<?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"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: A post every developer should read about IE 8</title>
	<atom:link href="http://gatezero.org/~tim/2008/03/18/a-post-every-developer-should-read-about-ie-8/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://gatezero.org/~tim/2008/03/18/a-post-every-developer-should-read-about-ie-8/</link>
	<description>gatezero by tim harding</description>
	<pubDate>Wed, 07 Jan 2009 21:22:48 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Dave</title>
		<link>http://gatezero.org/~tim/2008/03/18/a-post-every-developer-should-read-about-ie-8/#comment-220</link>
		<dc:creator>Dave</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 19 Mar 2008 11:16:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://gatezero.org/~tim/?p=113#comment-220</guid>
		<description>My initial reaction to the IE "almost standards mode" was the same as your point re: going back to "de-hack" pages you'd written for IE6 and 7.

The problem is though, where do we draw a line? Hacking around browser-specific problems is far from ideal or practical. We need to be able to move forwards here.

Joel's deliberately provocative piece is simply ignorant. Coding to standards is not some mystical black art. It simply means "when I write some HTML code it will look the same in every browser". It is also not very difficult to make sure you are confirming to the DOCTYPE you specify. His post is just full of bullshit, to be frank.

Anyway it is good to see debate about this, but I think most people want the least work and the most interoperability, and I don't think writing 50 page long essays about stereo jacks and how standards are impossible to work with (interspersed with the odd sexist comment) is the way forwards.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>My initial reaction to the IE &#8220;almost standards mode&#8221; was the same as your point re: going back to &#8220;de-hack&#8221; pages you&#8217;d written for IE6 and 7.</p>
<p>The problem is though, where do we draw a line? Hacking around browser-specific problems is far from ideal or practical. We need to be able to move forwards here.</p>
<p>Joel&#8217;s deliberately provocative piece is simply ignorant. Coding to standards is not some mystical black art. It simply means &#8220;when I write some HTML code it will look the same in every browser&#8221;. It is also not very difficult to make sure you are confirming to the DOCTYPE you specify. His post is just full of bullshit, to be frank.</p>
<p>Anyway it is good to see debate about this, but I think most people want the least work and the most interoperability, and I don&#8217;t think writing 50 page long essays about stereo jacks and how standards are impossible to work with (interspersed with the odd sexist comment) is the way forwards.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
