Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 5th Jan 2013 14:53 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 547510
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.
RE[3]: We are talking about IE here!
by Brendan on Sun 6th Jan 2013 04:39
in reply to "RE[2]: We are talking about IE here! "
Hi,
I think the "user agent" string should be banned, and replaced with something to indicate which standard/s the client supports.
This way you get the best of both worlds:
- Web developers don't need to prototype with many browsers
- Web developers don't need to care about broken implementations
- Web developers can easily support older or newer standards (e.g. if browser says it only supports HTML 3, then don't give it HTML 5)
- Browser developers that keep screwing things up end up having a reason to fix their broken puss
The bigger issue imo is that these things need to happen faster. It shouldn't take years for a group of people to agree on things. It reminds me of the US Congress.
There's a completely separate issue (most of the stuff designed by W3C takes an excessively large amount of work for browser developers to support correctly, because most of it is a "designed by committee" ugly and overcomplicated pile of puke that tries to be bad for many things instead of being good for one thing), but this doesn't change the basic idea that if you're adopting a standard you should adopt that standard correctly.
- Brendan
RE[4]: We are talking about IE here!
by lucas_maximus on Sun 6th Jan 2013 12:09
in reply to "RE[3]: We are talking about IE here! "
RE[4]: We are talking about IE here!
by Lennie on Tue 8th Jan 2013 18:19
in reply to "RE[3]: We are talking about IE here! "
Those exist:
http://www.javascriptjedi.com/browser_js_features.htm
Not that they are particularly useful to most webdevelopers, most of the time, but they do exist.




Member since:
2005-11-29
I think web devs can use browser extensions, but should also provide un-prefixed versions of said extensions to "future-proof" their site.
This way you get the best of both worlds:
- You can prototype with many browsers
- You can implementations which are in a state of flux separate
- You are sure to support the unprefixed version when the standard is ratified and less volatile.
So for example if "StandardA" is finalized, you can use a prefixed version of it for say IE if Microsoft's implementation differs (say they implemented a Working Draft) and you can always keep the unprefixed version up to date.
The bigger issue imo is that these things need to happen faster. It shouldn't take years for a group of people to agree on things. It reminds me of the US Congress.