February 7, 200818 yr Time and again, related to web standard discussions, there are people arguing that new browsers, IE in particular should just let old websites break and let the people that made them eat their own soup. Today I came across the best explanation why this isn't a practical or realistic option: http://weblog.200ok.com.au/2008/01/x-ua-co...-intranets.html
February 8, 200818 yr I can see the logical argument for it but if things are left that way half the internet will simply become outdated very very quickly. Just how long can IE6 dependant sites/intranets hold out? About 100 years ago the internal combustion engine was introduced. The horse and cart was still the most popular of transport but the forward thinkers adopted the new technology and forged ahead because motorised vehicles offered a faster and more efficient way of getting around. Eventually the horse and cart became obselete and motor vehicles became the standard, anyone not making the change either had to adapt or retire. In todays climate IE is the horse and cart, IE7 and the other current browsers are the equivilent of the motor vehicle.
February 8, 200818 yr Everything becomes obsolete eventually: 4 star petrol, Betamax videos, vinyl; you just have to move on and start with the next thing. Sites breaking because they are no longer supported isn't the end of the world.
February 8, 200818 yr Author I can see the logical argument for it but if things are left that way half the internet will simply become outdated very very quickly. Just how long can IE6 dependant sites/intranets hold out? Which is why MS introduses X-UA-Compatible which allows them to push forwards while leaving existing infrastructure intact.
February 8, 200818 yr Author Everything becomes obsolete eventually: 4 star petrol, Betamax videos, vinyl; you just have to move on and start with the next thing. Sites breaking because they are no longer supported isn't the end of the world. The issue isn't just sites. IE is a platform, not just a browser. So breaking the web, also means breaking applications. Applications often used in large office infrastructures. There are systems that still runs on DOS because that's what it was developed on and it's so vital that any modification that might introduce new bugs or issues could cause major problems.
February 8, 200818 yr That's true, at my old job we had systems that ran on a combination of DOS, Win2k, and Unix with Access and Oracle databases. I was the poor sod who had to administer them all. We were constantly warning the senior management of future problems, and to their credit, just before I left, they were ditching the Win2k/DOS/Access bits and converting soley to Unix/Oracle which made it much more futureproof. It can be done if they see sense and look to the future!
Create an account or sign in to comment