Use Blink (or other open rendering engine) and start contributing code.
There's clearly a duplication of effort going on. Web standards have this name because they're *standards*, so any implementation will have to recreate the same features.
Instead of reinventing the wheel (and doing a very bad job, by the way), contribute code to one of the collective efforts to implement those standards. Pick one of the established rendering engines and rebuild IE around it. All web developers and the public in general will stop making fun of you. Hey, maybe we'll even use IE for something other than downloading a better browser.
The web is built on the principle of multiple independent, interoperable implementations of web standards, and we feel it is important to counter movement towards a monoculture on the web. We’ve heard the feedback that MSHTML isn’t a modern engine capable of running today’s modern web. To balance this with the importance of avoiding engine monoculture, we created our new engine designed to be significantly more interoperable with Blink and WebKit. We believe that building on that foundation gives us the best opportunity to build a world-class browsing experience for Windows for our users and a competitive and interoperable platform for web developers.
We also understand and value the importance about being more open with our engine. To that point, we’ve launched status.modern.ie for communicating our roadmap, we’re giving more access to our engineers through social media, and we’re collaborating with the major rendering engine contributors, like Adobe, through a shared source program. We’ll continue to make additional effort to be even more transparent with the engineering of our new rendering engine.
Jeremy Karlsson commented
Please make sure your engine renders correctly if you choose to not use WebKit or Blink or any other working engines. Right now your engine is not working good.
Massimo Artizzu commented
I supported this idea as a mere provocation, but I'm fine to see more takes on web rendering. More than fine, actually: the period when there was only IE6 was horrible and did a lot of damage to the web community.
And we actually went close to the point that WebKit was "the new IE6".
But that is long gone, and Spartan looks like a very good project. Not that IE10 or 11 were terrible, but what bugged web developers to no end was the fact that IE versions are locked to the OS versions, leaving literally hundreds of millions of users with terribly outdated browsers.
That mustn't happen again in the future.
Lachlan Picking commented
This is never going to happen and nor should it. It's important to have multiple layout engines out there in the wild if you want those standards to mean anything. The people that run around trying to get IE to adopt WebKit/Blink while citing its history for breaking standards ******* astonish me. The whole reason IE was so damaging to the web in the late 1990s and early 2000s was specifically because of its monopoly. When there's only one layout engine in practice, people don't write for standards, they write for the engine (or to put it another way, standards mean nothing without multiple implementations). There's only three major engine families out there: Trident, WebKit, and Gecko. We do not need that group getting less diverse. Competition drives innovation. It makes me sad that this has so many votes.
Râu Cao commented
Can we download bad ideas?
I totally agree that this would be a very, very bad thing to do. It's important to avoid a rendering engine monoculture, and if IE would adapt Blink or WebKit as well we would be dangerously close to that situation.
I have an idea, if you think this is a good way to go, and it is so easy, just grab Blink or Webkit or whatever yourself and do your own browser.
We need open standards, and if we only wanted ONE implementation, there would be no need for standards. In fact, as a few have mentioned here, if only had one implementation, then we'd not need to define a standard document, but just a standard set of source.
Problem with that is that the standard source would be prioritized low compared to other projects.
Keep standards support, and keep creating new standards, and keep Innovating, Microsoft (just like you're doing)
Dan Santner commented
I declare this a fabulous idea. I'm not sure about blink vs webkit vs others but this would be an amazing step forward for Internet Explorer, and would save soooo much work for all of us who have to literally dedicate an FTE just for one browser.
No. No. And no.
Think about this: Do you really want blink to become a monopoly? Have you noticed what happens when anything becomes a monopoly? It stagnates, and then begins to suck harder than a rabid Roomba.
M$: Embrace open standards, but as part of your own engine, with your own implements.
Ivan Privaci commented
Even as recently as a year ago I'd have agreed with this. Now I'd rather have an additional *open-standards-compliant* rendering engine be relevant rather than continue collapsing down to "Mozilla Gecko, Apple Webkit, and Google Webkit [i.e. "Blink"]". As long as I can design my web stuff to a single standard with few or no "special browser tweaks to deal with non-standards-compliance", I'll be happy.
So long as MS's rendering engine genuinely supports open standards (including media formats - .opus for example) it's fine with me if MS develops it entirely in-house. (I personally would feel happier if it WERE open source, but compliant with "open standards" is even more important to me.)
 (In case that's not clear, I mean "compliant with open standards", not (necessarily) "open source and standards compliant")
Nik Rolls commented
Haha, you think Blink is open? It's faux-open-source (like Android) and is already trying to throw its own weight around and ignore the standards you're talking about. If you want standards to maintained, you need at minimum three different options to avoid falling into a duopoly or monopoly.
Yes, we want MS to support the exciting new HTML features that blink supports, like shadow DOM, but this is not the answer!
"I'm so mad at IE and microsoft, I want to fall back in a web monoculture and give the web to Google !"
Are you serious ?
To say that IE is doing a bad job with standards is a bit anachronistic. I realize bashing IE was cool a decade ago but I'd suggest you take an honest objective look at its current state. In fact, current release builds are--on the balance--more standards compliant than current release builds of Chrome, Firefox and Safari. Take a look at the specifications and conformity tests, I think you'll be surprised.
Just encouraging you to check out the data. I'm not saying any browser is "the best" or "you should use XYZ".
Well, that's not entirely true: it is a proven fact that Lynx *is* the best web browser out there.
Abhishek D commented
I think this kills competition, opera did this, that means if chrome in anyways does something wrong all the others will follow.
I see why people vote for this, but this is how IE can make themselves better.
Seaman Staines commented
I think this suggestion should be "Make a rendering engine *comparable* to blink (or another open rendering engine).
IE just ****** me off too much!
Mark Garcia commented
Hey guys! I have an idea. Let's vote this up to the top and let's see how the official IE guys react! That would be sweet!
Mark Garcia commented
Um, you're saying what MS has built with IE isn't already established? Its Chakra JS engine that powers lots of modern apps? The many applications out there that embeds IE technology? Skype??? Come on.
> All web developers and the public in general will stop making fun of you.
Then stop right now! You should realize it's you who's making fun of them for no good reason.
So what you're basically proposing is to build cooperation singly around another *product* that's controlled by a corporation who can steer it in such a way that the ones that use it will lose all of their investments on it?
> Duplication of effort
YES! I ABSOLUTELY AGREE! The US and Russia should have collaborated instead on the space race! The oil companies should all collaborate! (Ah well they are, and what do you see now?)
Ya know standards doesn't work the way you propose right? "So guys, we'll incorporate feature X into OmniProduc™. It's going to be the standard NOW!!!" "So we value good competition, and we'll collaborate with MegaCorp to create OnlyApp™" "Guys! What do you think of this proposal? There's none like it on the list! Let's make it into the standard already!"
Brian McBrayer commented
Going to say this is a bad suggestion because it is mean ("and doing a very bad job, by the way"). Can people not be nice?
David Storey [MSFT] commented
I’ll put this out there as one data point of why this would be a bad idea the modern IE era: http://kangax.github.io/compat-table/es6/ (sort by number of features for best results)
Very bad Idea