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.
Linux mint user, never used IE.
Please DON'T stop developing IE!
What's the point of standards if you want a monoculture.
This is a terrible idea, worded in an unprofessional way. If you're going to claim they are doing a "very bad job", back it up with something specific.
Even though Microsoft's code is proprietary, their participation in the standards process leaves tangible benefits. (Contribution to W3C test suites, working group participation, browser demos, dev tools, etc.)
I don't hear my peers grumbling about the current version of IE. Even in the most entrenched enterprise environments, older versions are fading away quickly. If you still find yourself among those that make fun of Internet Explorer, you might want to wake up and look around.
Michael Goff commented
"I would agree with you if IE's rendering engine was open-source. As it is right now, any development done in IE does pretty much nothing to advance web standards, since all code will be locked forever by Microsoft (or at least until it isn't relevant anymore - they open-sourced DOS this year!)."
Wrong, they advance web standards by going to the W3C. I don't know where you're getting your information from, but it's wrong.
To comment on some of below statements:
> There is already diversity. Without Internet Explorer, there are 3 major browsers with 3 different engines: Firefox (Gecko), Chrome (Blink), Safari (WebKit).
2 render engines (yes 2, Webkit and Blink are hardly any different) is not what people call diversity. 2 is dangerously low, the web needs Trident as much as it needs Gecko and Webkit.
> Internet Explorer lags behind all the other browsers on implementing standards. For web developers, there is always "the standard way" then "the Microsoft way".
Not sure if you have made modern websites recently, but I, and a lot of people, are these days developing "the standard way" and "the Webkit/Blink way". Webkit and Blink are aweful when it comes to standards, a lot of developers don't want to see this through. Heck, Google even announced that they would not include the Pointer Events in favor of Apples non standard Touch Events because Pointer Events was made by Microsoft. I'm sorry, but how is that good for the web?
> P.S. IE9 should be fine too, but it's been replaced, so it doesn't matter; ignore it. IE8? It's outdated, and you shouldn't be asked to code for 8. If anyone asks, tell them to shove off.
Actualy, IE10 has been replaced (all platforms with IE10 can update to IE11). IE9 is still the default and highest version on Vista (through it's market share is almost gone). I agree on the 8 and lower thing, no company should ask to do that.
> Voted, bui I prefer Webkit. It's used on Chrome, Opera and Safari.
Webkit is only used by Safari. Blink is used in Chrome and Opera. Through the 2 do not differ that much.
Anyway, thanks for making people wast 2506 votes for something that isn't going to happen in the first place, and for something that would be Microsofts stupidest move since a long time in the second.
Nathan Friend commented
Don't do this. Rendering engine diversity and competition is critical to future innovation.
Ok, I started another thread with similar idea, the moderator keeps deleting it, I guess it makes sense. I'm suggesting another version of IE that uses the Webkit engine, b/c of the momentum and support behind it.
I strongly disagree with this suggestion. Implement and push the standards forward, but maintain the diversity in the implementations. Nothing has hurt standards more than the absence of diversity ; nothing has hurt the innovation more than the absence of sane “competition”. Don't let webkit / blink be the new IE6.
Remove this suggestion please
Kevin Isom commented
This is just a terrible idea. This does not help web standards, not at all.
Dan Santner commented
If I could dedicate all my votes to one topic it would be this one. I spend most of my time swearing at IE when the CSS that works on all other browsers doesn't render properly in IE.
Sorry, so what's the point of having standard body?
Stick to Chakra!
You don't realize that Blink is the one re-inventing the wheel. Gecko was already available before. Google just wants more control over the web stop bull ********
Bad idea. Don't see why web developers should be exempt from figuring out how to write standardized code. C++ developers have had to deal with these headaches for decades, yet if we didn't, the world would only care about MSVC++ back when Windows was at its mindshare peak.
Keep IE separate, yet keep up the pressure on MS to adhere to accepted, open standards (real ones, not merely proposals coming out of their chief competitors).
Really?! Then it just means one thing; you have absolutely no idea how to code and that your codes are full of webkit specific non-standard nonsense.
Next time try following the established standards and the code will work just as well in FF, chrome and IE10/11. No special tweaking needed.
P.S. IE9 should be fine too, but it's been replaced, so it doesn't matter; ignore it. IE8? It's outdated, and you shouldn't be asked to code for 8. If anyone asks, tell them to shove off.
Vladimir Krstic commented
Support the idea but god, Blink? These days Microsoft is more open than Google... A lot more! Google is open just on paper. But as i said I support the idea but only right way to go is for Gecko.
The gist of all of this is that IE is ****. All these suggestions to use other engines boil down to the fact that IE is ****. So - either improove IE engine rapidly (linear improovement just means that IE will always be ****) or move to some other engine (with meta tag to fallback to crapIE mode). The single worst thing on the internet are people using IE.
Catherine Wilkinson commented
As a web developer, I've discovered that the most expensive, most time consuming and most hated thing we get asked to do is "make it work in IE". The rendering engine is one of the reasons for this.
I don't know which rendering engine would be best, but anything that doesn't require special snowflake code to make a page look like it does in every other browser would be fantastic.