Re: Locking in to IE8 vs IE7 using CSS?

On 04 Nov 2009, Sherm Pendley <> wrote:

> Neredbojias <> writes:
>
>> On 06 Oct 2009, Jack <> wrote:
>>
>>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />"
>>> -----------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I don't mean to get into the "FireFox versus IE" topic, but to me,
>>> this sounds like a good idea. If I'm going to do my best to make
>>> sure my website is the best and most current CSS ran site I can make
>>> it, I don't want Microsoft to come along and screw it up.
>>>
>>> What do you think?
>>
>> The meta tag is probably a good idea
>
> Will IE8 respond the same way to a real "X-UA-Compatible" HTTP header?

Yes. Here's a good article re. the subject:

http://www.alistapart.com/articles/beyonddoctype

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

Neredbojias

Neredbojias wrote:
> On 06 Oct 2009, Jack<> wrote:
>
<snip>

>>
>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Compatible" content="IE=edge" />"
>> -----------------------------------------------------------

<snip>

>>
>> What do you think?
>
> The meta tag is probably a good idea but I'll venture to say that in a
> relatively short time compared to past history ie7 won't be a
> significant player in the browser game, anyway.
>

I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing back-flips
just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict proprietary and often
ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I resist using conditional
comments.

<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something else">
<meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some more crap">


--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little

On Nov 4, 2:34*pm, "Jonathan N. Little" <lws4...@centralva.net> wrote:
>
> I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing back-flips
> just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict proprietary and often
> ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I resist using conditional
> comments.
>
> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something">
> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something else">
> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some more crap">
>
> --
> Take care,
>
> Jonathan
> -------------------
> LITTLE WORKS STUDIOhttp://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

This is an attitude that is endemic in poorly written code. "Let's
ignore the end user if it's more difficult to code." I meet it all
the time in lots of poorly written user interfaces. Don't be so
arrogant as to try and force customers to change. You will just lose
them.

www.richardfisher.com

Helpful person

Helpful person wrote:
> On Nov 4, 2:34 pm, "Jonathan N. Little"<lws4...@centralva.net> wrote:
>>
>> I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing back-flips
>> just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict proprietary and often
>> ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I resist using conditional
>> comments.
>>
>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something">
>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something else">
>> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some more crap">

<snip signature>

> This is an attitude that is endemic in poorly written code.

Employing proprietary code and peppering hacks throughout your markup to
support some specific version of a browser is *not* indicative of well
written code, and often is a management nightmare! Such coded sites are
a real PITA to "fix" when they fall apart when MS fixes a bug or
introduces a new one in their next version browser.

> "Let's
> ignore the end user if it's more difficult to code."

I made no such suggestion. Most times such hacks are employed in the
misguided effort to "make it look exactly the same in every browser down
to the pixel". A better approach is "gracefully degrade".

--
Take care,

Jonathan
-------------------
LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com

Jonathan N. Little

On 04 Nov 2009, "Jonathan N. Little" <> wrote:

> Neredbojias wrote:
>> The meta tag is probably a good idea but I'll venture to say that in
>> a relatively short time compared to past history ie7 won't be a
>> significant player in the browser game, anyway.
>>
>
> I disagree. How much longer must designers have to keep doing
> back-flips just to keep coddling IE along? I like to restrict
> proprietary and often ephemeral hacks in my web pages. One reason I
> resist using conditional comments.
>
> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack" content="IE8=fix something">
> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Another-Hack" content="IE9=fix something
> else"> <meta http-equiv="X-UA-Hack-Du-Jour " content="IE10=fix some
> more crap">

I'm not agin that attitude at all and basically subscribe to it,
myself. However, there are 2 things to think about.

One, the "X-UA-Compatible" meta is designed for all browsers, not just
ie. Check out the link I posted earlier.

Two, I believe the meta is supposed to be more of a way to prevent
having to completely redo old pages authored for
conditions-of-the-times when newer, more standards-wise browsers come
out or when the standards themselves change or expand.

Anyway, sure, it may not work out to be as I described, but who's
happier, the optimist or the pessimist? Besides, one should have an
open mind even in the world of the html troglodyte.

--
Neredbojias
http://www.neredbojias.org/
http://www.neredbojias.net/

Neredbojias