W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > December 2007

Re: standard out of the box (was: IE Blog: Internet Explorer 8 and Acid2: A Milestone)

From: Todd Russell <groovechicken@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2007 17:10:21 -0600
Cc: Alex Mogilevsky <alexmog@exchange.microsoft.com>, Håkon Wium Lie <howcome@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>
Message-Id: <42FB5231-C581-45B3-9E28-5895930217D2@gmail.com>
To: Paul Nelson (ATC) <paulnel@winse.microsoft.com>

>> So please, do the world a favor... break backward compatibility!!!
>
> I listed to a Chevron representative at the W3C Plenary who stood up  
> and said, "We have over 100,000 users using systems based on the  
> web. Please don't break backward compatibility." It is easy to say  
> to break backward compatibility. However, the reality is that there  
> are a number of large organizations who, like Chevron, are not  
> willing to (or maybe can't afford to is better said) use the  
> browsers that are not concerned about backward compatibility.


Again, though, as I mentioned in my first response, why can't you guys  
just let people use both... 7 for backwards compatibility and 8 for  
standards compatibility?  I realize how entwined IE is into the  
system, so how about this suggestion... keep 7 as the main browser and  
Windows Explorer foundation, but make 8 a stand-alone fat binary that  
people can download and run concurrently with 7.  Make it clear to  
everyone that when 9 rolls around, the old will be phased out.  That  
buys you at least 5 more years at the current rate of development.   
Or, upgrade everything to 8 and release 7 as a fat binary and call it  
Internet Explorer Corporate Edition.  That would appease the companies  
who rely on old code and allow you to move forward.

If you want to be a part of the web, though, you have to move forward  
and stop dragging the wounded soldier along... it's only slowing you  
down... and all the rest of us with you.  It's high time people  
understood that high tech is a fast-moving industry and if you want to  
play the game, expect everything to change every 5 years at max.   
Either that or we just throw our hands up and go back to our  
electronic word processors and Atari 2600s.

> Not quite as easy as you say.

I don't believe it is easy, but doing things for the common good never  
are.

Peace,
Todd Russell

P.S.  Chevron was a bad example to apply your aside of "maybe can't  
afford to" given the obscene profits they were making last year.   
You'll find no sympathy for Chevron among those of use whose salaries  
are not high enough to make gasoline prices a non-issue.
Received on Thursday, 20 December 2007 23:16:52 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:57 GMT