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.
I would prefer Gecko instead!
Webkit is outdated semi-open/semi-closed engine. while the Bling engline the same too!
For competition reasons, and for common good of future of the internet, please join efforts on Gecko development.
Only after Microsoft join efforts with Mozilla (a non-profit foundation!), we can ensure sustainable, quick-enough release cycle for future versions of MSIE, and also keep its own MSIE's uniqueness.
No, no, no!! This would be a horrible idea. Blink is a horrible rendering engine that is years behind IE in platform support (and standards support without turning various developer flags on). Chrome/Blink only recently aqquired something that approaches proper font rendering.
Please, MS, do not listen to this. The open web needs multiple implementations. And it was sad to see Opera throw in the towel. We need to fight the Webkit/Blink monoculture, not support it. Safari is becoming the new IE6 on mobile. That is not what we want!
This is the one case where I wish UserVoice had negative votes.
You must be very stupid or just a rabid fanboy if you are up voting this idiotic suggestion.
Alexandre Morgaut commented
Innovations and Performances enhancements have been largely, if not exclusively, driven by the competition. Transforming Web innovations into Web standards is the next maturity step for each of them. I wouldn't go into the list of features IE provided for the Web, but I glad Microsoft worked on it, and if IE is getting better today, it is because of competition.... Even more, because the engines are different, the way their developer think about potential innovative features can be different too.
Even saying that moving to open source is mandatory to contribute is wrong. Source code of all those projects is very different and could hardly be shared, it is very much more efficient to contribute on unit tests and documentations. Should IE source code be open source? Maybe... Could some high skilled developers send some pull request? Maybe... But it is not the only way to contribute to the Web platform nor the one with the highest priority.
Contributing to Blink/Webkit/Gecko ?
MS may send some "pull request" to push things like "Pointer Event" support. Unfortunately, it is not sure that Google / Apple / Mozilla would accept such contribution and admit that part of their code is done by MicroSoft.
Well 2 independent end user friendly projects boosted Web Standard support:
- http://www.acidtests.org/ (from "the Web Standard's project")
- http://html5test.com/ (and some similar ones like http://caniuse.com)
It would be great if one for testing UAAG support would also come
UAAG: User Agent Accessibility Guidelines (http://www.w3.org/WAI/intro/uaag)
There is already diversity. Without Internet Explorer, there are 3 major browsers with 3 different engines: Firefox (Gecko), Chrome (Blink), Safari (WebKit).
Internet Explorer is holding the web back by having major bugs on every single feature. The developer preview proves the situation is not improving.
Internet Explorer lags behind all the other browsers on implementing standards. For web developers, there is always "the standard way" then "the Microsoft way".
Trident and Chakra are junk, they are garbage, they have to disappear. Microsoft should stop trying to hold the web ******* and need to adopt Gecko or Blink or WebKit.
Not a fan of this one because diversity of rendering engines is good thing for the web ecosystem despite what I may prefer
Opera went from Presto to Blink, not webkit- and nobody cared about Opera- them going to blink was a great thing. I'm not sure that IE going to blink is the same good thing though. As developers it is frustrating that we can't use features reliably because every vendor is re-implementing the same functionality over and over again - however there isn't a middle ground that helps here, the best thing vendors can do for developers is to share implementation source and develop and share unit tests.
not sure about blink, but most def agree on an other render engines.
Mirai Densetsu commented
Voted, bui I prefer Webkit. It's used on Chrome, Opera and Safari.
I'd prefer the open source route
SUPER great idea!
Noooo! ... and why webkit anyway? why not blink or gecko? no new "2001", let's keep all of them, including trident.
Marat Dulin commented
Sergey Konstantinov commented
Blink-only ecosystem is a dangerous perspective.
Anton Korzunov commented
Why not blink?
Артем Меркель commented
Используйте движок хрома, дебилы.
mary branscombe commented
If you don't understand that monoculture is a bad thing, at least go learn what a web standard is; by definition at the W3C, it is something that has at least two independent implementations
How to kill standards 101: use Blink. Prety much the worst idea you could submit here. If you don't like IE, go play somewhere else, otherwise, if you want to be objective, stop living in the past. We're now on IE11, not IE6 (which for his time was a very decent browser).
And you're right. Web standards are called "standards" because they are standards. And if Microsoft realy want to follow the standards, Blink isn't the way to go. It was Google who said that they will ignore the standards and use Touch Events instead of the standarized Pointer Events. I wonder if you are a webdeveloper and not just some fanboy, because otherwise, you should know better. These days, I have much more trouble developing for Blink- and Webkit-based browsers then for Internet Explorer and Gecko-based browsers... together.
The day that Opera announced to ditch Presto was a realy sad day. I think we don't need to repeat that again.
Jon Rimmer commented
Apple and Google found it very difficult to work together on WebKit, which is why Google forked WebKit to make Blink in the first place. Microsoft would face the same problem trying to use any of the open source rendering engines.
While WebKit, Blink and Gecko are open source, they are not community-run projects. Each is controlled by a single large organisation (Apple, Google and Mozilla, respectively) and while others are welcome to contribute, the overall direction of the project is set by that organisation. This can cause trouble: Adobe spent a long time working on CSS Regions, developing code for WebKit and then for Blink. Then one day, Google decided that, for performance reasons, they wouldn't accept the feature in Blink, and removed the code.
Adobe had invested a lot of time and money into their Regions effort, but because they didn't control the project, they had no recourse and had to accept Google's decision. Opera are now in the same situation - if they want to add features to Chromium, they either have to convince Google, or maintain a fork. There's no way Microsoft could accept this kind of situation for their own browser. IE is a core part of Windows, and they need to control it, not be at the whim of one of their competitors.
Microsoft could open source IE, and possibly should, but it wouldn't be a silver bullet for a bug-free or feature-complete browser. Although other companies like Adobe, Intel and Samsung contribute to the existing open source engines, the vast, vast majority of work is still done by the company running each project.