Linked by Kroc Camen on Thu 25th Feb 2010 10:18 UTC
Humor BBC News reports "Mark your diaries for 4 March because in Denver the funeral arrangements are well underway for the planned passing that day of Internet Explorer 6". There's a phobia of being buried alive but I think in this case, it's the living that are all too quick to be shoveling the dirt over as IE6 doesn't officially die until 2014 when Microsoft pull the life-support.
Thread beginning with comment 411091
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: I like IE6, really
by google_ninja on Thu 25th Feb 2010 22:29 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: I like IE6, really"
google_ninja
Member since:
2006-02-05

That is truly ironic.


Why?

We are talking about a buggy platform implementation. If you are integrating services over a network, you probably deal with boatloads of xml. Imagine you are serializing some sort of message, and can pass it fine to any of a half dozen services without any problem, except for one. It has a buggy xml parser, and not only requires a different serialization process, but figuring out kludges to get it to accept the data you need it to accept is largely a matter of trial and error, and tends to take most of the time required when making even simple changes to your model.

Wouldn't you be very, very happy if you came into work one day, and found out your company was upgrading that system to a newer version that didn't have those problems anymore?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: I like IE6, really
by Luke8844 on Thu 25th Feb 2010 22:54 in reply to "RE[3]: I like IE6, really"
Luke8844 Member since:
2010-02-25

That is truly ironic.

Why?


Because claims of working with any browser flies against the desire to exclude the ones that you don't like. (Of course "this site works with any browser" is aspirational, as there must be early beta versions of browsers that were just so badly broken.)

My point is that IMO IE6 is good enough for most of the web, so shouldn't be excluded. Its a similar argument for why we make sites accessible even though it is a small portion of the population.

For me the argument about XML support in browsers is not a very strong argument. The web is still mainly content markup for the purposes of inter-human communication. Most of the web doesn't generate XML or even XHTML - so browsers have to degrade gracefully when they build their DOM.

Wouldn't you be very, very happy if you came into work one day, and found out your company was upgrading that system to a newer version that didn't have those problems anymore?


No, actually, if it was part of a general trend to not support older versions of web clients, I'd still be sad. Although I might enjoy using the upgraded client myself, I'd still wonder whether any visitors were being excluded from our site if it only worked with the new version.

Edited 2010-02-25 23:12 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1