<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The Annoying IE8 Loophole</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole/feed" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole</link>
	<description>KBlog by Kimberly Blessing</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 28 Oct 2009 22:07:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Megan</title>
		<link>http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole#comment-18460</link>
		<dc:creator>Megan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 15:24:59 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole#comment-18460</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a good point, Kimberley. Hopefully these people will at least recognize the reason why their pages are breaking and that it might be easier next time around if they coded to standards in the first place. I also hope that Microsoft will make it clear that this is why sites are breaking and that coding to standards will help to ensure that changes won&#039;t be necessary in the future.

For me, we&#039;ll have to see how much breaks when a public version of IE is available. Anything I&#039;ve coded recently is forwards compatible using conditional comments so it should be okay. Anything older but still in use probably needs a re-visit anyway. Of course, I&#039;m not working for one of the big corporations that you speak of :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a good point, Kimberley. Hopefully these people will at least recognize the reason why their pages are breaking and that it might be easier next time around if they coded to standards in the first place. I also hope that Microsoft will make it clear that this is why sites are breaking and that coding to standards will help to ensure that changes won&#8217;t be necessary in the future.</p>
<p>For me, we&#8217;ll have to see how much breaks when a public version of IE is available. Anything I&#8217;ve coded recently is forwards compatible using conditional comments so it should be okay. Anything older but still in use probably needs a re-visit anyway. Of course, I&#8217;m not working for one of the big corporations that you speak of :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Chris Wilson</title>
		<link>http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole#comment-18459</link>
		<dc:creator>Chris Wilson</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:47:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole#comment-18459</guid>
		<description>Kimberly, it&#039;s true that we won&#039;t be &lt;i&gt;forcing&lt;/i&gt; anyone to upgrade their web pages; that would be pretty arrogant of us to do.  But I&#039;d point out that the obvious advantages of designing with standards to begin with are pretty big; and advancements in the platform will occur in &quot;standards mode&quot;, not in our compatibility modes.

And Nico, the other browsers do not already have &quot;IE7 standards mode compatibility mode&quot;, nor do I think they are interested in providing that level of compatibility.

(oh, and it&#039;s not weeks - I&#039;ve been saying for over a year that we would need authors to opt in to standards. :) )

-Chris Wilson</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Kimberly, it&#8217;s true that we won&#8217;t be <i>forcing</i> anyone to upgrade their web pages; that would be pretty arrogant of us to do.  But I&#8217;d point out that the obvious advantages of designing with standards to begin with are pretty big; and advancements in the platform will occur in &#8220;standards mode&#8221;, not in our compatibility modes.</p>
<p>And Nico, the other browsers do not already have &#8220;IE7 standards mode compatibility mode&#8221;, nor do I think they are interested in providing that level of compatibility.</p>
<p>(oh, and it&#8217;s not weeks &#8211; I&#8217;ve been saying for over a year that we would need authors to opt in to standards. :) )</p>
<p>-Chris Wilson</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Nico</title>
		<link>http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole#comment-18457</link>
		<dc:creator>Nico</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 04 Mar 2008 12:35:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.kimberlyblessing.com/archive/2008/03/04/the-annoying-ie8-loophole#comment-18457</guid>
		<description>Microsoft is very clever to introduce such a Meta element. This also would force other browser manufacturers to show the IE-Rendering Engines. In my opinion, it will be the best to write web pages in a uniform standard and the browser manufacturers implement just this standard. This will remain probably a dream.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Microsoft is very clever to introduce such a Meta element. This also would force other browser manufacturers to show the IE-Rendering Engines. In my opinion, it will be the best to write web pages in a uniform standard and the browser manufacturers implement just this standard. This will remain probably a dream.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

