IE8 – Why Not Strict Instead of Meta?
Have you listened to the WaSP Round Table: IE8’s Default Version Targeting Behaviour? It’s also available as an mp3 and as a transcript. Its an interesting discussion between Web Standards Project Members Faruk Ates, Aaron Gustafson, and Porter Glendinning with Chris Wilson, Platform Architect for Internet Explorer.
Some of the conversation will come as no surprise at all. But right at the end the WaSP guys asked whether it would be worth exploring the requirement of a Strict Doctype as a switch for indicating standards mode? They discussed the investigation of market penetration of Strict Doctypes and the use of a full URL after it. This sounds like a much more interesting proposal than the opt-in meta tag solution being put forward at the moment. I see that Roger Johansson has also posted his support for using Strict Doctypes to signal standards mode.
Doctypes generated by DreamWeaver and other applications tend to auto-generate as Transitional. These could be treated very differently to those pages specifically saying they want to be treated in standards mode – which you’re generally saying when you go to Strict anyway. It makes a logical sense I don’t think is there with the proposed meta tag opt-in solution. And, without anything to back this statement up, how many of the Internet Explorer Only intranets that seem to be the economic concern of Microsoft actually use Strict Doctypes anyway?
Logically, maybe even naively, if they did happen to have a (probably very invalid) Strict Doctype when IE8 came out wouldn’t this solution simply require them to change to a Transitional Doctype?
Originally I wrote my initial negative response to the proposed meta tag solution and then my pragmatic acceptance only several days ago. That being said I’m very interested in this proposition put forward at the WaSP Round Table. Why not Strict Doctypes instead of Meta? And I’m sure standaristas will accept the marketing much better?
February 26th, 2008 at 11:06 am
Hey, I was on that call too
I, too, think that the Strict DOCTYPE is a great alternative if the numbers support it (in fact, I just wrote a post on it as well). Similarly, I’m also interested in exploring the possibility that an XHTML mime-type could trigger standards mode.
February 26th, 2008 at 12:22 pm
Sorry about that oversight Aaron, I actually changed a line at the last minute from
“But right at the end the Aaron asked…”
into the WasP guys.
“But right at the end the WaSP guys asked..”
Your article Automatically Opting in to IE8s Standards Mode offers a great concise view of the proposal so I’ll link to it from the comments…
I’ve had the sneaking question all along about why not still use the doctype switch but it never really got past that nagging thought at the back of my head. Like all things brilliant it’s a slap on the forehead and asking why didn’t I think of that… of course.
So my apologies again for missing you off the attribution Aaron, it was entirely unintentional. I must have read your question towards the end about five or six times to fully absorb it.
Or the short answer is Oops!
February 28th, 2008 at 8:53 am
Yeah, this would get my vote – this far more elegant solution than ‘Opt-in’…(shouldn’t we all be aiming for ’strict’ anyway right?!)
February 28th, 2008 at 9:05 am
Hi Matt, how’s things? It will be interesting to see if we can get anyone to listen over the background noise about meta… the waves are so loud its hard to hear the seagulls.
By adopting a strict doctype we’ve really been opting in all along in a sense. And if the site breaks in a new version just throw in a transitional doctype until fixed.
The creepiest thing about the whole affair isn’t the meta option though, its the Microsoft trust option. I really don’t trust microsoft’s business arm not to turn around in 4 years time saying that’s not viable and with new managers in web dev head straight back to proprietary bad old days… it will take some time to earn that trust among web developers I expect.