalism. You're saying (correct me if I'm off base): "This is the ecosystem as it is, many use the 'disagreeing' browser, which means that there's a practical implicit consensus formed by the agglomeration of imperfect software. We write software for this extant consensus, and we should not lop bits off this consensus just because we disagree with the motivation of one browser developer". <br /><br />Fair enough. This is doing the best by your client. I respect that. <br /><br />However, I think a lot of devs believe (however naïvely) that by putting an monetary figure on pointing out that the IE line is acting, or has acted in, bad faith, they are doing what they can for a sustainable, supportable web. I think they believe they are discouraging the sort of anti-trust practice that has led us to putting company-specific disclaimers, shims, and consensus emulsifiers in an ugly section at the top of every HTML representation they ever render. <br /><br />Then again, some are no doubt gouging, as you rightly point out. I like your approach. It's practical and clients will get good value from you. However, as a web dev advancing in years, I *need* these standards to work without too many company-specific deviations. I just don't have the faculties to hold all the workarounds in my head any more. It *does* take me longer. <br /><br />You can, of course, suggest I go tend sheep or whittle pine if you like :)Russhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09828083287936019500noreply@blogger.com