<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Friends don’t let friends use quirks mode</title>
	<atom:link href="http://helephant.com/2008/01/friends-don%e2%80%99t-let-friends-use-quirks-mode/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://helephant.com/2008/01/friends-don%e2%80%99t-let-friends-use-quirks-mode/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 21 Aug 2010 21:58:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://helephant.com/2008/01/friends-don%e2%80%99t-let-friends-use-quirks-mode/#comment-677</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://helephant.net/?p=344#comment-677</guid>
		<description>I remember reading a post from a Microsoft dev about IE quirks mode and non quirks mode. It basically said this if you are not using quirks mode, then you are game to having your website broken for every update to internet explorer that MS releses as they reinterpret the W3C rules. Quirks mode on the other hand is less likely to break because MS does a lot of backward compatability testing with existing websites.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;So under that assumption, does quirks mode not serve a purpose? I would think that most intranet sites where content gets refreshed constantly, but not nescessarily the design of the page - Quirks mode may be a better choice.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;At least that is my experience as I&#039;ve had a website running under quirks mode since 1999 (Ajax enabled by the way though we didn&#039;t call it that then) with no need to update the HTML due to browser rendering issues.&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I remember reading a post from a Microsoft dev about IE quirks mode and non quirks mode. It basically said this if you are not using quirks mode, then you are game to having your website broken for every update to internet explorer that MS releses as they reinterpret the W3C rules. Quirks mode on the other hand is less likely to break because MS does a lot of backward compatability testing with existing websites.</p>
<p>So under that assumption, does quirks mode not serve a purpose? I would think that most intranet sites where content gets refreshed constantly, but not nescessarily the design of the page &#8211; Quirks mode may be a better choice.</p>
<p>At least that is my experience as I&#8217;ve had a website running under quirks mode since 1999 (Ajax enabled by the way though we didn&#8217;t call it that then) with no need to update the HTML due to browser rendering issues.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Helen</title>
		<link>http://helephant.com/2008/01/friends-don%e2%80%99t-let-friends-use-quirks-mode/#comment-678</link>
		<dc:creator>Helen</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 01 Jan 1970 00:00:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://helephant.net/?p=344#comment-678</guid>
		<description>That&#039;s a fair point. The big advantage is cross browser compatibility and that&#039;s not an issue for everyone. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;One question to ask is whether you will need to support more browsers in the future. Some of the code that I maintain was written to be IE only in 2001 and now has to support other browsers as well. Retrofitting cross browser compatibility is a very unpleasant process. &lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I think your risk of having your code broken by a newer version of IE is probably related to how far you&#039;re pushing the browser. A simple content website probably doesn&#039;t need to worry too much while it is more likely to be a problem for a complicated web application. Interestingly enough, from IE8 onwards there will be a way to tell the browser which version you&#039;re targeting so it shouldn&#039;t be a problem anymore (http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/01/21/compatibility-and-ie8.aspx).&lt;br /&gt;&lt;br /&gt;I guess any decision is always about making the right tradeoffs for your project. Thanks for the insightful comment. :)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>That&#8217;s a fair point. The big advantage is cross browser compatibility and that&#8217;s not an issue for everyone. </p>
<p>One question to ask is whether you will need to support more browsers in the future. Some of the code that I maintain was written to be IE only in 2001 and now has to support other browsers as well. Retrofitting cross browser compatibility is a very unpleasant process. </p>
<p>I think your risk of having your code broken by a newer version of IE is probably related to how far you&#8217;re pushing the browser. A simple content website probably doesn&#8217;t need to worry too much while it is more likely to be a problem for a complicated web application. Interestingly enough, from IE8 onwards there will be a way to tell the browser which version you&#8217;re targeting so it shouldn&#8217;t be a problem anymore (<a href="http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/01/21/compatibility-and-ie8.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.msdn.com/ie/archive/2008/01/21/compatibility-and-ie8.aspx</a>).</p>
<p>I guess any decision is always about making the right tradeoffs for your project. Thanks for the insightful comment. :)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
