mahiwaga

I'm not really all that mysterious

version targeting: the new bugaboo

Jeff Croft brings up [version targeting][0] again, and casts it in the old “The Right Thing™” and “Worse is Better” debate.

While I still think version targeting is a stupid idea, my opinion is certainly not going to stop Microsoft from putting it in IE8. I predict that they will. But from the developer’s stand-point, the issue is still the same: do you put up with Microsoft’s bugs and broken design? Or do you code for the masses, and avoid this sort of kludgery and stick to the standards? (Because if you’re coding specifically to IE6, then you’re screwing all the Firefox and Safari users out there, and while 15%—give or take—may not sound like that much, that’s going to be about 150 million computers (assuming [an estimate of 1 billion computers by the end of 2008][1]). Most businesses would not choose to ignore this many potential customers. Hell, I’m sure even Microsoft is keeping an eye open as that number continues to creep up.) In addition, you are also screwing people using IE7 and early adopters of the erstwhile IE8.

The key question is, will Gecko and Webkit support version targeting? My suspicion is no. As far as I can tell, neither engine has ever tried to emulate the brokenness of IE6. And why would they add such cruftiness to their code base anyway?

So I actually don’t think it’s going to be that big of deal. The only people who really need it are developers too lazy to fix their sites to be standards-compliant, and who are continuing to rely on IE6’s brokenness. So basically these sites will only run on IE6 and IE8 and nothing else, not even IE7. They certainly won’t run on your Symbian-based Nokia, your Blackberry, your iPhone, or on your PSP or Nintendo DS. Ridiculous.

Face it. IE6 is going to end up on the trash heap of obsolescence just like everything else has. But as long as you’ve got access to open source code repositories and a compiler, you’re always going to be able to view a web page in Firefox 2.0. So don’t worry about document obsolescence. Backward compatibility isn’t the holy-grail everyone makes it out to be. If you’re going to upgrade, do it right, get rid of the cruft, and don’t look back! If you’re not, stick with tried-and-true technology (that doesn’t have bugs—so IE6 doesn’t count.) No one, [not even Microsoft][2], can make you upgrade.

#Addendum I really don't understand the rationale for breaking the web with version targeting. Look, [you can still read websites designed in 1996 in modern day browsers][3]. It's not pretty, but at least there's some sort of content. But you'll also notice that these sites have since revamped their markup. *That's* the real solution to version number inflation: revise, revise, revise. You can be as forward thinking as you want to be in 2008, but once 2038 rolls around, when the world-wide web as we know it has ceased to exist, and all your data is floating around in holographic form around you, and everything including public toilets and washing machines has a kinetic or tactile interface that makes the Nintendo Wii or the iPhone look clunkier than the ENIAC, it's gonna suck ass if you're forced to downgrade your experience to IE6 because of some stupid version tag. On the other hand, when 2038 rolls around, and you want to reminisce about the early 21st century, I'm sure you'll have an emulator for the obsolescent x86 desktop experience for which you can still download and install moldy copies of ancient versions of Linux, and therefore, you can still experience the early 21st century blogosphere the way real geeks surfed the web and launch Firefox 2.0 on your virtual (and probably holographic) machine. All without version targeting. How about that? [0]: http://www2.jeffcroft.com/blog/2008/jan/26/war-within-web-standards-pragmatists-versus-purist/ "The war within Web Standards: Pragmatists vs Purists • 2008 Jan 26 • Jeff Croft" [1]: http://web.archive.org/web/20080129011121/http://www.techworld.com/news/index.cfm?NewsID=9119 "PC numbers set to hit 1 billion • 2007 Jun 12 • Techworld.com • archived 2008 Jan 29 • WayBack Machine" [2]: http://www.news.com/The-XP-alternative-for-Vista-PCs/2100-1016_3-6209481.html "The XP alternative for Vista PCs • 2007 Sep 21 • c|net News.com" [3]: http://web.archive.org/web/20100403233548/https://www.msu.edu/~karjalae/internet96.htm?hoho "Internet 1996 • archived 2010 Apr 3 • WayBack Machine"
initially published online on:
page regenerated on: