Linked by Thom Holwerda on Fri 22nd Oct 2010 22:11 UTC, submitted by google_ninja
Thread beginning with comment 446857
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.



Member since:
2006-02-05
The way the w3c works is that the criteria to go from "working draft" to "recommendation" is two 100% implementations. The way that most browsers work is they implement emerging standards as proprietary extensions (using the -webkit, -moz, -ms, -opera prefixes) until they are happy with the implementation, when they drop the prefix.
The problem that guy had was that MS was getting a lot of good press around CSS3/HTML5, even though IE9 has hands down the worst support out of all the browsers. What makes things worse is that IE users are either unwilling, or incapable of upgrading their browsers, as old versions just never seem to go away. Best case would be something like chrome being the lowest common denomenator, they don't even give their users the option to not upgrade, so as soon as they fix something, almost everyone is upgraded within a week. With IE it takes 5-7 years before the never version has the same level of saturation.
So, the reason this sucks is that once ie6 is finally gone, the lowest common denominator will be ie7. After that, it will be ie8. Everyone was hoping it would be different, but it looks like once ie8 goes away, it will be ie9.