<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_02_134224</id>
	<title>Internet Explorer 6 Will Not Die</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1243951200000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>caffeinejolt writes <i>"Despite all the hype surrounding new browsers being released pushing the limits of what can be done on the Web, <a href="http://www.statowl.com/web\_browser\_usage\_by\_version\_trend.php?timeframe=last\_6&amp;interval=month&amp;chart\_id=11&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=ie&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=firefox&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=safari&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=chrome&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=opera&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=netscape&amp;fltr\_os=&amp;fltr\_se=&amp;fltr\_cn=">Firefox 3 has only this past month overtaken IE6</a>.  Furthermore, if you take the previous report and snap on the Corporate America filter, <a href="http://www.statowl.com/web\_browser\_usage\_by\_version\_trend.php?timeframe=last\_6&amp;interval=month&amp;chart\_id=11&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=ie&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=firefox&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=safari&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=chrome&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=opera&amp;limit\%5B\%5D=netscape&amp;fltr\_os=&amp;fltr\_se=&amp;fltr\_cn=Corporate">IE6 rules the roost and shows no signs of leaving anytime soon</a>.  Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit &mdash; especially if you develop for business sites."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>caffeinejolt writes " Despite all the hype surrounding new browsers being released pushing the limits of what can be done on the Web , Firefox 3 has only this past month overtaken IE6 .
Furthermore , if you take the previous report and snap on the Corporate America filter , IE6 rules the roost and shows no signs of leaving anytime soon .
Sorry web developers , for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over , it appears they will linger on for quite a bit    especially if you develop for business sites .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>caffeinejolt writes "Despite all the hype surrounding new browsers being released pushing the limits of what can be done on the Web, Firefox 3 has only this past month overtaken IE6.
Furthermore, if you take the previous report and snap on the Corporate America filter, IE6 rules the roost and shows no signs of leaving anytime soon.
Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit — especially if you develop for business sites.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1243955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>And scare away 50\% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And scare away 50 \ % of potential consumers because of a " broken website " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And scare away 50\% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182677</id>
	<title>This is why I left the business</title>
	<author>DanCentury</author>
	<datestamp>1243959000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I finally, and happily, left the web development business this year, and dealing with IE 6 and the goblins that support it was one big reason why I wanted out.</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I finally , and happily , left the web development business this year , and dealing with IE 6 and the goblins that support it was one big reason why I wanted out .
 </tokentext>
<sentencetext>I finally, and happily, left the web development business this year, and dealing with IE 6 and the goblins that support it was one big reason why I wanted out.
 </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182355</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>andy19</author>
	<datestamp>1243957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for an organization that uses Windows 2000 and IE6 primarily.  Nobody around knows about Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.  We can't even 'upgrade' to IE7.  As a web developer here, I tell them to start using Firefox and pages will miraculously render properly, and I explain how terrible IE6 is. <br>
Their response: I just want to use what I'm used to.</p><p>There are still plenty of people who won't change.  They expect things to work properly in IE6.  We can't just stop the hacks and expect people to automatically know to change browsers.  Even telling them that's the solution, they won't because people don't like change.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for an organization that uses Windows 2000 and IE6 primarily .
Nobody around knows about Firefox , Safari , Opera , etc .
We ca n't even 'upgrade ' to IE7 .
As a web developer here , I tell them to start using Firefox and pages will miraculously render properly , and I explain how terrible IE6 is .
Their response : I just want to use what I 'm used to.There are still plenty of people who wo n't change .
They expect things to work properly in IE6 .
We ca n't just stop the hacks and expect people to automatically know to change browsers .
Even telling them that 's the solution , they wo n't because people do n't like change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for an organization that uses Windows 2000 and IE6 primarily.
Nobody around knows about Firefox, Safari, Opera, etc.
We can't even 'upgrade' to IE7.
As a web developer here, I tell them to start using Firefox and pages will miraculously render properly, and I explain how terrible IE6 is.
Their response: I just want to use what I'm used to.There are still plenty of people who won't change.
They expect things to work properly in IE6.
We can't just stop the hacks and expect people to automatically know to change browsers.
Even telling them that's the solution, they won't because people don't like change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181873</id>
	<title>Government Workplaces</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes Canadian government workplaces still use IE6 because IE7 and FF2/3 are still being approved In Ottawa.<br>Also the Zune HD will feature a Variation of IE6 Mobile so we have a long road ahead as web developers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes Canadian government workplaces still use IE6 because IE7 and FF2/3 are still being approved In Ottawa.Also the Zune HD will feature a Variation of IE6 Mobile so we have a long road ahead as web developers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes Canadian government workplaces still use IE6 because IE7 and FF2/3 are still being approved In Ottawa.Also the Zune HD will feature a Variation of IE6 Mobile so we have a long road ahead as web developers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181549</id>
	<title>Lets paraphrase</title>
	<author>not already in use</author>
	<datestamp>1243955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The summary may be technically accurate, but the point is off.  IE6 is dying, quickly.  If you happen to develop for it in a corporate context, it really isn't that bad because you are targeting IE6, and *only* IE6.  What really hurts is developing for modern browsers, and then having to retrofit IE6, which we can safely say is a thing of the past.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The summary may be technically accurate , but the point is off .
IE6 is dying , quickly .
If you happen to develop for it in a corporate context , it really is n't that bad because you are targeting IE6 , and * only * IE6 .
What really hurts is developing for modern browsers , and then having to retrofit IE6 , which we can safely say is a thing of the past .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The summary may be technically accurate, but the point is off.
IE6 is dying, quickly.
If you happen to develop for it in a corporate context, it really isn't that bad because you are targeting IE6, and *only* IE6.
What really hurts is developing for modern browsers, and then having to retrofit IE6, which we can safely say is a thing of the past.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182219</id>
	<title>Re:in-house apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We thought we blocked the installation of IE8 with GPM in our domain. Didn't work out too well. Now we're getting complaints that the timesheet program is broken. *sigh*</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We thought we blocked the installation of IE8 with GPM in our domain .
Did n't work out too well .
Now we 're getting complaints that the timesheet program is broken .
* sigh *</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We thought we blocked the installation of IE8 with GPM in our domain.
Didn't work out too well.
Now we're getting complaints that the timesheet program is broken.
*sigh*</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183573</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the artificial life support</title>
	<author>ColdWetDog</author>
	<datestamp>1243962120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Try working in healthcare.<br> <br>
GE: "OK, here's your brand new, shiney CT scanner and here's the software it needs."<br>
US: "Umm, that's Internet Explorer 6".<br>
GE: "Shiney!"<br>
US: "Umm, no.  It's old and broken and we can't run it on our network". (a blatant lie, but worth a try)<br>
GE: "Shiney!"<br>
US: "Will it work on IE 7 or Firefox?"<br>
GE: "Shiney!"<br>
US: "Is there someone else we can talk to?<br> <br>
To GE's credit, they're 'working' on cross browser support and will likely have it by the time they install the new machined.  And the core OS appears to be a Linux variant.  So there's hope.  Just not much.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Try working in healthcare .
GE : " OK , here 's your brand new , shiney CT scanner and here 's the software it needs .
" US : " Umm , that 's Internet Explorer 6 " .
GE : " Shiney !
" US : " Umm , no .
It 's old and broken and we ca n't run it on our network " .
( a blatant lie , but worth a try ) GE : " Shiney !
" US : " Will it work on IE 7 or Firefox ?
" GE : " Shiney !
" US : " Is there someone else we can talk to ?
To GE 's credit , they 're 'working ' on cross browser support and will likely have it by the time they install the new machined .
And the core OS appears to be a Linux variant .
So there 's hope .
Just not much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try working in healthcare.
GE: "OK, here's your brand new, shiney CT scanner and here's the software it needs.
"
US: "Umm, that's Internet Explorer 6".
GE: "Shiney!
"
US: "Umm, no.
It's old and broken and we can't run it on our network".
(a blatant lie, but worth a try)
GE: "Shiney!
"
US: "Will it work on IE 7 or Firefox?
"
GE: "Shiney!
"
US: "Is there someone else we can talk to?
To GE's credit, they're 'working' on cross browser support and will likely have it by the time they install the new machined.
And the core OS appears to be a Linux variant.
So there's hope.
Just not much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28206977</id>
	<title>IE 6 will not die?</title>
	<author>mgcarley</author>
	<datestamp>1244111160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have one word for this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggh!</p><p>Of course, there are ways around it. I find the most effective is to include something like</p><p>&lt;!-- Additional IE/Win specific style sheet (Conditional Comments) --&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;!--[if IE]&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;style type="text/css" media="all"&gt;@import "/fix-ie.css";&lt;/style&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;![endif]--&gt;</p><p>or</p><p>&lt;!--[if lt IE 7]&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;style type="text/css" media="all"&gt;@import "/fix-ie.css";&lt;/style&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &lt;![endif]--&gt;</p><p>between  and . Then I don't necessarily have to hack the stylesheet, it will just load and override the previously defined elements.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have one word for this : aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggh ! Of course , there are ways around it .
I find the most effective is to include something like                         @ import " /fix-ie.css " ;             or     @ import " /fix-ie.css " ;     between and .
Then I do n't necessarily have to hack the stylesheet , it will just load and override the previously defined elements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have one word for this: aaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrggggggh!Of course, there are ways around it.
I find the most effective is to include something like
            
            @import "/fix-ie.css";
            or
    @import "/fix-ie.css";
    between  and .
Then I don't necessarily have to hack the stylesheet, it will just load and override the previously defined elements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</id>
	<title>Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>atfrase</author>
	<datestamp>1243957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There seems like a pretty clear free-market solution to this problem: developing sites that support IE6, with all the requisite hacks and workarounds, is harder.  It takes longer, and should cost more.  If developers just attach an appropriate premium to this extra work, businesses start having a financial incentive to stop demanding it.
<br> <br>
"Well boss, I got a quote for that intranet app we need developed, and it turns out our IE6 requirement adds 35\% to the total cost."
"Hrm.. and what's your estimate of the cost of migrating?"
"Migrating would cost us more than the 35\% on this one project.  But looking a year or two out, paying that kind of premium on all future development contracts, switching is way cheaper, and will probably reduce IT expenses for security issues to boot."
"Right.  Start working on that."</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There seems like a pretty clear free-market solution to this problem : developing sites that support IE6 , with all the requisite hacks and workarounds , is harder .
It takes longer , and should cost more .
If developers just attach an appropriate premium to this extra work , businesses start having a financial incentive to stop demanding it .
" Well boss , I got a quote for that intranet app we need developed , and it turns out our IE6 requirement adds 35 \ % to the total cost .
" " Hrm.. and what 's your estimate of the cost of migrating ?
" " Migrating would cost us more than the 35 \ % on this one project .
But looking a year or two out , paying that kind of premium on all future development contracts , switching is way cheaper , and will probably reduce IT expenses for security issues to boot .
" " Right .
Start working on that .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There seems like a pretty clear free-market solution to this problem: developing sites that support IE6, with all the requisite hacks and workarounds, is harder.
It takes longer, and should cost more.
If developers just attach an appropriate premium to this extra work, businesses start having a financial incentive to stop demanding it.
"Well boss, I got a quote for that intranet app we need developed, and it turns out our IE6 requirement adds 35\% to the total cost.
"
"Hrm.. and what's your estimate of the cost of migrating?
"
"Migrating would cost us more than the 35\% on this one project.
But looking a year or two out, paying that kind of premium on all future development contracts, switching is way cheaper, and will probably reduce IT expenses for security issues to boot.
"
"Right.
Start working on that.
"
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181815</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>exactly! A startup I used to work for made the decision to not support IE6, something about PNGs. Anyway, the startup flopped big and a major reason was lack of support for IE6. Love it or hate it, IE6 is used by a lot of people, the kind that actually do click on ads and generate revenue for ad supported sites.</htmltext>
<tokenext>exactly !
A startup I used to work for made the decision to not support IE6 , something about PNGs .
Anyway , the startup flopped big and a major reason was lack of support for IE6 .
Love it or hate it , IE6 is used by a lot of people , the kind that actually do click on ads and generate revenue for ad supported sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>exactly!
A startup I used to work for made the decision to not support IE6, something about PNGs.
Anyway, the startup flopped big and a major reason was lack of support for IE6.
Love it or hate it, IE6 is used by a lot of people, the kind that actually do click on ads and generate revenue for ad supported sites.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182195</id>
	<title>Kill IE6</title>
	<author>fearlezz</author>
	<datestamp>1243957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The primary reason IE6 is still around, is that we do not care enough to kill it. Of course there are some corporations that refuse to upgrade their software. But in their refusal to upgrade, they make theirselves vulnerable to attacks. As sites still support IE6, home users have no reason to upgrade as well, making themselves vulnerable to attacks.
<br> <br>
Botnets sending viruses and spam have a great benefit from this practice. Easily said:
These few companies are holding the whole internet hostage. For a few bucks saved in the company, millions of other users are at higher risk. I'd say lets all annoy the shit out of IE6 users until they upgrade.
<br> <br>
I'm running a site that has a few thousand visitors daily. I've just implemented a oneliner that gives IE6 users a 600x100px red warning they should switch.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The primary reason IE6 is still around , is that we do not care enough to kill it .
Of course there are some corporations that refuse to upgrade their software .
But in their refusal to upgrade , they make theirselves vulnerable to attacks .
As sites still support IE6 , home users have no reason to upgrade as well , making themselves vulnerable to attacks .
Botnets sending viruses and spam have a great benefit from this practice .
Easily said : These few companies are holding the whole internet hostage .
For a few bucks saved in the company , millions of other users are at higher risk .
I 'd say lets all annoy the shit out of IE6 users until they upgrade .
I 'm running a site that has a few thousand visitors daily .
I 've just implemented a oneliner that gives IE6 users a 600x100px red warning they should switch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The primary reason IE6 is still around, is that we do not care enough to kill it.
Of course there are some corporations that refuse to upgrade their software.
But in their refusal to upgrade, they make theirselves vulnerable to attacks.
As sites still support IE6, home users have no reason to upgrade as well, making themselves vulnerable to attacks.
Botnets sending viruses and spam have a great benefit from this practice.
Easily said:
These few companies are holding the whole internet hostage.
For a few bucks saved in the company, millions of other users are at higher risk.
I'd say lets all annoy the shit out of IE6 users until they upgrade.
I'm running a site that has a few thousand visitors daily.
I've just implemented a oneliner that gives IE6 users a 600x100px red warning they should switch.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</id>
	<title>Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>And IE6 will go away quickly.  <br>
Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And IE6 will go away quickly .
Stop doing the hacks , and let IE6 render them ugly and broken , while compliant browsers will render them correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And IE6 will go away quickly.
Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken, while compliant browsers will render them correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182111</id>
	<title>IE6 rules the roost ?</title>
	<author>viralMeme</author>
	<datestamp>1243957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It would do seeing as it's on every PC sold with a Windows Operating System.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It would do seeing as it 's on every PC sold with a Windows Operating System .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would do seeing as it's on every PC sold with a Windows Operating System.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181643</id>
	<title>Hasten the End</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end will come when developers simply decide it 's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of " this site wo n't work - what 's wrong with my browser " thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks .
Until then , why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems ?
The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks.
Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems?
The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183525</id>
	<title>Firefox vs IE... why?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243961940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Would someone mind explaining why Firefox vs IE is such a big deal. I don't see what either company gains out of this stupid competition. Its not like firefox or ie make any profit any time I use either of their products. It seems like this is just a game of who's balls are bigger.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would someone mind explaining why Firefox vs IE is such a big deal .
I do n't see what either company gains out of this stupid competition .
Its not like firefox or ie make any profit any time I use either of their products .
It seems like this is just a game of who 's balls are bigger .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would someone mind explaining why Firefox vs IE is such a big deal.
I don't see what either company gains out of this stupid competition.
Its not like firefox or ie make any profit any time I use either of their products.
It seems like this is just a game of who's balls are bigger.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667</id>
	<title>Businesses</title>
	<author>Andy Dodd</author>
	<datestamp>1243955640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Businesses often stay about one version behind on Microsoft products, or in some cases about a half cycle behind.  They wait for a given MS product to get service packed out the wazoo before deploying it.</p><p>For example, my employer is just starting to roll out Office 2007 very slowly, and based on my experiences and many other reports, this is typical at most businesses.</p><p>Similarly, they are just rolling out IE7 now, when IE8 just came out.</p><p>So it's not surprising that IE6 still has a major deployment base considering that IE8 just came out and that many companies stay about one revision behind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Businesses often stay about one version behind on Microsoft products , or in some cases about a half cycle behind .
They wait for a given MS product to get service packed out the wazoo before deploying it.For example , my employer is just starting to roll out Office 2007 very slowly , and based on my experiences and many other reports , this is typical at most businesses.Similarly , they are just rolling out IE7 now , when IE8 just came out.So it 's not surprising that IE6 still has a major deployment base considering that IE8 just came out and that many companies stay about one revision behind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Businesses often stay about one version behind on Microsoft products, or in some cases about a half cycle behind.
They wait for a given MS product to get service packed out the wazoo before deploying it.For example, my employer is just starting to roll out Office 2007 very slowly, and based on my experiences and many other reports, this is typical at most businesses.Similarly, they are just rolling out IE7 now, when IE8 just came out.So it's not surprising that IE6 still has a major deployment base considering that IE8 just came out and that many companies stay about one revision behind.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181997</id>
	<title>LazyCommenter</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wo n't somebody PLEASE think of the children ! ?
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!?
!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181903</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>miceuz</author>
	<datestamp>1243956360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tried to do this just 2 months ago and the client (a responsible techie from government agency) agreed at first, but 1 month later we had to add iehacks.css as too many agency dinosaurs use ie6...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tried to do this just 2 months ago and the client ( a responsible techie from government agency ) agreed at first , but 1 month later we had to add iehacks.css as too many agency dinosaurs use ie6.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tried to do this just 2 months ago and the client (a responsible techie from government agency) agreed at first, but 1 month later we had to add iehacks.css as too many agency dinosaurs use ie6...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181745</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to grow a set...</title>
	<author>ledow</author>
	<datestamp>1243955940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15\% of the hits in April to 0\% in May."</p><p>Well, duh, because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.</p><p>This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN, the BBC, any large website about parts not working in Opera (although they all do now), and you only ever got "nobody uses Opera to visit us"... OF COURSE NOT!  BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BLOODY WORK!</p><p>It's like saying "Since we started banning unhappy people, our store recorded that 100\% of customers in the store were happy with us!"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15 \ % of the hits in April to 0 \ % in May .
" Well , duh , because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN , the BBC , any large website about parts not working in Opera ( although they all do now ) , and you only ever got " nobody uses Opera to visit us " ... OF COURSE NOT !
BECAUSE IT DOES N'T BLOODY WORK ! It 's like saying " Since we started banning unhappy people , our store recorded that 100 \ % of customers in the store were happy with us !
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15\% of the hits in April to 0\% in May.
"Well, duh, because no sod can see anything in IE6 - visit once and never come back again.This is the sort of crap that Opera has thrown at it - email a complaint to MSN, the BBC, any large website about parts not working in Opera (although they all do now), and you only ever got "nobody uses Opera to visit us"... OF COURSE NOT!
BECAUSE IT DOESN'T BLOODY WORK!It's like saying "Since we started banning unhappy people, our store recorded that 100\% of customers in the store were happy with us!
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181641</id>
	<title>Stop support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating " If you ca n't see this page properly please update your browser " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only way to kill IE6 is to stop supporting it and clearly stating "If you can't see this page properly please update your browser".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183005</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Late Adopter</author>
	<datestamp>1243960080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You're missing the point.
<br> <br>
HTML *is* the semantic code.  CSS *is* the presentation.  That's what they're for.  The fact that IE6 takes a stab at but misinterprets the CSS instead of just presenting the semantic HTML (for those tags/selectors/attributes) is <b>broken</b>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're missing the point .
HTML * is * the semantic code .
CSS * is * the presentation .
That 's what they 're for .
The fact that IE6 takes a stab at but misinterprets the CSS instead of just presenting the semantic HTML ( for those tags/selectors/attributes ) is broken .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're missing the point.
HTML *is* the semantic code.
CSS *is* the presentation.
That's what they're for.
The fact that IE6 takes a stab at but misinterprets the CSS instead of just presenting the semantic HTML (for those tags/selectors/attributes) is broken.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28188115</id>
	<title>Of course it's still around</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243938240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My current workplace has IE6 as the default browser because of websites that were written explicitly for it. Fortunately, I have local administrator, so I installed Firefox.</p><p>I used to be the sysadmin for a high school. My base image has only IE6. Why?</p><p>- The teacher portal frontend was IE6-only. Even if I included Firefox, many teachers' brains would explode if they had two browsers.</p><p>- Ditto for the computer labs. If I put Firefox in labs, teachers would accuse me of "taking the Microsoft Internet off the computers".</p><p>The web design teacher/school webmistress was largely computer illiterate, designing the school's website straight out of "Web Design for Dummies". I offered to include Opera, Mozilla, and Firefox in her lab to let students view their work in multiple browsers, and she couldn't even respond to the question. She later called me at home to complain to me that the school's website, which she wrote 100\%, didn't work in Mozilla. Doh!</p><p>I even offered to give her web design students directories on an internal IIS server, so they could see their pages on a real web server instead of just with UNC paths. She refused this offer, yet every year when funding came out, told me she wanted to get a web server for her classes. I'd tell her I could just set up IIS on an existing server, and I was not going to stuff another server into my already-overheated server room. Her head would explode from information overload, and the conversation would repeat the next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My current workplace has IE6 as the default browser because of websites that were written explicitly for it .
Fortunately , I have local administrator , so I installed Firefox.I used to be the sysadmin for a high school .
My base image has only IE6 .
Why ? - The teacher portal frontend was IE6-only .
Even if I included Firefox , many teachers ' brains would explode if they had two browsers.- Ditto for the computer labs .
If I put Firefox in labs , teachers would accuse me of " taking the Microsoft Internet off the computers " .The web design teacher/school webmistress was largely computer illiterate , designing the school 's website straight out of " Web Design for Dummies " .
I offered to include Opera , Mozilla , and Firefox in her lab to let students view their work in multiple browsers , and she could n't even respond to the question .
She later called me at home to complain to me that the school 's website , which she wrote 100 \ % , did n't work in Mozilla .
Doh ! I even offered to give her web design students directories on an internal IIS server , so they could see their pages on a real web server instead of just with UNC paths .
She refused this offer , yet every year when funding came out , told me she wanted to get a web server for her classes .
I 'd tell her I could just set up IIS on an existing server , and I was not going to stuff another server into my already-overheated server room .
Her head would explode from information overload , and the conversation would repeat the next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My current workplace has IE6 as the default browser because of websites that were written explicitly for it.
Fortunately, I have local administrator, so I installed Firefox.I used to be the sysadmin for a high school.
My base image has only IE6.
Why?- The teacher portal frontend was IE6-only.
Even if I included Firefox, many teachers' brains would explode if they had two browsers.- Ditto for the computer labs.
If I put Firefox in labs, teachers would accuse me of "taking the Microsoft Internet off the computers".The web design teacher/school webmistress was largely computer illiterate, designing the school's website straight out of "Web Design for Dummies".
I offered to include Opera, Mozilla, and Firefox in her lab to let students view their work in multiple browsers, and she couldn't even respond to the question.
She later called me at home to complain to me that the school's website, which she wrote 100\%, didn't work in Mozilla.
Doh!I even offered to give her web design students directories on an internal IIS server, so they could see their pages on a real web server instead of just with UNC paths.
She refused this offer, yet every year when funding came out, told me she wanted to get a web server for her classes.
I'd tell her I could just set up IIS on an existing server, and I was not going to stuff another server into my already-overheated server room.
Her head would explode from information overload, and the conversation would repeat the next year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181677</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to grow a set...</title>
	<author>moderatorrater</author>
	<datestamp>1243955700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And, for some unknown reason, the total number of hits went down by around 15\%, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>And , for some unknown reason , the total number of hits went down by around 15 \ % , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And, for some unknown reason, the total number of hits went down by around 15\%, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183941</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>Zaiff Urgulbunger</author>
	<datestamp>1243963860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.</p></div><p>
One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it, IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh, a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less. Mostly these bugs seem to be "peek-a-boo" problems, and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix!<br>
<br>
Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes; this one isn't too hard to workaround, but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page (not just a few pixels out, but completely screwed up!). Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules, this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the "common" CSS rules, I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version.<br>
<br>
Otherwise I fully agree with you though!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D<br>
I'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6; they merely need to look acceptable. But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share (20 - 30\% for me in the UK), it still adds to development costs.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion .
That is all that they want .
If they wanted to see more , they would n't use IE6 .
One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it , IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh , a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less .
Mostly these bugs seem to be " peek-a-boo " problems , and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix !
Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes ; this one is n't too hard to workaround , but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page ( not just a few pixels out , but completely screwed up ! ) .
Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules , this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the " common " CSS rules , I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version .
Otherwise I fully agree with you though !
: D I 'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6 ; they merely need to look acceptable .
But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share ( 20 - 30 \ % for me in the UK ) , it still adds to development costs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion.
That is all that they want.
If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.
One of the bigger problems I have with IE6 is that when you wrap major content blocks in DIVs and float your content to position it, IE6 will sometimes throw weird bugs where only half the DIV will show... but when you refresh, a little more of it will appear... or sometimes less.
Mostly these bugs seem to be "peek-a-boo" problems, and work-arounds are often fairly straight forward but can on occasion take hours to fix!
Other IE6 crimes include doubling margin sizes; this one isn't too hard to workaround, but since the impact of incorrect margins can mean floated DIV blocks incorrectly placed on the page (not just a few pixels out, but completely screwed up!).
Since the work around is to have IE6 specific CSS rules, this increases maintenance costs since when I make a change to the "common" CSS rules, I also have to make the same changes to the IE6 version.
Otherwise I fully agree with you though!
:D
I'm no longer too concerned with things looking perfect in IE6; they merely need to look acceptable.
But whilst IE6 maintains a significant market share (20 - 30\% for me in the UK), it still adds to development costs.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182143</id>
	<title>Nuke It From Orbit</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's the only way to be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's the only way to be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's the only way to be sure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185727</id>
	<title>problems won't go away with IE 6</title>
	<author>Alrescha</author>
	<datestamp>1243971360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"especially if you develop for business sites"</p><p>Two business sites that I need to visit on a regular basis don't work with Safari or Opera - but they work with IE and Firefox.  Not to start a war, but if your code is specific to *any* browser, it's probably broken.</p><p>A.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" especially if you develop for business sites " Two business sites that I need to visit on a regular basis do n't work with Safari or Opera - but they work with IE and Firefox .
Not to start a war , but if your code is specific to * any * browser , it 's probably broken.A .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"especially if you develop for business sites"Two business sites that I need to visit on a regular basis don't work with Safari or Opera - but they work with IE and Firefox.
Not to start a war, but if your code is specific to *any* browser, it's probably broken.A.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182499</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1243958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It is around 15\% nowadays problem is that many of them are corporate people!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It is around 15 \ % nowadays problem is that many of them are corporate people !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It is around 15\% nowadays problem is that many of them are corporate people!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183725</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243962780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?"</p><p>Yes, and I can make them work as well, in html5  elems.</p><p>Seriously developers should have an obligation to inform and educate customers and users and emplore them to ditch IE6.</p><p>If not why not just go back to the old tricks and put a "this site will not opperate with IE6, please download X"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic , difficult to maintain mark up , with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support ?
" Yes , and I can make them work as well , in html5 elems.Seriously developers should have an obligation to inform and educate customers and users and emplore them to ditch IE6.If not why not just go back to the old tricks and put a " this site will not opperate with IE6 , please download X "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?
"Yes, and I can make them work as well, in html5  elems.Seriously developers should have an obligation to inform and educate customers and users and emplore them to ditch IE6.If not why not just go back to the old tricks and put a "this site will not opperate with IE6, please download X"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182153</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>Scragglykat</author>
	<datestamp>1243957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Sure... if you are a blogger maybe. If you are only concerned with your friends seeing your site. I work with software that uses a web front-end, and we do work mainly for large corporate clients. So far, all internal systems they have run IE6, with no plans for upgrade in the near future. These are huge companies, spanning North and South American as well as Europe, Asia, pretty much everywhere. I'd say mainly corporations are the ones keeping IE6 alive, but I just got done working on an elderly lady's computer last night, she has a new toshiba notebook, and her spare computer, a desktop, still has IE6 on it. The problem is, the people that have it, don't see the problem in it. The corporations that use it, don't see the point in spending a lot of money to phase it out. It's "tried and true" in their eyes.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sure... if you are a blogger maybe .
If you are only concerned with your friends seeing your site .
I work with software that uses a web front-end , and we do work mainly for large corporate clients .
So far , all internal systems they have run IE6 , with no plans for upgrade in the near future .
These are huge companies , spanning North and South American as well as Europe , Asia , pretty much everywhere .
I 'd say mainly corporations are the ones keeping IE6 alive , but I just got done working on an elderly lady 's computer last night , she has a new toshiba notebook , and her spare computer , a desktop , still has IE6 on it .
The problem is , the people that have it , do n't see the problem in it .
The corporations that use it , do n't see the point in spending a lot of money to phase it out .
It 's " tried and true " in their eyes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sure... if you are a blogger maybe.
If you are only concerned with your friends seeing your site.
I work with software that uses a web front-end, and we do work mainly for large corporate clients.
So far, all internal systems they have run IE6, with no plans for upgrade in the near future.
These are huge companies, spanning North and South American as well as Europe, Asia, pretty much everywhere.
I'd say mainly corporations are the ones keeping IE6 alive, but I just got done working on an elderly lady's computer last night, she has a new toshiba notebook, and her spare computer, a desktop, still has IE6 on it.
The problem is, the people that have it, don't see the problem in it.
The corporations that use it, don't see the point in spending a lot of money to phase it out.
It's "tried and true" in their eyes.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181843</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>iamdrscience</author>
	<datestamp>1243956240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... And IE6 will go away quickly.</p></div></blockquote><p>...and so will your job.<br> <br>It doesn't matter that getting rid of IE6 is a good idea and this is a good ay to do it. If your job is to write websites for a company and your pages are ugly/unnavigatable/non-functioning for 40\% of that companies customers, then you are not doing your job.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... And IE6 will go away quickly....and so will your job .
It does n't matter that getting rid of IE6 is a good idea and this is a good ay to do it .
If your job is to write websites for a company and your pages are ugly/unnavigatable/non-functioning for 40 \ % of that companies customers , then you are not doing your job .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6.... And IE6 will go away quickly....and so will your job.
It doesn't matter that getting rid of IE6 is a good idea and this is a good ay to do it.
If your job is to write websites for a company and your pages are ugly/unnavigatable/non-functioning for 40\% of that companies customers, then you are not doing your job.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181921</id>
	<title>Or you can simply drop compatibility</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Background: Work with government/state/private business so all walks of default browsers</p><p>All it takes is to stop catering to the people who use it. With a div-based layout, sites are frequently very compatible with IE6 with no additional work. But when you start intentionally making concessions, you make an assumption of equal functionality amongst all browsers. When that happens, not only does Firefox and other third party browsers suffer, but IE7 and IE8 as well.</p><p>Without a rational business need to upgrade, many institutions won't. When, as a web developer, you choose to provide IE6 compatibility, you help remove that business requirement. But when you forgo it, it helps to force their hand.</p><p>It's really not the stodgy network and server admins that are holding us back, it's this idea we have to stay compatible. IE 4, 5, 5.5 and most recently, Netscape 4 died without this kind of issue. No one worries about making those compatible. It was time two years ago to let IE6 fall into planned obsolesce.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Background : Work with government/state/private business so all walks of default browsersAll it takes is to stop catering to the people who use it .
With a div-based layout , sites are frequently very compatible with IE6 with no additional work .
But when you start intentionally making concessions , you make an assumption of equal functionality amongst all browsers .
When that happens , not only does Firefox and other third party browsers suffer , but IE7 and IE8 as well.Without a rational business need to upgrade , many institutions wo n't .
When , as a web developer , you choose to provide IE6 compatibility , you help remove that business requirement .
But when you forgo it , it helps to force their hand.It 's really not the stodgy network and server admins that are holding us back , it 's this idea we have to stay compatible .
IE 4 , 5 , 5.5 and most recently , Netscape 4 died without this kind of issue .
No one worries about making those compatible .
It was time two years ago to let IE6 fall into planned obsolesce .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Background: Work with government/state/private business so all walks of default browsersAll it takes is to stop catering to the people who use it.
With a div-based layout, sites are frequently very compatible with IE6 with no additional work.
But when you start intentionally making concessions, you make an assumption of equal functionality amongst all browsers.
When that happens, not only does Firefox and other third party browsers suffer, but IE7 and IE8 as well.Without a rational business need to upgrade, many institutions won't.
When, as a web developer, you choose to provide IE6 compatibility, you help remove that business requirement.
But when you forgo it, it helps to force their hand.It's really not the stodgy network and server admins that are holding us back, it's this idea we have to stay compatible.
IE 4, 5, 5.5 and most recently, Netscape 4 died without this kind of issue.
No one worries about making those compatible.
It was time two years ago to let IE6 fall into planned obsolesce.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186275</id>
	<title>Re:Stop the artificial life support</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1243973820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, absolutely.</p><p>Now that IE8 is out, it is perfectly reasonable to tell IE6 users to upgrade.  You don't have to tell them to switch to a different browser (Firefox, etc.), which many users aren't comfortable with (they'll have two different browser icons on their desktop, and one of them doesn't have the familiar blue "e" they've always used).  IE8 isn't great, it's a couple years behind the curve, but it passes ACID2 and they're at least trying to fix the bugs.  From a developer perspective, it's another browser you have to test for, but it's not a steaming pile of crap.  There's absolutely no reason why IE6 users shouldn't upgrade, unless they need to use intranet or vendor sites that break in IE8.</p><p>Having said that, as many others have pointed out, not everyone has the choice, either because they do need to access other sites that only work in IE6, or because their IT department is dumb.  Either way, be aware that some people won't be able to switch to a better browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , absolutely.Now that IE8 is out , it is perfectly reasonable to tell IE6 users to upgrade .
You do n't have to tell them to switch to a different browser ( Firefox , etc .
) , which many users are n't comfortable with ( they 'll have two different browser icons on their desktop , and one of them does n't have the familiar blue " e " they 've always used ) .
IE8 is n't great , it 's a couple years behind the curve , but it passes ACID2 and they 're at least trying to fix the bugs .
From a developer perspective , it 's another browser you have to test for , but it 's not a steaming pile of crap .
There 's absolutely no reason why IE6 users should n't upgrade , unless they need to use intranet or vendor sites that break in IE8.Having said that , as many others have pointed out , not everyone has the choice , either because they do need to access other sites that only work in IE6 , or because their IT department is dumb .
Either way , be aware that some people wo n't be able to switch to a better browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, absolutely.Now that IE8 is out, it is perfectly reasonable to tell IE6 users to upgrade.
You don't have to tell them to switch to a different browser (Firefox, etc.
), which many users aren't comfortable with (they'll have two different browser icons on their desktop, and one of them doesn't have the familiar blue "e" they've always used).
IE8 isn't great, it's a couple years behind the curve, but it passes ACID2 and they're at least trying to fix the bugs.
From a developer perspective, it's another browser you have to test for, but it's not a steaming pile of crap.
There's absolutely no reason why IE6 users shouldn't upgrade, unless they need to use intranet or vendor sites that break in IE8.Having said that, as many others have pointed out, not everyone has the choice, either because they do need to access other sites that only work in IE6, or because their IT department is dumb.
Either way, be aware that some people won't be able to switch to a better browser.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</id>
	<title>Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>mini me</author>
	<datestamp>1243955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it. Internet Explorer quickly rose in popularity in the first place because web developers blatantly stopped supporting Netscape, even though it had the majority market share at the time.</p><p>Futhermore, the thing to realize about IE6 users is that they do not care about the web. They don't care that your website has pixel-perfect accuracy, for instance. So why waste your time optimizing your website for their benefit? The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion. That is all that they want. If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it has users does n't mean that you have to support it .
Internet Explorer quickly rose in popularity in the first place because web developers blatantly stopped supporting Netscape , even though it had the majority market share at the time.Futhermore , the thing to realize about IE6 users is that they do not care about the web .
They do n't care that your website has pixel-perfect accuracy , for instance .
So why waste your time optimizing your website for their benefit ?
The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion .
That is all that they want .
If they wanted to see more , they would n't use IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it.
Internet Explorer quickly rose in popularity in the first place because web developers blatantly stopped supporting Netscape, even though it had the majority market share at the time.Futhermore, the thing to realize about IE6 users is that they do not care about the web.
They don't care that your website has pixel-perfect accuracy, for instance.
So why waste your time optimizing your website for their benefit?
The natural degradation designed into the HTML specifications still allows them to access the content in a limited fashion.
That is all that they want.
If they wanted to see more, they wouldn't use IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183631</id>
	<title>Looking at the wrong problem</title>
	<author>odin84gk</author>
	<datestamp>1243962360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I would love to get IE7 or IE8 working on my PC here at work, but I cannot do this because I don't have the permissions for the installation. I tried. The application that you need to install never recognized that it was already installed, so it keeps trying to install itself. (Yes, I have a legit machine. I even have that stupid windows code sticker on my PC).

If Micro$oft cared that much, they would let me install it without going through the WGA. In the mean time, I will happily use my Firefox to take care of business.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to get IE7 or IE8 working on my PC here at work , but I can not do this because I do n't have the permissions for the installation .
I tried .
The application that you need to install never recognized that it was already installed , so it keeps trying to install itself .
( Yes , I have a legit machine .
I even have that stupid windows code sticker on my PC ) .
If Micro $ oft cared that much , they would let me install it without going through the WGA .
In the mean time , I will happily use my Firefox to take care of business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to get IE7 or IE8 working on my PC here at work, but I cannot do this because I don't have the permissions for the installation.
I tried.
The application that you need to install never recognized that it was already installed, so it keeps trying to install itself.
(Yes, I have a legit machine.
I even have that stupid windows code sticker on my PC).
If Micro$oft cared that much, they would let me install it without going through the WGA.
In the mean time, I will happily use my Firefox to take care of business.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182501</id>
	<title>Apply end6.org to your web site!</title>
	<author>dwheeler</author>
	<datestamp>1243958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Go to <a href="http://www.end6.org/" title="end6.org">www.end6.org</a> [end6.org], download the little Javascript app, and apply it to your web site.  Then, the first time the user goes to that site, they see a nag screen telling them to update their web browser.  If they start seeing them on every site, they'll begin to get a clue.. while those whose companies will NOT allow change can at least get work done (it's not THEIR fault!).  I installed in on my site, <a href="http://www.dwheeler.com/" title="dwheeler.com">www.dwheeler.com</a> [dwheeler.com], though in my case I complain about obsolete IE7 too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Go to www.end6.org [ end6.org ] , download the little Javascript app , and apply it to your web site .
Then , the first time the user goes to that site , they see a nag screen telling them to update their web browser .
If they start seeing them on every site , they 'll begin to get a clue.. while those whose companies will NOT allow change can at least get work done ( it 's not THEIR fault ! ) .
I installed in on my site , www.dwheeler.com [ dwheeler.com ] , though in my case I complain about obsolete IE7 too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go to www.end6.org [end6.org], download the little Javascript app, and apply it to your web site.
Then, the first time the user goes to that site, they see a nag screen telling them to update their web browser.
If they start seeing them on every site, they'll begin to get a clue.. while those whose companies will NOT allow change can at least get work done (it's not THEIR fault!).
I installed in on my site, www.dwheeler.com [dwheeler.com], though in my case I complain about obsolete IE7 too.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28206701</id>
	<title>Candidate webapp: youtube?</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1244107620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app?</p></div><p>Last I heard, Google is losing money on youtube, per unit of traffic.</p><p>If they convert youtube to HTML 5 (or in other ways break it for IE 6, and tell the users that it doesn't work in IE 6), would people switch?</p><p>If no, then the IE 6 users would go away, and Google would lose less money.  If yes, then woo-hoo<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)  maybe if Google advertised Chrome as a replacement...</p><p>But... is it evil to use your power to make people do something they don't really want?  If Google felt Opera was better than Firefox and tried to force me to switch, I definitely wouldn't be happy with them, so I think it's bound to generate some ill will.</p><p>Also: if your corporate IT overlords won't let you use anything other than IE 6, you just lose, so the web app needs to be a must-have to corporate users (and more so than their IE 6-only web apps).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What if someone develops a html 5 webapp , using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app ? Last I heard , Google is losing money on youtube , per unit of traffic.If they convert youtube to HTML 5 ( or in other ways break it for IE 6 , and tell the users that it does n't work in IE 6 ) , would people switch ? If no , then the IE 6 users would go away , and Google would lose less money .
If yes , then woo-hoo ; ) maybe if Google advertised Chrome as a replacement...But... is it evil to use your power to make people do something they do n't really want ?
If Google felt Opera was better than Firefox and tried to force me to switch , I definitely would n't be happy with them , so I think it 's bound to generate some ill will.Also : if your corporate IT overlords wo n't let you use anything other than IE 6 , you just lose , so the web app needs to be a must-have to corporate users ( and more so than their IE 6-only web apps ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app?Last I heard, Google is losing money on youtube, per unit of traffic.If they convert youtube to HTML 5 (or in other ways break it for IE 6, and tell the users that it doesn't work in IE 6), would people switch?If no, then the IE 6 users would go away, and Google would lose less money.
If yes, then woo-hoo ;)  maybe if Google advertised Chrome as a replacement...But... is it evil to use your power to make people do something they don't really want?
If Google felt Opera was better than Firefox and tried to force me to switch, I definitely wouldn't be happy with them, so I think it's bound to generate some ill will.Also: if your corporate IT overlords won't let you use anything other than IE 6, you just lose, so the web app needs to be a must-have to corporate users (and more so than their IE 6-only web apps).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28191183</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to grow a set...</title>
	<author>colinrichardday</author>
	<datestamp>1243957920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What parts of MSN don't work with Opera? Hotmail seems fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What parts of MSN do n't work with Opera ?
Hotmail seems fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What parts of MSN don't work with Opera?
Hotmail seems fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181745</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190845</id>
	<title>And better</title>
	<author>coryking</author>
	<datestamp>1243954500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do what I did on my website and detect when a user is on IE6 and give them a nice fat message saying "Upgrade you bozo.  See these screenshots of how nice this site looks on a real website (links to screenshots)?  You are missing out!".</p><p>Dont just drop the hacks, tell the IE6 users you are dropping the hacks and show them pictures of what they are missing out on!!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do what I did on my website and detect when a user is on IE6 and give them a nice fat message saying " Upgrade you bozo .
See these screenshots of how nice this site looks on a real website ( links to screenshots ) ?
You are missing out !
" .Dont just drop the hacks , tell the IE6 users you are dropping the hacks and show them pictures of what they are missing out on !
!</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do what I did on my website and detect when a user is on IE6 and give them a nice fat message saying "Upgrade you bozo.
See these screenshots of how nice this site looks on a real website (links to screenshots)?
You are missing out!
".Dont just drop the hacks, tell the IE6 users you are dropping the hacks and show them pictures of what they are missing out on!
!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715</id>
	<title>I wonder</title>
	<author>SmallFurryCreature</author>
	<datestamp>1243955820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Old crap tends to stay around, until something kills it.
</p><p>What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app? Then MS will have no choice or be known as the OS vendor whose browser ain't good enough.
</p><p>MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.
</p><p>IE6 will die when using it hurts the user. Personally, for private web-apps, ie ALL ie is dead. It is amazing what you can make a webapp do when IE support is dropped.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Old crap tends to stay around , until something kills it .
What if someone develops a html 5 webapp , using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app ?
Then MS will have no choice or be known as the OS vendor whose browser ai n't good enough .
MS is n't trying to limit IE for nothing , it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply does n't work under IE .
Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope , wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome .
IE6 will die when using it hurts the user .
Personally , for private web-apps , ie ALL ie is dead .
It is amazing what you can make a webapp do when IE support is dropped .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Old crap tends to stay around, until something kills it.
What if someone develops a html 5 webapp, using a speedy browser as a base that becomes a killer must have app?
Then MS will have no choice or be known as the OS vendor whose browser ain't good enough.
MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE.
Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.
IE6 will die when using it hurts the user.
Personally, for private web-apps, ie ALL ie is dead.
It is amazing what you can make a webapp do when IE support is dropped.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535</id>
	<title>in-house apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IT departments have no budgets right now. Testing all the in-house apps with IE8 would cost money. Even telling people to press the "render in IE6 mode" button would be quite expensive in terms of calls. So they're just blocking the update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IT departments have no budgets right now .
Testing all the in-house apps with IE8 would cost money .
Even telling people to press the " render in IE6 mode " button would be quite expensive in terms of calls .
So they 're just blocking the update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IT departments have no budgets right now.
Testing all the in-house apps with IE8 would cost money.
Even telling people to press the "render in IE6 mode" button would be quite expensive in terms of calls.
So they're just blocking the update.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182115</id>
	<title>Bundled with XP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft should do the right thing and force a compulsory upgrade to IE7/8 for every copy of XP. The only reason this thing won't die is that it comes bundled with XP and people don't know any alternatives exist.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft should do the right thing and force a compulsory upgrade to IE7/8 for every copy of XP .
The only reason this thing wo n't die is that it comes bundled with XP and people do n't know any alternatives exist .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft should do the right thing and force a compulsory upgrade to IE7/8 for every copy of XP.
The only reason this thing won't die is that it comes bundled with XP and people don't know any alternatives exist.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184081</id>
	<title>Re:Businesses</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>very true Andy.  Very few businesses are using the bleeding edge current software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>very true Andy .
Very few businesses are using the bleeding edge current software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>very true Andy.
Very few businesses are using the bleeding edge current software.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559</id>
	<title>Developers need to grow a set...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I built a website for my wedding which will redirect you to a page that tells you to get a new browser if you're using IE6. I provide links to Firefox, IE8, Chrome, Safari, and Opera. We need more people to do this with their sites. I understand it's not realistic for corporate sites, but for personal use sites it can be done. I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15\% of the hits in April to 0\% in May.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I built a website for my wedding which will redirect you to a page that tells you to get a new browser if you 're using IE6 .
I provide links to Firefox , IE8 , Chrome , Safari , and Opera .
We need more people to do this with their sites .
I understand it 's not realistic for corporate sites , but for personal use sites it can be done .
I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15 \ % of the hits in April to 0 \ % in May .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I built a website for my wedding which will redirect you to a page that tells you to get a new browser if you're using IE6.
I provide links to Firefox, IE8, Chrome, Safari, and Opera.
We need more people to do this with their sites.
I understand it's not realistic for corporate sites, but for personal use sites it can be done.
I checked the site statistics for my site and IE6 went from 15\% of the hits in April to 0\% in May.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182709</id>
	<title>but</title>
	<author>perryizgr8</author>
	<datestamp>1243959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>but i thought ie8 was an automatic update? shouldn't that have cured the ie6 disease?</htmltext>
<tokenext>but i thought ie8 was an automatic update ?
should n't that have cured the ie6 disease ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>but i thought ie8 was an automatic update?
shouldn't that have cured the ie6 disease?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139</id>
	<title>IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies</title>
	<author>AtomicInternet</author>
	<datestamp>1243957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Think about this: if you have a legit copy of Windows XP you're HARASSED to upgrade to the latest version.  If you have an illegal copy, you're either smart enough to ignore the harassment, or you constantly fail the required product validation before upgrading.
<br> <br>
I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation.  It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Think about this : if you have a legit copy of Windows XP you 're HARASSED to upgrade to the latest version .
If you have an illegal copy , you 're either smart enough to ignore the harassment , or you constantly fail the required product validation before upgrading .
I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that did n't require validation .
It lives on through piracy , which also promotes insecure computers that do n't have the latest updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Think about this: if you have a legit copy of Windows XP you're HARASSED to upgrade to the latest version.
If you have an illegal copy, you're either smart enough to ignore the harassment, or you constantly fail the required product validation before upgrading.
I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation.
It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181725</id>
	<title>IE 6 will never die.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That is not dead which can eternal lie. And with strange aeons even death may die.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That is not dead which can eternal lie .
And with strange aeons even death may die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That is not dead which can eternal lie.
And with strange aeons even death may die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182273</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>greed</author>
	<datestamp>1243957620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Oh no it won't.
</p><p>
That's because some things IE (6 and 7 at last test, don't have access to 8) just don't work the way they should.
</p><p>
Especially &lt;BUTTON&gt;; IE sends the contents of the button element, not the value attribute.  And Microsoft's (original) page on the subject described the defective behaviour, and had a link to the w3c standard as if that document supported Microsoft's claims.
</p><p>
(I can't find that one now.  What I can find is one that says <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms535211(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">IE 8 will work right in "Document compatibility mode"</a> [microsoft.com].  And you can't, necessarily, turn on document compatibility mode with a DOCTYPE of HTML 4.0 Strict.  You may need an IE-specific HTTP header (or http-equiv tag).  Or it may not work at all.  I'm leaving all my stuff ugly for MSIE, I'm not going to go around adding headers all over the place.  Because there's no way of telling if the browser really did go into HTML 4.0 Strict mode.  Without doing IE-specific kludges, and I've already got those to make seriously-ugly INPUT elements instead of BUTTON elements.  I'm not adding more, especially when Firefox and Opera are both fine and free.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh no it wo n't .
That 's because some things IE ( 6 and 7 at last test , do n't have access to 8 ) just do n't work the way they should .
Especially ; IE sends the contents of the button element , not the value attribute .
And Microsoft 's ( original ) page on the subject described the defective behaviour , and had a link to the w3c standard as if that document supported Microsoft 's claims .
( I ca n't find that one now .
What I can find is one that says IE 8 will work right in " Document compatibility mode " [ microsoft.com ] .
And you ca n't , necessarily , turn on document compatibility mode with a DOCTYPE of HTML 4.0 Strict .
You may need an IE-specific HTTP header ( or http-equiv tag ) .
Or it may not work at all .
I 'm leaving all my stuff ugly for MSIE , I 'm not going to go around adding headers all over the place .
Because there 's no way of telling if the browser really did go into HTML 4.0 Strict mode .
Without doing IE-specific kludges , and I 've already got those to make seriously-ugly INPUT elements instead of BUTTON elements .
I 'm not adding more , especially when Firefox and Opera are both fine and free .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Oh no it won't.
That's because some things IE (6 and 7 at last test, don't have access to 8) just don't work the way they should.
Especially ; IE sends the contents of the button element, not the value attribute.
And Microsoft's (original) page on the subject described the defective behaviour, and had a link to the w3c standard as if that document supported Microsoft's claims.
(I can't find that one now.
What I can find is one that says IE 8 will work right in "Document compatibility mode" [microsoft.com].
And you can't, necessarily, turn on document compatibility mode with a DOCTYPE of HTML 4.0 Strict.
You may need an IE-specific HTTP header (or http-equiv tag).
Or it may not work at all.
I'm leaving all my stuff ugly for MSIE, I'm not going to go around adding headers all over the place.
Because there's no way of telling if the browser really did go into HTML 4.0 Strict mode.
Without doing IE-specific kludges, and I've already got those to make seriously-ugly INPUT elements instead of BUTTON elements.
I'm not adding more, especially when Firefox and Opera are both fine and free.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183327</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies</title>
	<author>EvilIdler</author>
	<datestamp>1243961160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE7 stopped requiring the validation at some point.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE7 stopped requiring the validation at some point .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE7 stopped requiring the validation at some point.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182695</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A semantically-coded site should render acceptably,</p></div><p>It SHOULD render acceptable, yes. Unfortunately, in IE6, chances are it won't unless you specifically code around IE6's bugs.</p><p>The fact that adhering to the standards is not enough to make a site work in IE6 is precisely why IE6 is despised so much.</p><p><div class="quote"><p>unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.</p></div><p>What, pray, is wrong with nested DIVs? I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "crazy CSS/image methods", but I'm finding it hard to imagine a "semantically-coded site" without nested DIVs, and neither do I see why it would be acceptable for any browser to choke on them.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A semantically-coded site should render acceptably,It SHOULD render acceptable , yes .
Unfortunately , in IE6 , chances are it wo n't unless you specifically code around IE6 's bugs.The fact that adhering to the standards is not enough to make a site work in IE6 is precisely why IE6 is despised so much.unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it was n't meant to be.What , pray , is wrong with nested DIVs ?
I 'm honestly not sure what you mean by " crazy CSS/image methods " , but I 'm finding it hard to imagine a " semantically-coded site " without nested DIVs , and neither do I see why it would be acceptable for any browser to choke on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A semantically-coded site should render acceptably,It SHOULD render acceptable, yes.
Unfortunately, in IE6, chances are it won't unless you specifically code around IE6's bugs.The fact that adhering to the standards is not enough to make a site work in IE6 is precisely why IE6 is despised so much.unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.What, pray, is wrong with nested DIVs?
I'm honestly not sure what you mean by "crazy CSS/image methods", but I'm finding it hard to imagine a "semantically-coded site" without nested DIVs, and neither do I see why it would be acceptable for any browser to choke on them.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181891</id>
	<title>corporate intranet sites and IE 6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I build and maintain a site which is used almost entirely by subscribers from large asset management firms.  Looking at our stats  IE accounts for 54\% of our traffic with 46\% of that from IE6. Firefox manages 39\% with 34\% from Firefox 3.  Nice to see Firefox doing so well but depressing how wildly used IE6 still is.</p><p>The trouble is most corporate intranet sites are so badly written that they don't render correctly on anything other than IE6 and most companies don't see the point in fixing them.   Things like MS Sharepoint, which has crap support for Firefox, don&#226;(TM)t exactly help.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I build and maintain a site which is used almost entirely by subscribers from large asset management firms .
Looking at our stats IE accounts for 54 \ % of our traffic with 46 \ % of that from IE6 .
Firefox manages 39 \ % with 34 \ % from Firefox 3 .
Nice to see Firefox doing so well but depressing how wildly used IE6 still is.The trouble is most corporate intranet sites are so badly written that they do n't render correctly on anything other than IE6 and most companies do n't see the point in fixing them .
Things like MS Sharepoint , which has crap support for Firefox , don   ( TM ) t exactly help .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I build and maintain a site which is used almost entirely by subscribers from large asset management firms.
Looking at our stats  IE accounts for 54\% of our traffic with 46\% of that from IE6.
Firefox manages 39\% with 34\% from Firefox 3.
Nice to see Firefox doing so well but depressing how wildly used IE6 still is.The trouble is most corporate intranet sites are so badly written that they don't render correctly on anything other than IE6 and most companies don't see the point in fixing them.
Things like MS Sharepoint, which has crap support for Firefox, donâ(TM)t exactly help.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182507</id>
	<title>Re:This is the enemy</title>
	<author>A12m0v</author>
	<datestamp>1243958400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use Chrome you insensitive clod!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use Chrome you insensitive clod !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use Chrome you insensitive clod!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181901</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186741</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>papershark</author>
	<datestamp>1243975860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>This was something that I have had to address a couple of times. The simple truth is that a IE6 website takes me more time. I'm happy to do it, if your happy to pay. I have found that the most compelling argument for clients is the 'SEO' and the suggestion that Google indexing favours valid mark-up.<br><br>This is how i address it the issue for my customers in my FAQ's or if i need to email a reply on the subject<br><br>21. Will my web site work with Internet Explorer 6 (IE6)?<br><br>You may have noticed that this web site does not look right if your are viewing on Internet Explorer 6. IE6 was a good browser in it's day, but it it is almost 9 years old now. When any company has a web site created it must make the choice as to whether it will render on old technology or whether it must be standards compliant for future technology. We could have used any amount of little tricks and hacks to get web site to look closer to as it intended in IE6, but this would have been at the expense of standards compliance and valid code. We have made the decision to inform IE6 users why the site is not rendering as they expected (a situation that probably doesn't surprise them).<br><br>Please note that we can create web sites that render on a 2001 browser. But we cannot guarantee 2009 functionality and security. And given that an IE6 focused development is based around creating 'valid code', and then hacking it to work in the browser the ultimate result is a longer development process with compromised functionality for the vast amount of users.<br><br>Both Google and Facebook are sending the same message... you can use out site with IE6, but with limited functionality. We don't think continued support is viable given that web trends suggest that less than 4\% of web surfers will be using this browser by the end of this year. In short we feel that the tipping point for support for this old software has passed in preference for stability in future browsers. And we are advising our Clients of the same.<br><br>However we recognise that statistics can be misleading, just because a small amount of people use IE6, it could be a significant amount of people that you are trying to target. Sometimes focusing development to a browser could be your best strategy. And we will do all we can help you with that.<br><br>It is worth pointing out that Microsoft themselves admit that IE6 is 'less safe' than later browsers<br>We urge you to use and encourage your employees to use a W3C Standards compliant browser such as Firefox, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 8. These Browsers are free, and all are easy to install on any computer they are continually updated to be secure and more reliable they have more function and they are faster.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This was something that I have had to address a couple of times .
The simple truth is that a IE6 website takes me more time .
I 'm happy to do it , if your happy to pay .
I have found that the most compelling argument for clients is the 'SEO ' and the suggestion that Google indexing favours valid mark-up.This is how i address it the issue for my customers in my FAQ 's or if i need to email a reply on the subject21 .
Will my web site work with Internet Explorer 6 ( IE6 ) ? You may have noticed that this web site does not look right if your are viewing on Internet Explorer 6 .
IE6 was a good browser in it 's day , but it it is almost 9 years old now .
When any company has a web site created it must make the choice as to whether it will render on old technology or whether it must be standards compliant for future technology .
We could have used any amount of little tricks and hacks to get web site to look closer to as it intended in IE6 , but this would have been at the expense of standards compliance and valid code .
We have made the decision to inform IE6 users why the site is not rendering as they expected ( a situation that probably does n't surprise them ) .Please note that we can create web sites that render on a 2001 browser .
But we can not guarantee 2009 functionality and security .
And given that an IE6 focused development is based around creating 'valid code ' , and then hacking it to work in the browser the ultimate result is a longer development process with compromised functionality for the vast amount of users.Both Google and Facebook are sending the same message... you can use out site with IE6 , but with limited functionality .
We do n't think continued support is viable given that web trends suggest that less than 4 \ % of web surfers will be using this browser by the end of this year .
In short we feel that the tipping point for support for this old software has passed in preference for stability in future browsers .
And we are advising our Clients of the same.However we recognise that statistics can be misleading , just because a small amount of people use IE6 , it could be a significant amount of people that you are trying to target .
Sometimes focusing development to a browser could be your best strategy .
And we will do all we can help you with that.It is worth pointing out that Microsoft themselves admit that IE6 is 'less safe ' than later browsersWe urge you to use and encourage your employees to use a W3C Standards compliant browser such as Firefox , Safari , Opera , Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 8 .
These Browsers are free , and all are easy to install on any computer they are continually updated to be secure and more reliable they have more function and they are faster .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This was something that I have had to address a couple of times.
The simple truth is that a IE6 website takes me more time.
I'm happy to do it, if your happy to pay.
I have found that the most compelling argument for clients is the 'SEO' and the suggestion that Google indexing favours valid mark-up.This is how i address it the issue for my customers in my FAQ's or if i need to email a reply on the subject21.
Will my web site work with Internet Explorer 6 (IE6)?You may have noticed that this web site does not look right if your are viewing on Internet Explorer 6.
IE6 was a good browser in it's day, but it it is almost 9 years old now.
When any company has a web site created it must make the choice as to whether it will render on old technology or whether it must be standards compliant for future technology.
We could have used any amount of little tricks and hacks to get web site to look closer to as it intended in IE6, but this would have been at the expense of standards compliance and valid code.
We have made the decision to inform IE6 users why the site is not rendering as they expected (a situation that probably doesn't surprise them).Please note that we can create web sites that render on a 2001 browser.
But we cannot guarantee 2009 functionality and security.
And given that an IE6 focused development is based around creating 'valid code', and then hacking it to work in the browser the ultimate result is a longer development process with compromised functionality for the vast amount of users.Both Google and Facebook are sending the same message... you can use out site with IE6, but with limited functionality.
We don't think continued support is viable given that web trends suggest that less than 4\% of web surfers will be using this browser by the end of this year.
In short we feel that the tipping point for support for this old software has passed in preference for stability in future browsers.
And we are advising our Clients of the same.However we recognise that statistics can be misleading, just because a small amount of people use IE6, it could be a significant amount of people that you are trying to target.
Sometimes focusing development to a browser could be your best strategy.
And we will do all we can help you with that.It is worth pointing out that Microsoft themselves admit that IE6 is 'less safe' than later browsersWe urge you to use and encourage your employees to use a W3C Standards compliant browser such as Firefox, Safari, Opera, Google Chrome or Internet Explorer 8.
These Browsers are free, and all are easy to install on any computer they are continually updated to be secure and more reliable they have more function and they are faster.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181587</id>
	<title>Normal people don't upgrade computers every day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>... any more than they expect to upgrade their car or anything else.  The computer came with stuff, and normal people think the stuff is the computer and the computer is the stuff and that's about it.  Internet services reinforce this - it's not even a computer system with a browser (and other utilities) any more, it's a browser-machine that handles different sites.  Even Firefox proponents talk about "the browser becoming the OS".
<br> <br>
Normal people just *use* their computers, and they don't want any more complexity than "wheel - gas - brake" in the car.</htmltext>
<tokenext>... any more than they expect to upgrade their car or anything else .
The computer came with stuff , and normal people think the stuff is the computer and the computer is the stuff and that 's about it .
Internet services reinforce this - it 's not even a computer system with a browser ( and other utilities ) any more , it 's a browser-machine that handles different sites .
Even Firefox proponents talk about " the browser becoming the OS " .
Normal people just * use * their computers , and they do n't want any more complexity than " wheel - gas - brake " in the car .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... any more than they expect to upgrade their car or anything else.
The computer came with stuff, and normal people think the stuff is the computer and the computer is the stuff and that's about it.
Internet services reinforce this - it's not even a computer system with a browser (and other utilities) any more, it's a browser-machine that handles different sites.
Even Firefox proponents talk about "the browser becoming the OS".
Normal people just *use* their computers, and they don't want any more complexity than "wheel - gas - brake" in the car.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184609</id>
	<title>if ie6 is really so insecure</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>then someone should be able to code up an exploit that force installs IE7 or IE8 (and ff while you're at it).<br>that'd kill IE6, if its really so insecure...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>then someone should be able to code up an exploit that force installs IE7 or IE8 ( and ff while you 're at it ) .that 'd kill IE6 , if its really so insecure.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>then someone should be able to code up an exploit that force installs IE7 or IE8 (and ff while you're at it).that'd kill IE6, if its really so insecure...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182425</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to grow a set...</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1243958100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>this kind of idiocy pisses me off.  I have always had weird browsers on cellphones and other devices... I would rather see a partially broken page than a stuffed shirt jackass page telling me to install a browser that CANNOT be installed on my device or work laptop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>this kind of idiocy pisses me off .
I have always had weird browsers on cellphones and other devices... I would rather see a partially broken page than a stuffed shirt jackass page telling me to install a browser that CAN NOT be installed on my device or work laptop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this kind of idiocy pisses me off.
I have always had weird browsers on cellphones and other devices... I would rather see a partially broken page than a stuffed shirt jackass page telling me to install a browser that CANNOT be installed on my device or work laptop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789</id>
	<title>Stop the artificial life support</title>
	<author>Opportunist</author>
	<datestamp>1243956060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A company I work for dropped support for IE6 (not only but also because of my pressure) about a year ago. The impact was minimal. People who came to their page with an IE6 or earlier were asked to update, and they did. According to the logs, people who arrived at the page with an IE6 soon came back with IE7/8 or other browsers.</p><p>Why?</p><p>So far, it seems people don't frankly care what browser they're using. They're just using what they have. And they're usually quite willing to update to something "new and improved", they just don't know that it exists. Now, the average user that visits this client's page isn't too computer savvy (the company is in the adult education sector, the usual visitor of the page wants to be educated), and from the questionary I attached to the booking process nobody was really "annoyed" that they were asked to update. Many were actually happy to learn something new and "better" is out there for them.</p><p>So don't be shy to tell your visitors "hey, there's some new browser out, you might wanna use it for a better browsing experience". People like it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A company I work for dropped support for IE6 ( not only but also because of my pressure ) about a year ago .
The impact was minimal .
People who came to their page with an IE6 or earlier were asked to update , and they did .
According to the logs , people who arrived at the page with an IE6 soon came back with IE7/8 or other browsers.Why ? So far , it seems people do n't frankly care what browser they 're using .
They 're just using what they have .
And they 're usually quite willing to update to something " new and improved " , they just do n't know that it exists .
Now , the average user that visits this client 's page is n't too computer savvy ( the company is in the adult education sector , the usual visitor of the page wants to be educated ) , and from the questionary I attached to the booking process nobody was really " annoyed " that they were asked to update .
Many were actually happy to learn something new and " better " is out there for them.So do n't be shy to tell your visitors " hey , there 's some new browser out , you might wan na use it for a better browsing experience " .
People like it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A company I work for dropped support for IE6 (not only but also because of my pressure) about a year ago.
The impact was minimal.
People who came to their page with an IE6 or earlier were asked to update, and they did.
According to the logs, people who arrived at the page with an IE6 soon came back with IE7/8 or other browsers.Why?So far, it seems people don't frankly care what browser they're using.
They're just using what they have.
And they're usually quite willing to update to something "new and improved", they just don't know that it exists.
Now, the average user that visits this client's page isn't too computer savvy (the company is in the adult education sector, the usual visitor of the page wants to be educated), and from the questionary I attached to the booking process nobody was really "annoyed" that they were asked to update.
Many were actually happy to learn something new and "better" is out there for them.So don't be shy to tell your visitors "hey, there's some new browser out, you might wanna use it for a better browsing experience".
People like it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183103</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243960440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, but that ignores the tons of existing internal sites out their developed for sole use with IE6, lazily programmed just to achieve the desired effect in IE6. It's a cycle in which the IT deptartments are stuck on an insecure IE6, but can't move on for fear of break internal pages. The internal pages don't get fixed because there's no pressure to from an imposing browser upgrade. Without this pressure, it's difficult for the bean counters to justify the work of expanding support for things that "already work".</p><p>Standards-compliant pages should work just fine outside of IE6 with minimal effort (except for JS which is very fuzzy), but that carries the assumption that someone put some thought into the future when developing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , but that ignores the tons of existing internal sites out their developed for sole use with IE6 , lazily programmed just to achieve the desired effect in IE6 .
It 's a cycle in which the IT deptartments are stuck on an insecure IE6 , but ca n't move on for fear of break internal pages .
The internal pages do n't get fixed because there 's no pressure to from an imposing browser upgrade .
Without this pressure , it 's difficult for the bean counters to justify the work of expanding support for things that " already work " .Standards-compliant pages should work just fine outside of IE6 with minimal effort ( except for JS which is very fuzzy ) , but that carries the assumption that someone put some thought into the future when developing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, but that ignores the tons of existing internal sites out their developed for sole use with IE6, lazily programmed just to achieve the desired effect in IE6.
It's a cycle in which the IT deptartments are stuck on an insecure IE6, but can't move on for fear of break internal pages.
The internal pages don't get fixed because there's no pressure to from an imposing browser upgrade.
Without this pressure, it's difficult for the bean counters to justify the work of expanding support for things that "already work".Standards-compliant pages should work just fine outside of IE6 with minimal effort (except for JS which is very fuzzy), but that carries the assumption that someone put some thought into the future when developing.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181707</id>
	<title>i have a complex strategy for dealing with ie6</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243955820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt><br>if(window.XMLHttpRequest){<nobr> <wbr></nobr>//proceed as normal<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>else<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; {<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; if(window.ActiveXObject){<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; document.write "Error 404 Page Not Found"<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; }<br></tt></p><p>i haven't had any problems with ie6 since i implemented this holistic approach</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>if ( window.XMLHttpRequest ) { //proceed as normal         } else         {         if ( window.ActiveXObject ) {                 document.write " Error 404 Page Not Found "                 }         } i have n't had any problems with ie6 since i implemented this holistic approach</tokentext>
<sentencetext>if(window.XMLHttpRequest){ //proceed as normal
        }else
        {
        if(window.ActiveXObject){
                document.write "Error 404 Page Not Found"
                }
        }i haven't had any problems with ie6 since i implemented this holistic approach</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186615</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>chord.wav</author>
	<datestamp>1243975260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If a single small business site doesn't support IE6, nobody cares. What we need is to make a coalition of porn sites and make them stop supporting IE6. That should do it.</p><p>BTW, I charged extra for IE6 support in one of my latest projects. As a result, I ended up doing just the back-end of the site, and some other guy did the front end. Which in this particular case, was a good thing. But YMMV depending on the project. It's a double edged sword so use this strategy carefully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If a single small business site does n't support IE6 , nobody cares .
What we need is to make a coalition of porn sites and make them stop supporting IE6 .
That should do it.BTW , I charged extra for IE6 support in one of my latest projects .
As a result , I ended up doing just the back-end of the site , and some other guy did the front end .
Which in this particular case , was a good thing .
But YMMV depending on the project .
It 's a double edged sword so use this strategy carefully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If a single small business site doesn't support IE6, nobody cares.
What we need is to make a coalition of porn sites and make them stop supporting IE6.
That should do it.BTW, I charged extra for IE6 support in one of my latest projects.
As a result, I ended up doing just the back-end of the site, and some other guy did the front end.
Which in this particular case, was a good thing.
But YMMV depending on the project.
It's a double edged sword so use this strategy carefully.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181889</id>
	<title>Netscape 4 again</title>
	<author>Tridus</author>
	<datestamp>1243956360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The last time something like this happened, it was everybody wishing Netscape 4 would die. But it kept shambling across the Internet like a zombie for years.</p><p>At this point, IE6 will die when the computers still using it get replaced.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The last time something like this happened , it was everybody wishing Netscape 4 would die .
But it kept shambling across the Internet like a zombie for years.At this point , IE6 will die when the computers still using it get replaced .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The last time something like this happened, it was everybody wishing Netscape 4 would die.
But it kept shambling across the Internet like a zombie for years.At this point, IE6 will die when the computers still using it get replaced.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183561</id>
	<title>Crappy webpages</title>
	<author>drolli</author>
	<datestamp>1243962060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are ton of small administrative web-tools in companies out there which only run when using ie6</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are ton of small administrative web-tools in companies out there which only run when using ie6</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are ton of small administrative web-tools in companies out there which only run when using ie6</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183479</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>wastedlife</author>
	<datestamp>1243961760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If all web developers did so, then yes. However, many will not do this and the rest will lose customers to the ones not following this.</p><p>"Well boss, I got a few quotes for that intranet app, and one of them was charging 35\% more than everyone else. He claims it is because of our IE6 requirement."<br>"Hah, screw that guy!"</p><p>One way around that is for some or many developers offering a discount to drop the IE6 requirement. The developer may have to run at a reduced profit for a while, but eventually companies will start dropping IE6 to save money. This is not fundamentally much different from what you said, so I apologize if this is what you actually meant. I read your post as saying everyone should charge more for IE6 development though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If all web developers did so , then yes .
However , many will not do this and the rest will lose customers to the ones not following this .
" Well boss , I got a few quotes for that intranet app , and one of them was charging 35 \ % more than everyone else .
He claims it is because of our IE6 requirement .
" " Hah , screw that guy !
" One way around that is for some or many developers offering a discount to drop the IE6 requirement .
The developer may have to run at a reduced profit for a while , but eventually companies will start dropping IE6 to save money .
This is not fundamentally much different from what you said , so I apologize if this is what you actually meant .
I read your post as saying everyone should charge more for IE6 development though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If all web developers did so, then yes.
However, many will not do this and the rest will lose customers to the ones not following this.
"Well boss, I got a few quotes for that intranet app, and one of them was charging 35\% more than everyone else.
He claims it is because of our IE6 requirement.
""Hah, screw that guy!
"One way around that is for some or many developers offering a discount to drop the IE6 requirement.
The developer may have to run at a reduced profit for a while, but eventually companies will start dropping IE6 to save money.
This is not fundamentally much different from what you said, so I apologize if this is what you actually meant.
I read your post as saying everyone should charge more for IE6 development though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183031</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Haiku 4 U</author>
	<datestamp>1243960200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And scare away 50\% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?</p></div><p>Does a customer<br>
using IE6 to browse<br>
have any money?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And scare away 50 \ % of potential consumers because of a " broken website " ? Does a customer using IE6 to browse have any money ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And scare away 50\% of potential consumers because of a "broken website" ?Does a customer
using IE6 to browse
have any money?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28204221</id>
	<title>Bad browser.... Die, die, die!</title>
	<author>youn</author>
	<datestamp>1244036340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Vade Retro Satajax!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Vade Retro Satajax !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Vade Retro Satajax!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182193</id>
	<title>Their nerdy friends do it for them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>No, but, if enough of these people's sites break, they will call their techie friends, and those friends will enable Windows Update and/or install Firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No , but , if enough of these people 's sites break , they will call their techie friends , and those friends will enable Windows Update and/or install Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No, but, if enough of these people's sites break, they will call their techie friends, and those friends will enable Windows Update and/or install Firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184125</id>
	<title>Acceptable in IE6</title>
	<author>suggsjc</author>
	<datestamp>1243964640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The way I approach IE6 is to get it to an "acceptable" level of usability but not go out of my way to make it look as good as say the latest Firefox.  For instance, I don't put any PNG transparency hacks, etc.<br> <br>
At <a href="http://www.murmp.com/" title="murmp.com">my site</a> [murmp.com], ~40\% of my traffic is Firefox, ~30\% is IE of which ~5\% is IE6 (or below...all grouped together).  FWIW, I used the <a href="http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/" title="yahoo.com">YUI</a> [yahoo.com] as a reference design for my layout and using <a href="http://browsershots.org/" title="browsershots.org">BrowserShots</a> [browsershots.org] nearly every browsers handles the layout (more or less) correctly.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The way I approach IE6 is to get it to an " acceptable " level of usability but not go out of my way to make it look as good as say the latest Firefox .
For instance , I do n't put any PNG transparency hacks , etc .
At my site [ murmp.com ] , ~ 40 \ % of my traffic is Firefox , ~ 30 \ % is IE of which ~ 5 \ % is IE6 ( or below...all grouped together ) .
FWIW , I used the YUI [ yahoo.com ] as a reference design for my layout and using BrowserShots [ browsershots.org ] nearly every browsers handles the layout ( more or less ) correctly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The way I approach IE6 is to get it to an "acceptable" level of usability but not go out of my way to make it look as good as say the latest Firefox.
For instance, I don't put any PNG transparency hacks, etc.
At my site [murmp.com], ~40\% of my traffic is Firefox, ~30\% is IE of which ~5\% is IE6 (or below...all grouped together).
FWIW, I used the YUI [yahoo.com] as a reference design for my layout and using BrowserShots [browsershots.org] nearly every browsers handles the layout (more or less) correctly.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181467</id>
	<title>As Someone Who Has to Support IE6 at Work ...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243954860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit -- especially if you develop for business sites.</p></div><p>Yeah, IE6 is the herpes of the internet.  It <i>appears</i> to be gone after heavy medication but if you look under the first layer of skin, there it is.  <br> <br>

Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6:  we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there.  Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6.  Yes, the <a href="http://www.w3.org/QA/Tips/Doctype" title="w3.org" rel="nofollow">doctype</a> [w3.org] will tell the browser what standards to use but I'm betting that the support for rendering HTML 4 is just as annoying as having to patch up old struts 1.x applications and read through nested tables galore in the HTML.  <br> <br>

And we all know that 90\% of the work out there for developers is maintenance.  What a painful irrepressible memory<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry web developers , for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over , it appears they will linger on for quite a bit -- especially if you develop for business sites.Yeah , IE6 is the herpes of the internet .
It appears to be gone after heavy medication but if you look under the first layer of skin , there it is .
Oh , and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6 : we 've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there .
Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6 .
Yes , the doctype [ w3.org ] will tell the browser what standards to use but I 'm betting that the support for rendering HTML 4 is just as annoying as having to patch up old struts 1.x applications and read through nested tables galore in the HTML .
And we all know that 90 \ % of the work out there for developers is maintenance .
What a painful irrepressible memory .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry web developers, for those of you who thought the ugly hacks would soon be over, it appears they will linger on for quite a bit -- especially if you develop for business sites.Yeah, IE6 is the herpes of the internet.
It appears to be gone after heavy medication but if you look under the first layer of skin, there it is.
Oh, and I should point out another untimely mark of IE6:  we've all made this hilariously fugly hacks to make crap work in IE6 at some point and those relics of the last millennium are still out there.
Which means that browsers still have to support the old rendering ways of IE6.
Yes, the doctype [w3.org] will tell the browser what standards to use but I'm betting that the support for rendering HTML 4 is just as annoying as having to patch up old struts 1.x applications and read through nested tables galore in the HTML.
And we all know that 90\% of the work out there for developers is maintenance.
What a painful irrepressible memory ...
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184671</id>
	<title>Gracefully Degrade or get off the Soapbox</title>
	<author>halcyonandon1</author>
	<datestamp>1243966920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>First, Forgive me if I didn't look closely enough, but I'm not seeing how these statistics are substantiated.  On your first link it says one thing and on the other its completely different and what makes this source so valid over something like <a href="http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers\_stats.asp" title="w3schools.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers\_stats.asp</a> [w3schools.com]

Now to the point:

So what if ie6 is a dev pain, that isn't news.  Yes, you build for current standards, but you should also build so your site will gracefully degrade, not just regarding client-side script (JS), but with your markup and styles as well.  Just because a visitor can't receive your site exactly the way you want them to, doesn't mean you should instruct them to upgrade just for your site.

I'm sorry but if a front-end developer's biggest complaint is accounting for ie6, they should just deal with it and stop whining about ie6 usage and new standards that conflict with the browser.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...Or you can ignore ie6 and its users and justify your elimination of a user market share however you see fit.

Please just stay off your soapbox because trying to get others to hop on your bandwagon using a broken record is just annoying</htmltext>
<tokenext>First , Forgive me if I did n't look closely enough , but I 'm not seeing how these statistics are substantiated .
On your first link it says one thing and on the other its completely different and what makes this source so valid over something like http : //www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers \ _stats.asp [ w3schools.com ] Now to the point : So what if ie6 is a dev pain , that is n't news .
Yes , you build for current standards , but you should also build so your site will gracefully degrade , not just regarding client-side script ( JS ) , but with your markup and styles as well .
Just because a visitor ca n't receive your site exactly the way you want them to , does n't mean you should instruct them to upgrade just for your site .
I 'm sorry but if a front-end developer 's biggest complaint is accounting for ie6 , they should just deal with it and stop whining about ie6 usage and new standards that conflict with the browser .
...Or you can ignore ie6 and its users and justify your elimination of a user market share however you see fit .
Please just stay off your soapbox because trying to get others to hop on your bandwagon using a broken record is just annoying</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First, Forgive me if I didn't look closely enough, but I'm not seeing how these statistics are substantiated.
On your first link it says one thing and on the other its completely different and what makes this source so valid over something like http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers\_stats.asp [w3schools.com]

Now to the point:

So what if ie6 is a dev pain, that isn't news.
Yes, you build for current standards, but you should also build so your site will gracefully degrade, not just regarding client-side script (JS), but with your markup and styles as well.
Just because a visitor can't receive your site exactly the way you want them to, doesn't mean you should instruct them to upgrade just for your site.
I'm sorry but if a front-end developer's biggest complaint is accounting for ie6, they should just deal with it and stop whining about ie6 usage and new standards that conflict with the browser.
...Or you can ignore ie6 and its users and justify your elimination of a user market share however you see fit.
Please just stay off your soapbox because trying to get others to hop on your bandwagon using a broken record is just annoying</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190215</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>chrismcb</author>
	<datestamp>1243949520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I use IE6 today for one reason. IT WORKS.
I do care about the web, in the sense that I care it works. I barely use FF because when I first tried to use it many sites didn't work.

I continue to use IE6 because it works. I don't like a lot of the stupid ui decisions made in recent browsers (tabs? eh?) but I'll upgrade when most sites stop working.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I use IE6 today for one reason .
IT WORKS .
I do care about the web , in the sense that I care it works .
I barely use FF because when I first tried to use it many sites did n't work .
I continue to use IE6 because it works .
I do n't like a lot of the stupid ui decisions made in recent browsers ( tabs ?
eh ? ) but I 'll upgrade when most sites stop working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use IE6 today for one reason.
IT WORKS.
I do care about the web, in the sense that I care it works.
I barely use FF because when I first tried to use it many sites didn't work.
I continue to use IE6 because it works.
I don't like a lot of the stupid ui decisions made in recent browsers (tabs?
eh?) but I'll upgrade when most sites stop working.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183937</id>
	<title>easy way to implement that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>There's a real easy way to implement that. Add this code to any web page. Anyone with IE 7, IE 6, or previous will get a message to upgrade. No one else will see the message.<br><br>&lt;!--[if lte IE 7]&gt;<br>
&nbsp; To view this site, you will need to &lt;a href="http://www.microsoft.com/ie/"&gt;upgrade Internet Explorer&lt;/a&gt;, or &lt;a href="http://www.getfirefox.com"&gt;get another browser&lt;/a&gt;<br>
&nbsp; &lt;![endif]--&gt;</htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's a real easy way to implement that .
Add this code to any web page .
Anyone with IE 7 , IE 6 , or previous will get a message to upgrade .
No one else will see the message .
  To view this site , you will need to upgrade Internet Explorer , or get another browser  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>There's a real easy way to implement that.
Add this code to any web page.
Anyone with IE 7, IE 6, or previous will get a message to upgrade.
No one else will see the message.
  To view this site, you will need to upgrade Internet Explorer, or get another browser
  </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182479</id>
	<title>Of course not</title>
	<author>ryanvm</author>
	<datestamp>1243958340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why anyone thought IE8 would replace IE6 is beyond me.  The people running IE6 are obviously not accepting the automatic updates from Microsoft.  If they were they'd have been running IE7.</p><p>Now, expecting IE8 to replace IE7 is certainly a logical conclusion, but that doesn't really help us much...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why anyone thought IE8 would replace IE6 is beyond me .
The people running IE6 are obviously not accepting the automatic updates from Microsoft .
If they were they 'd have been running IE7.Now , expecting IE8 to replace IE7 is certainly a logical conclusion , but that does n't really help us much.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why anyone thought IE8 would replace IE6 is beyond me.
The people running IE6 are obviously not accepting the automatic updates from Microsoft.
If they were they'd have been running IE7.Now, expecting IE8 to replace IE7 is certainly a logical conclusion, but that doesn't really help us much...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181999</id>
	<title>I hate it too but...</title>
	<author>gzipped\_tar</author>
	<datestamp>1243956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I recently had to submit my thesis to the college library under IE6 + WINE. The library's file submission web-app didn't work with any other browser except IE, and IE6 was well supported under WINE. I hated it but I had to do it anyway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>I recently had to submit my thesis to the college library under IE6 + WINE .
The library 's file submission web-app did n't work with any other browser except IE , and IE6 was well supported under WINE .
I hated it but I had to do it anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I recently had to submit my thesis to the college library under IE6 + WINE.
The library's file submission web-app didn't work with any other browser except IE, and IE6 was well supported under WINE.
I hated it but I had to do it anyway...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183019</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>ChrisMounce</author>
	<datestamp>1243960140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This seems reasonable to me. Businesses don't care about web standards -- they care about money.<br><br>

Of course, the web developers would have to work together on this. If only one guy charges a premium, the boss is going to hire someone else. Though you could fight this by lowering prices for web standards work, which in effect is asking the web developer, "How much would you pay to not have to worry about IE6?"<br><br>

Still a good idea. Someone mod this guy up further.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This seems reasonable to me .
Businesses do n't care about web standards -- they care about money .
Of course , the web developers would have to work together on this .
If only one guy charges a premium , the boss is going to hire someone else .
Though you could fight this by lowering prices for web standards work , which in effect is asking the web developer , " How much would you pay to not have to worry about IE6 ?
" Still a good idea .
Someone mod this guy up further .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This seems reasonable to me.
Businesses don't care about web standards -- they care about money.
Of course, the web developers would have to work together on this.
If only one guy charges a premium, the boss is going to hire someone else.
Though you could fight this by lowering prices for web standards work, which in effect is asking the web developer, "How much would you pay to not have to worry about IE6?
"

Still a good idea.
Someone mod this guy up further.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183509</id>
	<title>Re:Stop support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243961880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...which does only work if you have some kind of monopoly, ie. if you're facebook, google, myspace etc. If you're not, people will just ignore your page and go to the next one of the same kind.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...which does only work if you have some kind of monopoly , ie .
if you 're facebook , google , myspace etc .
If you 're not , people will just ignore your page and go to the next one of the same kind .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...which does only work if you have some kind of monopoly, ie.
if you're facebook, google, myspace etc.
If you're not, people will just ignore your page and go to the next one of the same kind.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28193639</id>
	<title>I'm not saying it's MS Fault but...</title>
	<author>Jekkaman</author>
	<datestamp>1244029800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If microsoft included Internet Explorer 7 in Service Pack 3 or future service packs IE6 usage would be vastly reduced.(Since XP is mainstream and it comes with ie6..)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If microsoft included Internet Explorer 7 in Service Pack 3 or future service packs IE6 usage would be vastly reduced .
( Since XP is mainstream and it comes with ie6.. )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If microsoft included Internet Explorer 7 in Service Pack 3 or future service packs IE6 usage would be vastly reduced.
(Since XP is mainstream and it comes with ie6..)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182073</id>
	<title>Already died</title>
	<author>gmuslera</author>
	<datestamp>1243956960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>the right term to name its current status is zombie, as most of the machines its run on.</htmltext>
<tokenext>the right term to name its current status is zombie , as most of the machines its run on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>the right term to name its current status is zombie, as most of the machines its run on.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182097</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1243957020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Natural degredation is what i use mostly nowadays, but the problem lies somewhere else, the customers often still demand pixel perfect accuracy and the person having the money basically is always right, even if he is not!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Natural degredation is what i use mostly nowadays , but the problem lies somewhere else , the customers often still demand pixel perfect accuracy and the person having the money basically is always right , even if he is not !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Natural degredation is what i use mostly nowadays, but the problem lies somewhere else, the customers often still demand pixel perfect accuracy and the person having the money basically is always right, even if he is not!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182729</id>
	<title>Re:Developers need to grow a set...</title>
	<author>0100010001010011</author>
	<datestamp>1243959120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use <a href="http://www.f1vlad.com/blog/2008/09/08/1175/killie6" title="f1vlad.com">killie6</a> [f1vlad.com] on all of my websites. (Quite a few). It's not as intrusive as yours, but it taps into that reflex to click on any thing in IE6 that drops down from the top.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use killie6 [ f1vlad.com ] on all of my websites .
( Quite a few ) .
It 's not as intrusive as yours , but it taps into that reflex to click on any thing in IE6 that drops down from the top .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use killie6 [f1vlad.com] on all of my websites.
(Quite a few).
It's not as intrusive as yours, but it taps into that reflex to click on any thing in IE6 that drops down from the top.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184069</id>
	<title>Enough whining about it.</title>
	<author>wiedzmin</author>
	<datestamp>1243964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Really, how is this a story? This should be tagged "duh", it has been repeated and restated so many times. Yes it's not going away, yes the enterprises love it - get over this already, please. How about we start writing about possible ways of making the transition easier, instead of continuing to carry the same whining torch around? Thank you.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Really , how is this a story ?
This should be tagged " duh " , it has been repeated and restated so many times .
Yes it 's not going away , yes the enterprises love it - get over this already , please .
How about we start writing about possible ways of making the transition easier , instead of continuing to carry the same whining torch around ?
Thank you .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Really, how is this a story?
This should be tagged "duh", it has been repeated and restated so many times.
Yes it's not going away, yes the enterprises love it - get over this already, please.
How about we start writing about possible ways of making the transition easier, instead of continuing to carry the same whining torch around?
Thank you.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182715</id>
	<title>Already with you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>this morning I took five minutes to write a simple smarty block plugin: {ie6} ie6-only code here {/ie6}<br>Now everyone who loads the page with their user-agent set to IE6 will receive a banner:<br>WARNING: Your browser is reporting that it is highly insecure and outdated. Security upgrades have been available for over a decade, please select the reason you continue to put yourself and others at serious risk of virus infection and identity theft: (ajax-enabled dropdown or fallback to simple form). Once filled out, links to upgrades are provided.</p><p>I really just did it because I want to know \_why\_ people use it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>this morning I took five minutes to write a simple smarty block plugin : { ie6 } ie6-only code here { /ie6 } Now everyone who loads the page with their user-agent set to IE6 will receive a banner : WARNING : Your browser is reporting that it is highly insecure and outdated .
Security upgrades have been available for over a decade , please select the reason you continue to put yourself and others at serious risk of virus infection and identity theft : ( ajax-enabled dropdown or fallback to simple form ) .
Once filled out , links to upgrades are provided.I really just did it because I want to know \ _why \ _ people use it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>this morning I took five minutes to write a simple smarty block plugin: {ie6} ie6-only code here {/ie6}Now everyone who loads the page with their user-agent set to IE6 will receive a banner:WARNING: Your browser is reporting that it is highly insecure and outdated.
Security upgrades have been available for over a decade, please select the reason you continue to put yourself and others at serious risk of virus infection and identity theft: (ajax-enabled dropdown or fallback to simple form).
Once filled out, links to upgrades are provided.I really just did it because I want to know \_why\_ people use it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186187</id>
	<title>Not allowed to use FireFox at work</title>
	<author>incognito84</author>
	<datestamp>1243973340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The technicians where I work disallow everyone to use anything other than IE6,7 and 8 on their work PCs. I had FireFox for awhile and they said it was inadvisable to use as it was "full of spyware / malware." There are a bunch of pre-approved applications we're allowed to use and the staff are very inflexible about it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The technicians where I work disallow everyone to use anything other than IE6,7 and 8 on their work PCs .
I had FireFox for awhile and they said it was inadvisable to use as it was " full of spyware / malware .
" There are a bunch of pre-approved applications we 're allowed to use and the staff are very inflexible about it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The technicians where I work disallow everyone to use anything other than IE6,7 and 8 on their work PCs.
I had FireFox for awhile and they said it was inadvisable to use as it was "full of spyware / malware.
" There are a bunch of pre-approved applications we're allowed to use and the staff are very inflexible about it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181937</id>
	<title>IE6 actually gaining</title>
	<author>GlobalEcho</author>
	<datestamp>1243956540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a huge corporation.  Since the sysadmins have nothing better to do, they just this month automated a company-wide process of deleting Firefox from all workstations, forcing users to go to IE6 (with alternate browsers available only for web developers)!</p><p>I was gobsmacked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a huge corporation .
Since the sysadmins have nothing better to do , they just this month automated a company-wide process of deleting Firefox from all workstations , forcing users to go to IE6 ( with alternate browsers available only for web developers ) ! I was gobsmacked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a huge corporation.
Since the sysadmins have nothing better to do, they just this month automated a company-wide process of deleting Firefox from all workstations, forcing users to go to IE6 (with alternate browsers available only for web developers)!I was gobsmacked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182337</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Spoken like somebody who doesn't develop anything for any governments.  Users have no control over their browser in many workplace environments and will be mad at you if your app is broken.  Changing IT policy somewhere where you don't work is nigh impossible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Spoken like somebody who does n't develop anything for any governments .
Users have no control over their browser in many workplace environments and will be mad at you if your app is broken .
Changing IT policy somewhere where you do n't work is nigh impossible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Spoken like somebody who doesn't develop anything for any governments.
Users have no control over their browser in many workplace environments and will be mad at you if your app is broken.
Changing IT policy somewhere where you don't work is nigh impossible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185711</id>
	<title>Re:in-house apps</title>
	<author>Phroggy</author>
	<datestamp>1243971300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE8 doesn't have a "render like IE6 would" option; it only has a "render like IE7 would" option.  If companies are still forcing IE6, it's quite possible that their intranet sites don't work in IE7, which means IE8's compatibility mode won't work either.</p><p>Also, I've heard that there are some things that work in IE7 that don't work in IE8's IE7 compatibility mode.  I haven't been doing web development for awhile, so I don't know what things these might be.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 does n't have a " render like IE6 would " option ; it only has a " render like IE7 would " option .
If companies are still forcing IE6 , it 's quite possible that their intranet sites do n't work in IE7 , which means IE8 's compatibility mode wo n't work either.Also , I 've heard that there are some things that work in IE7 that do n't work in IE8 's IE7 compatibility mode .
I have n't been doing web development for awhile , so I do n't know what things these might be .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 doesn't have a "render like IE6 would" option; it only has a "render like IE7 would" option.
If companies are still forcing IE6, it's quite possible that their intranet sites don't work in IE7, which means IE8's compatibility mode won't work either.Also, I've heard that there are some things that work in IE7 that don't work in IE8's IE7 compatibility mode.
I haven't been doing web development for awhile, so I don't know what things these might be.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184231</id>
	<title>and we believe these people why?</title>
	<author>Peganthyrus</author>
	<datestamp>1243965120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Who are these guys? What's their methodology for getting data?</p><p>When I go to their home page to see if I can discover these things, a bar on the side tells me that I'm running "Operating System<br>Mac OSX - Puma 10.4.11". This does not make me wanna trust these people.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Who are these guys ?
What 's their methodology for getting data ? When I go to their home page to see if I can discover these things , a bar on the side tells me that I 'm running " Operating SystemMac OSX - Puma 10.4.11 " .
This does not make me wan na trust these people .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Who are these guys?
What's their methodology for getting data?When I go to their home page to see if I can discover these things, a bar on the side tells me that I'm running "Operating SystemMac OSX - Puma 10.4.11".
This does not make me wanna trust these people.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28194963</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1244040300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Back in the 90s people still upgraded their web browsers, and there were many less surfers back then than now. New surfers would use the latest anyway. This isn't the case anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Back in the 90s people still upgraded their web browsers , and there were many less surfers back then than now .
New surfers would use the latest anyway .
This is n't the case anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Back in the 90s people still upgraded their web browsers, and there were many less surfers back then than now.
New surfers would use the latest anyway.
This isn't the case anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184073</id>
	<title>End of life?</title>
	<author>Zaiff Urgulbunger</author>
	<datestamp>1243964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Doesn't IE6 get end-of-lifed around June 2010? I can't believe any corporate would consider running IE6 after that... they could reasonably be sued by their own customers if say they lost data due to a hack.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Does n't IE6 get end-of-lifed around June 2010 ?
I ca n't believe any corporate would consider running IE6 after that... they could reasonably be sued by their own customers if say they lost data due to a hack .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Doesn't IE6 get end-of-lifed around June 2010?
I can't believe any corporate would consider running IE6 after that... they could reasonably be sued by their own customers if say they lost data due to a hack.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186523</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>wastedlife</author>
	<datestamp>1243974900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are freelance, you figure out how much time you will save by not developing for IE6. If you are charging by the hour, make a note of that in your estimate for your clients. If you are charging a flat rate for the client, then offer a discount based on how much time you will save. For example, if you save 25\% of your time, offer a discount of some amount less than or equal to 25\% to your customer for not needing to support IE6.</p><p>Tell your boss about this if you are working for a company that develops web applications for other clients.</p><p>If you are working for a company and you develop web applications for internal use, then talk to your boss about how much time you will save by not developing for IE6. If you are salary, you will be able to put that time into another project. If you are hourly, that is money savings to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are freelance , you figure out how much time you will save by not developing for IE6 .
If you are charging by the hour , make a note of that in your estimate for your clients .
If you are charging a flat rate for the client , then offer a discount based on how much time you will save .
For example , if you save 25 \ % of your time , offer a discount of some amount less than or equal to 25 \ % to your customer for not needing to support IE6.Tell your boss about this if you are working for a company that develops web applications for other clients.If you are working for a company and you develop web applications for internal use , then talk to your boss about how much time you will save by not developing for IE6 .
If you are salary , you will be able to put that time into another project .
If you are hourly , that is money savings to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are freelance, you figure out how much time you will save by not developing for IE6.
If you are charging by the hour, make a note of that in your estimate for your clients.
If you are charging a flat rate for the client, then offer a discount based on how much time you will save.
For example, if you save 25\% of your time, offer a discount of some amount less than or equal to 25\% to your customer for not needing to support IE6.Tell your boss about this if you are working for a company that develops web applications for other clients.If you are working for a company and you develop web applications for internal use, then talk to your boss about how much time you will save by not developing for IE6.
If you are salary, you will be able to put that time into another project.
If you are hourly, that is money savings to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185261</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28194801</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>BenoitRen</author>
	<datestamp>1244039700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Indeed. IE6 has bugs. A lot of them. On a site that I maintain, there's a list of images on the left used as a navigation sidebar. Because images are inline elements, I used the display:block CSS on them. But this triggered a bug, creating space above and below each image. It is why I have the following in my stylesheet:</p><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr><tt>/* Hack for IE6 and older to work around the list white-space bug.<br>
   Other browsers don't see this because html has no ancestor. */<br>
* html #game-nav li, * html #general-nav li {<br>
  display: inline;<br>
}</tt> </p><p>The bug is also present in IE7, in a different form. For that I use the following on the two navigation lists:</p><p> <tt>font-size: 1px;<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/* suppress list white-space bug in IE7 */</tt> </p><p>Since the lists don't contain text, this works out fine.</p><p>I'd prefer to move to a text-based navigation list, but the webmaster won't let me. Yet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Indeed .
IE6 has bugs .
A lot of them .
On a site that I maintain , there 's a list of images on the left used as a navigation sidebar .
Because images are inline elements , I used the display : block CSS on them .
But this triggered a bug , creating space above and below each image .
It is why I have the following in my stylesheet : / * Hack for IE6 and older to work around the list white-space bug .
Other browsers do n't see this because html has no ancestor .
* / * html # game-nav li , * html # general-nav li { display : inline ; } The bug is also present in IE7 , in a different form .
For that I use the following on the two navigation lists : font-size : 1px ; / * suppress list white-space bug in IE7 * / Since the lists do n't contain text , this works out fine.I 'd prefer to move to a text-based navigation list , but the webmaster wo n't let me .
Yet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Indeed.
IE6 has bugs.
A lot of them.
On a site that I maintain, there's a list of images on the left used as a navigation sidebar.
Because images are inline elements, I used the display:block CSS on them.
But this triggered a bug, creating space above and below each image.
It is why I have the following in my stylesheet: /* Hack for IE6 and older to work around the list white-space bug.
Other browsers don't see this because html has no ancestor.
*/
* html #game-nav li, * html #general-nav li {
  display: inline;
} The bug is also present in IE7, in a different form.
For that I use the following on the two navigation lists: font-size: 1px; /* suppress list white-space bug in IE7 */ Since the lists don't contain text, this works out fine.I'd prefer to move to a text-based navigation list, but the webmaster won't let me.
Yet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182273</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183929</id>
	<title>Internet Explorer 6 Will not Die???</title>
	<author>theeddie55</author>
	<datestamp>1243963740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I find that rather strange. When I used it many moons ago it seemed to die about every 20 minutes or so.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I find that rather strange .
When I used it many moons ago it seemed to die about every 20 minutes or so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I find that rather strange.
When I used it many moons ago it seemed to die about every 20 minutes or so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181537</id>
	<title>Make em change</title>
	<author>SpinningCone</author>
	<datestamp>1243955220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Granted most of the web stuff i do isn't critical but lately if its broken in IE6 i don't fix it, actually since you can't parallel install IE i only check 7 on my host and 8 on my VM so i don't even check 6 anymore.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Granted most of the web stuff i do is n't critical but lately if its broken in IE6 i do n't fix it , actually since you ca n't parallel install IE i only check 7 on my host and 8 on my VM so i do n't even check 6 anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Granted most of the web stuff i do isn't critical but lately if its broken in IE6 i don't fix it, actually since you can't parallel install IE i only check 7 on my host and 8 on my VM so i don't even check 6 anymore.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182117</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>&gt;MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE. Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.</p><p>Wave</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>&gt; MS is n't trying to limit IE for nothing , it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply does n't work under IE .
Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope , wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.Wave</tokentext>
<sentencetext>&gt;MS isn't trying to limit IE for nothing, it hopes that nobody dares create a webapp that simply doesn't work under IE.
Google has shown with Chrome they are thinking of pushing the envelope, wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.Wave</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182699</id>
	<title>Reason is pirated copies of XP unable to update!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243959060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know thats why 2 of my own PC's are on IE6. WGA and Windows Update wont run any longer so no IE7/8 for those PC's.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know thats why 2 of my own PC 's are on IE6 .
WGA and Windows Update wont run any longer so no IE7/8 for those PC 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know thats why 2 of my own PC's are on IE6.
WGA and Windows Update wont run any longer so no IE7/8 for those PC's.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182605</id>
	<title>Re:in-house apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243958760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about the cost of fixing infected computers that became infected from browsing the internet with IE6?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about the cost of fixing infected computers that became infected from browsing the internet with IE6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about the cost of fixing infected computers that became infected from browsing the internet with IE6?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182203</id>
	<title>WinXP</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've also found that there are a large number of folks who are still using old versions of WinXP with not-so-legit site licenses or corporate licenses who don't want to upgrade to Vista and don't intend to now pay for a license for an OS they have been using "free" for years and are stuck with IE6 because they can no longer perform windows updates.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've also found that there are a large number of folks who are still using old versions of WinXP with not-so-legit site licenses or corporate licenses who do n't want to upgrade to Vista and do n't intend to now pay for a license for an OS they have been using " free " for years and are stuck with IE6 because they can no longer perform windows updates .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've also found that there are a large number of folks who are still using old versions of WinXP with not-so-legit site licenses or corporate licenses who don't want to upgrade to Vista and don't intend to now pay for a license for an OS they have been using "free" for years and are stuck with IE6 because they can no longer perform windows updates.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184943</id>
	<title>IE6 End-of-Life is 13-Jul-2010</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243968000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Microsoft will no longer provide any updates for IE6 come 13-Jul-2010.  That means no security patches which means many businesses will have to move to something else.  My company will tell our clients that come that date.</p><p>http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet\_Explorer</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft will no longer provide any updates for IE6 come 13-Jul-2010 .
That means no security patches which means many businesses will have to move to something else .
My company will tell our clients that come that date.http : //support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/ # Internet \ _Explorer</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Microsoft will no longer provide any updates for IE6 come 13-Jul-2010.
That means no security patches which means many businesses will have to move to something else.
My company will tell our clients that come that date.http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet\_Explorer</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184809</id>
	<title>Re:in-house apps</title>
	<author>conway98</author>
	<datestamp>1243967400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with you on standards compliance, but I look at it from the the opposite perspective.. I firmly believe in and adhere to the concept of <a href="http://www.alistapart.com/articles/understandingprogressiveenhancement/" title="alistapart.com" rel="nofollow">progressive enhancement</a> [alistapart.com], as opposed to graceful degradation. As Web developers, our job and our priority should be the delivery of content. In my day to day experiences building websites I have found that most users don't <em>really</em> care that much about what a site looks like. It has become even more evident now that I am building sites targeted at users in a developing country (Colombia). Most users here couldn't tell you what browser or version they are using, and couldn't care less about upgrading as long as they can find the content they want. If presented with the option, most users will upgrade, but the reality is that most don't know any better. I don't think it's my place to tell anyone how they should access the Web. In my situation, I find it best to start by building my sites with valid XHTML. No CSS, no JavaScript. I make sure that the entire site functions with just plain X/HTML. Then, I include the stylesheet presented by <a href="http://forabeautifulweb.com/blog/about/universal\_internet\_explorer\_6\_css/" title="forabeautifulweb.com" rel="nofollow">for a beautiful web</a> [forabeautifulweb.com] to cover IE6. Sometimes I tweak it slightly if the project requires it, but I can at least be sure that everything renders more or less pleasantly in IE6. Then I create my stylesheet for standards-compliant browsers. I try to avoid any non-standard CSS or any hacks. If I encounter a situation where a hack is the only answer, I re-evaluate my design decisions to see if I can get the same desired result with a different visual effect. Once all of that is working, I layer on my JavaScript to do fancy AJAX stuff.
<br> <br>
Following this methodology, I can assure that almost anyone who visits my site can use it and can have a pleasant experience. The people who care about the appearance of a website and all of the "Web 2.0" functionality most likely have an updated browser and will get the full experience. People using older browsers, or mobile phones can still use my site, and they probably don't care that the version they are seeing is less "flashy". The additional amount of work for me is negligible and I still manage to reach as broad of an audience as possible. I hate dealing with IE6 as much as any Web developer, but I think maybe it's time for our industry to realize that our sites don't have to be pixel perfect replicas in every browser. <b>They can't be.</b> And with the emergence of so many different web enabled mobile devices I feel that that idea becomes even more important. I want my sites to be beautiful for my users, but above all, I want my sites to be <em>useable</em> for my users.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with you on standards compliance , but I look at it from the the opposite perspective.. I firmly believe in and adhere to the concept of progressive enhancement [ alistapart.com ] , as opposed to graceful degradation .
As Web developers , our job and our priority should be the delivery of content .
In my day to day experiences building websites I have found that most users do n't really care that much about what a site looks like .
It has become even more evident now that I am building sites targeted at users in a developing country ( Colombia ) .
Most users here could n't tell you what browser or version they are using , and could n't care less about upgrading as long as they can find the content they want .
If presented with the option , most users will upgrade , but the reality is that most do n't know any better .
I do n't think it 's my place to tell anyone how they should access the Web .
In my situation , I find it best to start by building my sites with valid XHTML .
No CSS , no JavaScript .
I make sure that the entire site functions with just plain X/HTML .
Then , I include the stylesheet presented by for a beautiful web [ forabeautifulweb.com ] to cover IE6 .
Sometimes I tweak it slightly if the project requires it , but I can at least be sure that everything renders more or less pleasantly in IE6 .
Then I create my stylesheet for standards-compliant browsers .
I try to avoid any non-standard CSS or any hacks .
If I encounter a situation where a hack is the only answer , I re-evaluate my design decisions to see if I can get the same desired result with a different visual effect .
Once all of that is working , I layer on my JavaScript to do fancy AJAX stuff .
Following this methodology , I can assure that almost anyone who visits my site can use it and can have a pleasant experience .
The people who care about the appearance of a website and all of the " Web 2.0 " functionality most likely have an updated browser and will get the full experience .
People using older browsers , or mobile phones can still use my site , and they probably do n't care that the version they are seeing is less " flashy " .
The additional amount of work for me is negligible and I still manage to reach as broad of an audience as possible .
I hate dealing with IE6 as much as any Web developer , but I think maybe it 's time for our industry to realize that our sites do n't have to be pixel perfect replicas in every browser .
They ca n't be .
And with the emergence of so many different web enabled mobile devices I feel that that idea becomes even more important .
I want my sites to be beautiful for my users , but above all , I want my sites to be useable for my users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with you on standards compliance, but I look at it from the the opposite perspective.. I firmly believe in and adhere to the concept of progressive enhancement [alistapart.com], as opposed to graceful degradation.
As Web developers, our job and our priority should be the delivery of content.
In my day to day experiences building websites I have found that most users don't really care that much about what a site looks like.
It has become even more evident now that I am building sites targeted at users in a developing country (Colombia).
Most users here couldn't tell you what browser or version they are using, and couldn't care less about upgrading as long as they can find the content they want.
If presented with the option, most users will upgrade, but the reality is that most don't know any better.
I don't think it's my place to tell anyone how they should access the Web.
In my situation, I find it best to start by building my sites with valid XHTML.
No CSS, no JavaScript.
I make sure that the entire site functions with just plain X/HTML.
Then, I include the stylesheet presented by for a beautiful web [forabeautifulweb.com] to cover IE6.
Sometimes I tweak it slightly if the project requires it, but I can at least be sure that everything renders more or less pleasantly in IE6.
Then I create my stylesheet for standards-compliant browsers.
I try to avoid any non-standard CSS or any hacks.
If I encounter a situation where a hack is the only answer, I re-evaluate my design decisions to see if I can get the same desired result with a different visual effect.
Once all of that is working, I layer on my JavaScript to do fancy AJAX stuff.
Following this methodology, I can assure that almost anyone who visits my site can use it and can have a pleasant experience.
The people who care about the appearance of a website and all of the "Web 2.0" functionality most likely have an updated browser and will get the full experience.
People using older browsers, or mobile phones can still use my site, and they probably don't care that the version they are seeing is less "flashy".
The additional amount of work for me is negligible and I still manage to reach as broad of an audience as possible.
I hate dealing with IE6 as much as any Web developer, but I think maybe it's time for our industry to realize that our sites don't have to be pixel perfect replicas in every browser.
They can't be.
And with the emergence of so many different web enabled mobile devices I feel that that idea becomes even more important.
I want my sites to be beautiful for my users, but above all, I want my sites to be useable for my users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182141</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182299</id>
	<title>that's a good question</title>
	<author>circletimessquare</author>
	<datestamp>1243957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>my solution was</p><p>div.blah{<br>-moz-border-radius: 3em;<br>-webkit-border-radius: 3em;<br>}</p><p>how do i handle ie6,7,8? i don't. its called gracefully degrading. the site is uglier in ie than firefox/ safari/ chrome (and ugly in opera too: opera has no border-radius yet)</p><p>oh well</p><p>and there are other issues where the shoe is on the other foot. for some reason, ie, safari, chrome, and opera all render border-style:groove correctly, while mozilla seems to do some funky ugly thing with the style. then other bugs only effect the webkit browsers safari and chrome. its pretty much a given that every rendering directive i put in html or css or javascript, one of the 5 browsers i design for (opera, ie, chrome, safari, firefox) will render it wrong. well, not wrong, just different. but here's the key: if the "alternative" style is not truly heinous or interferes with UI, i just let it slide. so every site looks different in every browser</p><p>oh well</p><p>what i don't understand are these anal retentive developers who are so insistent on every pixel being exactly the same in every browser. just let some browsers look a little goofy, just let it slide, move on, no big deal</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>my solution wasdiv.blah { -moz-border-radius : 3em ; -webkit-border-radius : 3em ; } how do i handle ie6,7,8 ?
i do n't .
its called gracefully degrading .
the site is uglier in ie than firefox/ safari/ chrome ( and ugly in opera too : opera has no border-radius yet ) oh welland there are other issues where the shoe is on the other foot .
for some reason , ie , safari , chrome , and opera all render border-style : groove correctly , while mozilla seems to do some funky ugly thing with the style .
then other bugs only effect the webkit browsers safari and chrome .
its pretty much a given that every rendering directive i put in html or css or javascript , one of the 5 browsers i design for ( opera , ie , chrome , safari , firefox ) will render it wrong .
well , not wrong , just different .
but here 's the key : if the " alternative " style is not truly heinous or interferes with UI , i just let it slide .
so every site looks different in every browseroh wellwhat i do n't understand are these anal retentive developers who are so insistent on every pixel being exactly the same in every browser .
just let some browsers look a little goofy , just let it slide , move on , no big deal</tokentext>
<sentencetext>my solution wasdiv.blah{-moz-border-radius: 3em;-webkit-border-radius: 3em;}how do i handle ie6,7,8?
i don't.
its called gracefully degrading.
the site is uglier in ie than firefox/ safari/ chrome (and ugly in opera too: opera has no border-radius yet)oh welland there are other issues where the shoe is on the other foot.
for some reason, ie, safari, chrome, and opera all render border-style:groove correctly, while mozilla seems to do some funky ugly thing with the style.
then other bugs only effect the webkit browsers safari and chrome.
its pretty much a given that every rendering directive i put in html or css or javascript, one of the 5 browsers i design for (opera, ie, chrome, safari, firefox) will render it wrong.
well, not wrong, just different.
but here's the key: if the "alternative" style is not truly heinous or interferes with UI, i just let it slide.
so every site looks different in every browseroh wellwhat i don't understand are these anal retentive developers who are so insistent on every pixel being exactly the same in every browser.
just let some browsers look a little goofy, just let it slide, move on, no big deal</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183765</id>
	<title>Re:Businesses</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1243963020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>That argument is normally sound when it comes to things like Microsoft Office that get re-released every year. However, IE7 has been out for something like 2.5 years now. And IE6 was released almost 8 years ago. Staying a cycle behind with regards to IE is absolutely retarded and there is no justification for it (unless they're in the business of collecting buggy software)</htmltext>
<tokenext>That argument is normally sound when it comes to things like Microsoft Office that get re-released every year .
However , IE7 has been out for something like 2.5 years now .
And IE6 was released almost 8 years ago .
Staying a cycle behind with regards to IE is absolutely retarded and there is no justification for it ( unless they 're in the business of collecting buggy software )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That argument is normally sound when it comes to things like Microsoft Office that get re-released every year.
However, IE7 has been out for something like 2.5 years now.
And IE6 was released almost 8 years ago.
Staying a cycle behind with regards to IE is absolutely retarded and there is no justification for it (unless they're in the business of collecting buggy software)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181813</id>
	<title>Conclusion?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All the more reason to stop using browser-dependent "features" and write rigidly standards compliant html, I say. And tone down the CSS and JS freakery; it's "content", not "user experience" (which is mostly "frustration" anyway), you monkeys.</p><p>Don't believe me? Do you use google for the way its output looks or for the links it gives you? Well?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All the more reason to stop using browser-dependent " features " and write rigidly standards compliant html , I say .
And tone down the CSS and JS freakery ; it 's " content " , not " user experience " ( which is mostly " frustration " anyway ) , you monkeys.Do n't believe me ?
Do you use google for the way its output looks or for the links it gives you ?
Well ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All the more reason to stop using browser-dependent "features" and write rigidly standards compliant html, I say.
And tone down the CSS and JS freakery; it's "content", not "user experience" (which is mostly "frustration" anyway), you monkeys.Don't believe me?
Do you use google for the way its output looks or for the links it gives you?
Well?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181837</id>
	<title>Re:Normal people don't upgrade computers every day</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Cars have more complexity than "wheel - gas - break". If you have any sense you get them serviced, change the tyres, top up various fluids and so on and so forth. Either you do it or you pay someone to do it for you. Not moving on from IE6 is akin to owning a car for 8 years and never changing the oil.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Cars have more complexity than " wheel - gas - break " .
If you have any sense you get them serviced , change the tyres , top up various fluids and so on and so forth .
Either you do it or you pay someone to do it for you .
Not moving on from IE6 is akin to owning a car for 8 years and never changing the oil .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Cars have more complexity than "wheel - gas - break".
If you have any sense you get them serviced, change the tyres, top up various fluids and so on and so forth.
Either you do it or you pay someone to do it for you.
Not moving on from IE6 is akin to owning a car for 8 years and never changing the oil.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181587</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182133</id>
	<title>Windows 2000</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would love to upgrade to IE7 or IE8 but unfortunatly mircosoft decided Windows 2000 wasn't worthy.</p><p>Firefox is out of the question as our intranet uses ActiveX (our intranet works perfectly Firefox apart from this small problem)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would love to upgrade to IE7 or IE8 but unfortunatly mircosoft decided Windows 2000 was n't worthy.Firefox is out of the question as our intranet uses ActiveX ( our intranet works perfectly Firefox apart from this small problem )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would love to upgrade to IE7 or IE8 but unfortunatly mircosoft decided Windows 2000 wasn't worthy.Firefox is out of the question as our intranet uses ActiveX (our intranet works perfectly Firefox apart from this small problem)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184475</id>
	<title>Can't RTFA...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This site requires Adobe Flash Player 8 (or above) to view the charts. Please click on Ok to install Flash.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This site requires Adobe Flash Player 8 ( or above ) to view the charts .
Please click on Ok to install Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This site requires Adobe Flash Player 8 (or above) to view the charts.
Please click on Ok to install Flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181901</id>
	<title>This is the enemy</title>
	<author>Kozz</author>
	<datestamp>1243956360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <a href="http://tomaskral.cz.nyud.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/antiexplorer.jpg" title="nyud.net">Internet explorer is the cancer and Firefox is the cure.  </a> [nyud.net] </p><p>Print one for <em>your</em> cube today!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Internet explorer is the cancer and Firefox is the cure .
[ nyud.net ] Print one for your cube today !</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Internet explorer is the cancer and Firefox is the cure.
[nyud.net] Print one for your cube today!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183505</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>adamchou</author>
	<datestamp>1243961820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>A <i>standards compliant</i> site should render acceptably</p></div><p>Fixed that for you.

Screw semantics. We have standards for a reason.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>A standards compliant site should render acceptablyFixed that for you .
Screw semantics .
We have standards for a reason .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A standards compliant site should render acceptablyFixed that for you.
Screw semantics.
We have standards for a reason.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185343</id>
	<title>could be useful for targeted marketing</title>
	<author>OrangeTide</author>
	<datestamp>1243969740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What if customers that run IE6 are also the same customers that rack up huge costs in tech support calls or often have systems too obsolete to run your software? Seems like a good way to dramatically reduce exposure to those customers if your website intentionally lacks support for IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What if customers that run IE6 are also the same customers that rack up huge costs in tech support calls or often have systems too obsolete to run your software ?
Seems like a good way to dramatically reduce exposure to those customers if your website intentionally lacks support for IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What if customers that run IE6 are also the same customers that rack up huge costs in tech support calls or often have systems too obsolete to run your software?
Seems like a good way to dramatically reduce exposure to those customers if your website intentionally lacks support for IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184631</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome"</p><p>Probably nothing. Think for a sec about why the largest largest data collection, indexing, and advertising system on the internet might benefit from having people use a browser that is totally under their control.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome " Probably nothing .
Think for a sec about why the largest largest data collection , indexing , and advertising system on the internet might benefit from having people use a browser that is totally under their control .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome"Probably nothing.
Think for a sec about why the largest largest data collection, indexing, and advertising system on the internet might benefit from having people use a browser that is totally under their control.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184079</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243964460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>yeah, until you have to find a way to code around the double-margin float bug, the peekaboo bugs, the improper support for z-index, and the completely weird inexplicable things IE does once you mix up a bit of floating, relative, and absolute positioning with some margins so that you have something besides a single column of plain text.</p><p>And that's if you've somehow managed to find web development clients who are content with pages that have no decoration beyond text and boxes with square corners.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>yeah , until you have to find a way to code around the double-margin float bug , the peekaboo bugs , the improper support for z-index , and the completely weird inexplicable things IE does once you mix up a bit of floating , relative , and absolute positioning with some margins so that you have something besides a single column of plain text.And that 's if you 've somehow managed to find web development clients who are content with pages that have no decoration beyond text and boxes with square corners .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>yeah, until you have to find a way to code around the double-margin float bug, the peekaboo bugs, the improper support for z-index, and the completely weird inexplicable things IE does once you mix up a bit of floating, relative, and absolute positioning with some margins so that you have something besides a single column of plain text.And that's if you've somehow managed to find web development clients who are content with pages that have no decoration beyond text and boxes with square corners.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185261</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ah yes! Yet again we see the clueless masses who get the mod points around here rearing their ugly heads.<br> <br>So, what you want me to do, as a freelance developer, is tell the guy who signs my paycheck that I refuse to work for him because he wants to support an application that I'm not found of? If you don't see the problem with this let me suggest that you go back to junior college and take a couple business courses. As a manager I would see it as you saying "I'm an employee of yours and I refuse to do what is best for your company. Instead I'd rather take the easy route and risk alienating your customers."<br> <br>If I were to hire you and you gave me that spiel you'd be out on your ass and I'd let others know about it too. Have fun finding work for anyone who can pay real money for your *cough* services *cough*.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah yes !
Yet again we see the clueless masses who get the mod points around here rearing their ugly heads .
So , what you want me to do , as a freelance developer , is tell the guy who signs my paycheck that I refuse to work for him because he wants to support an application that I 'm not found of ?
If you do n't see the problem with this let me suggest that you go back to junior college and take a couple business courses .
As a manager I would see it as you saying " I 'm an employee of yours and I refuse to do what is best for your company .
Instead I 'd rather take the easy route and risk alienating your customers .
" If I were to hire you and you gave me that spiel you 'd be out on your ass and I 'd let others know about it too .
Have fun finding work for anyone who can pay real money for your * cough * services * cough * .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah yes!
Yet again we see the clueless masses who get the mod points around here rearing their ugly heads.
So, what you want me to do, as a freelance developer, is tell the guy who signs my paycheck that I refuse to work for him because he wants to support an application that I'm not found of?
If you don't see the problem with this let me suggest that you go back to junior college and take a couple business courses.
As a manager I would see it as you saying "I'm an employee of yours and I refuse to do what is best for your company.
Instead I'd rather take the easy route and risk alienating your customers.
" If I were to hire you and you gave me that spiel you'd be out on your ass and I'd let others know about it too.
Have fun finding work for anyone who can pay real money for your *cough* services *cough*.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182141</id>
	<title>Re:in-house apps</title>
	<author>wolrahnaes</author>
	<datestamp>1243957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They don't even have to do that, IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD.  Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list, pushes it out, and magic, everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks (yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target).  Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.</p><p>I'm a believer in standards compliance with graceful failure.  Write it for proper browsers, then do the absolute bare minimum to make it usable in the shitholes of the internet.  If you can, place a notification on those pages explaining their experience is not optimal due to them or their IT department not clicking the goddamn update button.  They don't get the nifty stuff, but they get a working site and encouragement to solve the problem thus making the internet better for the rest of us.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They do n't even have to do that , IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD .
Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list , pushes it out , and magic , everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks ( yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target ) .
Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.I 'm a believer in standards compliance with graceful failure .
Write it for proper browsers , then do the absolute bare minimum to make it usable in the shitholes of the internet .
If you can , place a notification on those pages explaining their experience is not optimal due to them or their IT department not clicking the goddamn update button .
They do n't get the nifty stuff , but they get a working site and encouragement to solve the problem thus making the internet better for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They don't even have to do that, IE8 has a list of incompatible sites which can have updates forced to it through AD.
Corporate IT puts the entire intranet zone in that list, pushes it out, and magic, everyone can use IE8 and have it render their broken-ass webpages designed by retarded fucksticks (yes I do have major anger issues against anyone building with IE6 as a target).
Individual apps can be checked out by IT and/or adventurous users one by one and moved off the list if it works in IE8 mode.I'm a believer in standards compliance with graceful failure.
Write it for proper browsers, then do the absolute bare minimum to make it usable in the shitholes of the internet.
If you can, place a notification on those pages explaining their experience is not optimal due to them or their IT department not clicking the goddamn update button.
They don't get the nifty stuff, but they get a working site and encouragement to solve the problem thus making the internet better for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709</id>
	<title>Re:Stop writing ugly hacks for IE6....</title>
	<author>thedonger</author>
	<datestamp>1243955820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...</p></div></blockquote><p>A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.</p><p>Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers. Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Stop doing the hacks , and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...A semantically-coded site should render acceptably , unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it was n't meant to be.Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers .
Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic , difficult to maintain mark up , with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Stop doing the hacks, and let IE6 render them ugly and broken...A semantically-coded site should render acceptably, unless you are using tons of nested DIVs and crazy CSS/image methods to make a site act like something it wasn't meant to be.Part of the problem is unrealistic expectations of users and overzealous developers.
Are your rounded corners in IE worth non-semantic, difficult to maintain mark up, with poor cross-browser and legacy-browser support?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28187211</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>Rockoon</author>
	<datestamp>1243934700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it.</p></div><p>
A publicly traded company has an <i>obligation to its shareholders</i> such that if the Cost to support IE6 is less than the Revenue such support will bring in, <i>and they have the hard numbers to back this up,</i> then they must (in theory) do so.<br>
<br>
Now, most companies do get away with strategies that they know to be sub-optimal, <i>but that doesnt make it moral or legal.</i></p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because it has users does n't mean that you have to support it .
A publicly traded company has an obligation to its shareholders such that if the Cost to support IE6 is less than the Revenue such support will bring in , and they have the hard numbers to back this up , then they must ( in theory ) do so .
Now , most companies do get away with strategies that they know to be sub-optimal , but that doesnt make it moral or legal .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because it has users doesn't mean that you have to support it.
A publicly traded company has an obligation to its shareholders such that if the Cost to support IE6 is less than the Revenue such support will bring in, and they have the hard numbers to back this up, then they must (in theory) do so.
Now, most companies do get away with strategies that they know to be sub-optimal, but that doesnt make it moral or legal.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185271</id>
	<title>IE Tab</title>
	<author>Isaac-Lew</author>
	<datestamp>1243969440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>For all the people that have to use IE 6/7/8 to view and/or access websites...why not use IE Tab?<p>
<a href="http://ietab.mozdev.org/index.html" title="mozdev.org" rel="nofollow">
</a> [mozdev.org]<a href="http://ietab.mozdev.org/index.html" title="mozdev.org" rel="nofollow">http://ietab.mozdev.org/index.html</a> [mozdev.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For all the people that have to use IE 6/7/8 to view and/or access websites...why not use IE Tab ?
[ mozdev.org ] http : //ietab.mozdev.org/index.html [ mozdev.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For all the people that have to use IE 6/7/8 to view and/or access websites...why not use IE Tab?
[mozdev.org]http://ietab.mozdev.org/index.html [mozdev.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181627</id>
	<title>Ignorance is another reason for IE6's longevity</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are many "web apps" that supposedly don't support anything but IE6. But work fine in other web browsers. I have IE6, FF3, Chrome and Safari on my laptop here at work (I'm a web dev) and have tested many of our supposedly IE only legacy web apps.  Other than a problem I found with the web server (IIS) not having mime types set correctly, all those web apps worked fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are many " web apps " that supposedly do n't support anything but IE6 .
But work fine in other web browsers .
I have IE6 , FF3 , Chrome and Safari on my laptop here at work ( I 'm a web dev ) and have tested many of our supposedly IE only legacy web apps .
Other than a problem I found with the web server ( IIS ) not having mime types set correctly , all those web apps worked fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are many "web apps" that supposedly don't support anything but IE6.
But work fine in other web browsers.
I have IE6, FF3, Chrome and Safari on my laptop here at work (I'm a web dev) and have tested many of our supposedly IE only legacy web apps.
Other than a problem I found with the web server (IIS) not having mime types set correctly, all those web apps worked fine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184515</id>
	<title>Costs too much money apparently</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243966260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's because companies (like AT&amp;T for example) don't want to spend the money to upgrade beyond IE6 internally, even though you'd think they would be a leader.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's because companies ( like AT&amp;T for example ) do n't want to spend the money to upgrade beyond IE6 internally , even though you 'd think they would be a leader .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's because companies (like AT&amp;T for example) don't want to spend the money to upgrade beyond IE6 internally, even though you'd think they would be a leader.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183057</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies</title>
	<author>wastedlife</author>
	<datestamp>1243960260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE7 and 8 are not available for Windows 2000, which is still in use in a lot of companies. Also, most larger companies run WSUS to manage update deployment, this means they can selectively block updates that they do not want from being deployed. This includes IE7 and IE8.</p><p>I'm sure some of the numbers are from piracy, but if you are smart enough to pirate Windows and evade detection, you are probably smart enough to use a more modern secure browser like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE7 and 8 are not available for Windows 2000 , which is still in use in a lot of companies .
Also , most larger companies run WSUS to manage update deployment , this means they can selectively block updates that they do not want from being deployed .
This includes IE7 and IE8.I 'm sure some of the numbers are from piracy , but if you are smart enough to pirate Windows and evade detection , you are probably smart enough to use a more modern secure browser like Firefox , Chrome , Safari , or Opera .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE7 and 8 are not available for Windows 2000, which is still in use in a lot of companies.
Also, most larger companies run WSUS to manage update deployment, this means they can selectively block updates that they do not want from being deployed.
This includes IE7 and IE8.I'm sure some of the numbers are from piracy, but if you are smart enough to pirate Windows and evade detection, you are probably smart enough to use a more modern secure browser like Firefox, Chrome, Safari, or Opera.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182457</id>
	<title>Lie, Damn Lies, Statistics...</title>
	<author>HerbanLegend</author>
	<datestamp>1243958220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I dunno.   These numbers seem very low to me for Firefox.  I've recently reviewed other statistics sites and I've never seen FF given such a low marketshare.  I think this might be a case of everybody's statistics differing.  Now, show me the data for Google Analytics on googleanalytics.com (where the tracking script is loaded from) and I'd be willing to call those figures "authoritative."</p><p>DJB</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I dunno .
These numbers seem very low to me for Firefox .
I 've recently reviewed other statistics sites and I 've never seen FF given such a low marketshare .
I think this might be a case of everybody 's statistics differing .
Now , show me the data for Google Analytics on googleanalytics.com ( where the tracking script is loaded from ) and I 'd be willing to call those figures " authoritative .
" DJB</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I dunno.
These numbers seem very low to me for Firefox.
I've recently reviewed other statistics sites and I've never seen FF given such a low marketshare.
I think this might be a case of everybody's statistics differing.
Now, show me the data for Google Analytics on googleanalytics.com (where the tracking script is loaded from) and I'd be willing to call those figures "authoritative.
"DJB</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182263</id>
	<title>Re:Hasten the End</title>
	<author>MemoryDragon</author>
	<datestamp>1243957560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks. Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems? The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?</p></div><p>I think the solution simply is to raise the costs, lets face it support of IE6 causes 30\% additional costs on the development side, supporting IE7 causes around 5-10\% with the gap widening every year!<br>If you roll out the costs towards the departement who gives the money they will have a second thought of wanting to pay 30\% more just to cover a customer base of 5-10\% of all possible people (with the rate dropping significantly)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The end will come when developers simply decide it 's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of " this site wo n't work - what 's wrong with my browser " thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks .
Until then , why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems ?
The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first ? I think the solution simply is to raise the costs , lets face it support of IE6 causes 30 \ % additional costs on the development side , supporting IE7 causes around 5-10 \ % with the gap widening every year ! If you roll out the costs towards the departement who gives the money they will have a second thought of wanting to pay 30 \ % more just to cover a customer base of 5-10 \ % of all possible people ( with the rate dropping significantly )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The end will come when developers simply decide it's not worth jumping through hoops for an antiquated browser and IT departments in corporate America are flooded with calls of "this site won't work - what's wrong with my browser" thereby forcing IT departments to get with the program and update the browsers on their networks.
Until then, why should an IT department invest any time and effort into updating the browsers on their systems?
The kicker is all that it will take is one major website to take the bold step forward but the question is who has the balls to be first?I think the solution simply is to raise the costs, lets face it support of IE6 causes 30\% additional costs on the development side, supporting IE7 causes around 5-10\% with the gap widening every year!If you roll out the costs towards the departement who gives the money they will have a second thought of wanting to pay 30\% more just to cover a customer base of 5-10\% of all possible people (with the rate dropping significantly)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181643</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186383</id>
	<title>IE6 support already dropped</title>
	<author>scarlac</author>
	<datestamp>1243974360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually our company recently dropped IE6 support unless specifically asked for.<br><br>The reason?<br>All statistics from monitored sites and campaigns are showing roughly a 1\% drop per month of IE6 and we are currently raging from 12\% to 18\% (with a single one at 23\%). Most users seem to be upgrading to IE7 which is fine. The general Firefox share is consistently larger than the IE6 share which only makes sense if you are comparing "the lowest common denominator"... which we are.<br><br>How do we deal with our clients?<br>We advice them. If the client specifically asks for IE6 we will explain the budget implications (which is the truth of IE6). Actually we've had several clients who are positive of the way we handle it since they can suddenly ask for much more without being told "well, it won't perform/look good/work in ie6". We've had no complaints yet and the current trend tells us there is no need to worry.<br><br>According to my experience I find reason to doubt the conclusion that IE6 will not die. It may sound optimistic but I project that IE6 will be irrelevant to most developers within 12 months.<br><br>Seph</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually our company recently dropped IE6 support unless specifically asked for.The reason ? All statistics from monitored sites and campaigns are showing roughly a 1 \ % drop per month of IE6 and we are currently raging from 12 \ % to 18 \ % ( with a single one at 23 \ % ) .
Most users seem to be upgrading to IE7 which is fine .
The general Firefox share is consistently larger than the IE6 share which only makes sense if you are comparing " the lowest common denominator " ... which we are.How do we deal with our clients ? We advice them .
If the client specifically asks for IE6 we will explain the budget implications ( which is the truth of IE6 ) .
Actually we 've had several clients who are positive of the way we handle it since they can suddenly ask for much more without being told " well , it wo n't perform/look good/work in ie6 " .
We 've had no complaints yet and the current trend tells us there is no need to worry.According to my experience I find reason to doubt the conclusion that IE6 will not die .
It may sound optimistic but I project that IE6 will be irrelevant to most developers within 12 months.Seph</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually our company recently dropped IE6 support unless specifically asked for.The reason?All statistics from monitored sites and campaigns are showing roughly a 1\% drop per month of IE6 and we are currently raging from 12\% to 18\% (with a single one at 23\%).
Most users seem to be upgrading to IE7 which is fine.
The general Firefox share is consistently larger than the IE6 share which only makes sense if you are comparing "the lowest common denominator"... which we are.How do we deal with our clients?We advice them.
If the client specifically asks for IE6 we will explain the budget implications (which is the truth of IE6).
Actually we've had several clients who are positive of the way we handle it since they can suddenly ask for much more without being told "well, it won't perform/look good/work in ie6".
We've had no complaints yet and the current trend tells us there is no need to worry.According to my experience I find reason to doubt the conclusion that IE6 will not die.
It may sound optimistic but I project that IE6 will be irrelevant to most developers within 12 months.Seph</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183753</id>
	<title>Hey hey, my my</title>
	<author>hamburgler007</author>
	<datestamp>1243962960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE6 can never die.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 can never die .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6 can never die.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183925</id>
	<title>antitrust fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thank our judicial system for letting microsoft get away with being a monopoly and pushing their browser onto every windows machine, the whole world must suffer seemingly indefinitely. The whole microsoft vs. netscape case failed to provide justice. While we are add it windows media player sucks @$$, and countless people in the world are suffering from being pushed into this "default" video player. Sadly most people aren't computer literate enough to know there are options, and that's the whole problem with microsoft's practices...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thank our judicial system for letting microsoft get away with being a monopoly and pushing their browser onto every windows machine , the whole world must suffer seemingly indefinitely .
The whole microsoft vs. netscape case failed to provide justice .
While we are add it windows media player sucks @ $ $ , and countless people in the world are suffering from being pushed into this " default " video player .
Sadly most people are n't computer literate enough to know there are options , and that 's the whole problem with microsoft 's practices.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thank our judicial system for letting microsoft get away with being a monopoly and pushing their browser onto every windows machine, the whole world must suffer seemingly indefinitely.
The whole microsoft vs. netscape case failed to provide justice.
While we are add it windows media player sucks @$$, and countless people in the world are suffering from being pushed into this "default" video player.
Sadly most people aren't computer literate enough to know there are options, and that's the whole problem with microsoft's practices...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181533</id>
	<title>Not just Corporate America</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for the United States government.  We ordered hundreds of thousands of brand new HP computers last year, with Windows Vista pre-installed.  Except our intranet relies on Internet Explorer 6 to function, so they were all wiped and had a Windows XP SP2 image installed.  I doubt we'll be upgrading anytime soon, as that would pretty much require a complete rewrite of our entire intranet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for the United States government .
We ordered hundreds of thousands of brand new HP computers last year , with Windows Vista pre-installed .
Except our intranet relies on Internet Explorer 6 to function , so they were all wiped and had a Windows XP SP2 image installed .
I doubt we 'll be upgrading anytime soon , as that would pretty much require a complete rewrite of our entire intranet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for the United States government.
We ordered hundreds of thousands of brand new HP computers last year, with Windows Vista pre-installed.
Except our intranet relies on Internet Explorer 6 to function, so they were all wiped and had a Windows XP SP2 image installed.
I doubt we'll be upgrading anytime soon, as that would pretty much require a complete rewrite of our entire intranet.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182007</id>
	<title>Save IE6!</title>
	<author>meuhlavache</author>
	<datestamp>1243956720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We want you to <a href="http://www.saveie6.com/" title="saveie6.com" rel="nofollow">save IE6</a> [saveie6.com]!</htmltext>
<tokenext>We want you to save IE6 [ saveie6.com ] !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We want you to save IE6 [saveie6.com]!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181987</id>
	<title>Not if we go on strike</title>
	<author>Russ Nelson</author>
	<datestamp>1243956660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE6 WILL die if enough web developers go on strike and simply stop supporting it.  The people running IE6 can make their problem go away one of two ways: pressure each and every website which says "IE6?  Go away." Or they can do one thing: upgrade their web browser or install FF.  One thing with instant guaranteed success, or many things with likely failure?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE6 WILL die if enough web developers go on strike and simply stop supporting it .
The people running IE6 can make their problem go away one of two ways : pressure each and every website which says " IE6 ?
Go away .
" Or they can do one thing : upgrade their web browser or install FF .
One thing with instant guaranteed success , or many things with likely failure ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE6 WILL die if enough web developers go on strike and simply stop supporting it.
The people running IE6 can make their problem go away one of two ways: pressure each and every website which says "IE6?
Go away.
" Or they can do one thing: upgrade their web browser or install FF.
One thing with instant guaranteed success, or many things with likely failure?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28188119</id>
	<title>Fuck IE6 and fuck people who use it</title>
	<author>SnapperHead</author>
	<datestamp>1243938240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>By using IE6 you are personally responsible for holding back innovation.  Countless development time is wasted supporting the completely broken browser.  If the company you work for is still using IE6, then they are a serious problem.  Well, personally I would never work for a company that is a Windows shop, but that is a whole other story.</p><p>All my development supports modern browsers only.  If you can't or won't upgrade, then too bad<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... its not my problem.  The percentage of IE6 users against all my sites is very low, sub 10\% of users.  But even if it was 25\% or more<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it still wouldn't cause me to waste precious development time on a pile of shit browser.</p><p>When you visit some of my sites you are given a warning that the site will be broken in IE6 and that you need to upgrade.</p><p>This is what happens when you get in bed with Microsoft, you will get screwed in the end.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>By using IE6 you are personally responsible for holding back innovation .
Countless development time is wasted supporting the completely broken browser .
If the company you work for is still using IE6 , then they are a serious problem .
Well , personally I would never work for a company that is a Windows shop , but that is a whole other story.All my development supports modern browsers only .
If you ca n't or wo n't upgrade , then too bad ... its not my problem .
The percentage of IE6 users against all my sites is very low , sub 10 \ % of users .
But even if it was 25 \ % or more ... it still would n't cause me to waste precious development time on a pile of shit browser.When you visit some of my sites you are given a warning that the site will be broken in IE6 and that you need to upgrade.This is what happens when you get in bed with Microsoft , you will get screwed in the end .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By using IE6 you are personally responsible for holding back innovation.
Countless development time is wasted supporting the completely broken browser.
If the company you work for is still using IE6, then they are a serious problem.
Well, personally I would never work for a company that is a Windows shop, but that is a whole other story.All my development supports modern browsers only.
If you can't or won't upgrade, then too bad ... its not my problem.
The percentage of IE6 users against all my sites is very low, sub 10\% of users.
But even if it was 25\% or more ... it still wouldn't cause me to waste precious development time on a pile of shit browser.When you visit some of my sites you are given a warning that the site will be broken in IE6 and that you need to upgrade.This is what happens when you get in bed with Microsoft, you will get screwed in the end.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184023</id>
	<title>Re:Stop support</title>
	<author>jswilson64</author>
	<datestamp>1243964280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>And our Corporate IT folks say:  If that Web site doesn't work, too bad.  The intRAnet works fine in IE6.  Get back to work.</htmltext>
<tokenext>And our Corporate IT folks say : If that Web site does n't work , too bad .
The intRAnet works fine in IE6 .
Get back to work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And our Corporate IT folks say:  If that Web site doesn't work, too bad.
The intRAnet works fine in IE6.
Get back to work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181641</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183143</id>
	<title>Re:I wonder</title>
	<author>Canazza</author>
	<datestamp>1243960560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.</p></div> </blockquote><p>Google Wave.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome .
Google Wave .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>wonder what they got in the pipeline that needs Chrome.
Google Wave.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184531</id>
	<title>IE6 Support Is Not "Free" Either...</title>
	<author>EXTomar</author>
	<datestamp>1243966320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There is a cost to staying with IE6 as well so I'm not sure why people cling to the idea that cash strapped IT departments need to stay with IE6.  They day will come when the cost of maintenance of software to support IE6 is greater than it is for other solutions.  Kicking the can down the road until then is a recipe for disaster where no one should support software like this without a "end of support" plan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There is a cost to staying with IE6 as well so I 'm not sure why people cling to the idea that cash strapped IT departments need to stay with IE6 .
They day will come when the cost of maintenance of software to support IE6 is greater than it is for other solutions .
Kicking the can down the road until then is a recipe for disaster where no one should support software like this without a " end of support " plan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There is a cost to staying with IE6 as well so I'm not sure why people cling to the idea that cash strapped IT departments need to stay with IE6.
They day will come when the cost of maintenance of software to support IE6 is greater than it is for other solutions.
Kicking the can down the road until then is a recipe for disaster where no one should support software like this without a "end of support" plan.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182147</id>
	<title>Judgmental IE6 splash pages</title>
	<author>superdana</author>
	<datestamp>1243957200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sure many of you have seen <a href="http://hugsformonsters.com/" title="hugsformonsters.com" rel="nofollow">Joe Lifrieri's</a> [hugsformonsters.com] judgmental IE6 splash pages. But for those of you who haven't, enjoy:<br>
<br>
<a href="http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/05/22/overly-judgemental-ie6-splash-pages/" title="thedonutproject.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/05/22/overly-judgemental-ie6-splash-pages/</a> [thedonutproject.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure many of you have seen Joe Lifrieri 's [ hugsformonsters.com ] judgmental IE6 splash pages .
But for those of you who have n't , enjoy : http : //www.thedonutproject.com/2009/05/22/overly-judgemental-ie6-splash-pages/ [ thedonutproject.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure many of you have seen Joe Lifrieri's [hugsformonsters.com] judgmental IE6 splash pages.
But for those of you who haven't, enjoy:

http://www.thedonutproject.com/2009/05/22/overly-judgemental-ie6-splash-pages/ [thedonutproject.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181915</id>
	<title>IE6.... =\</title>
	<author>kagaku</author>
	<datestamp>1243956420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We unfortunately use IE6 exclusively here at my office/entire corporation. IE7 is being trial (and we're 'not allowed' but not blocked from installing IE7 or IE8) but 99\% of the corporate populace is running IE6. It made things interesting when I inherited an internal app that's "developed" using oracle application express. Giving the entire app an overhaul and trying to integrate stuff such as jquery to makes things a bit more user friendly was quite a challenge when the browser that everyone uses keeps throwing up rendering errors for what seem to be almost no reason. Eventually I said screw it and developed the entire site twice; using browser sniffing to determine what version to send out. The work wasn't justified at the time (only myself and a few others use alternative browsers), but when the company eventually does move to IE7/8 this app will at least be compatible with newer versions. Not only that, but it'll exhibit features that simply aren't available under IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We unfortunately use IE6 exclusively here at my office/entire corporation .
IE7 is being trial ( and we 're 'not allowed ' but not blocked from installing IE7 or IE8 ) but 99 \ % of the corporate populace is running IE6 .
It made things interesting when I inherited an internal app that 's " developed " using oracle application express .
Giving the entire app an overhaul and trying to integrate stuff such as jquery to makes things a bit more user friendly was quite a challenge when the browser that everyone uses keeps throwing up rendering errors for what seem to be almost no reason .
Eventually I said screw it and developed the entire site twice ; using browser sniffing to determine what version to send out .
The work was n't justified at the time ( only myself and a few others use alternative browsers ) , but when the company eventually does move to IE7/8 this app will at least be compatible with newer versions .
Not only that , but it 'll exhibit features that simply are n't available under IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We unfortunately use IE6 exclusively here at my office/entire corporation.
IE7 is being trial (and we're 'not allowed' but not blocked from installing IE7 or IE8) but 99\% of the corporate populace is running IE6.
It made things interesting when I inherited an internal app that's "developed" using oracle application express.
Giving the entire app an overhaul and trying to integrate stuff such as jquery to makes things a bit more user friendly was quite a challenge when the browser that everyone uses keeps throwing up rendering errors for what seem to be almost no reason.
Eventually I said screw it and developed the entire site twice; using browser sniffing to determine what version to send out.
The work wasn't justified at the time (only myself and a few others use alternative browsers), but when the company eventually does move to IE7/8 this app will at least be compatible with newer versions.
Not only that, but it'll exhibit features that simply aren't available under IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182303</id>
	<title>Re:in-house apps</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just send the <a href="http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc288325(VS.85).aspx" title="microsoft.com" rel="nofollow">X-UA-Compatible</a> [microsoft.com] HTTP header or use the meta tag. Then people can use IE8 and it will go into compatibility mode automatically.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just send the X-UA-Compatible [ microsoft.com ] HTTP header or use the meta tag .
Then people can use IE8 and it will go into compatibility mode automatically .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just send the X-UA-Compatible [microsoft.com] HTTP header or use the meta tag.
Then people can use IE8 and it will go into compatibility mode automatically.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182621</id>
	<title>None of this surprises me.</title>
	<author>jskline</author>
	<datestamp>1243958820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The fact is that there are many "coders" out there working on corporate sites that will only work around IE and it's active-X controls.  It's no wonder they manually apply updates via managed server, and disallow updates to IE because it breaks their enterprise application code; and we don't want any over-worked enterprise coders now do we??!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-0</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The fact is that there are many " coders " out there working on corporate sites that will only work around IE and it 's active-X controls .
It 's no wonder they manually apply updates via managed server , and disallow updates to IE because it breaks their enterprise application code ; and we do n't want any over-worked enterprise coders now do we ? ? ! !
: -0</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The fact is that there are many "coders" out there working on corporate sites that will only work around IE and it's active-X controls.
It's no wonder they manually apply updates via managed server, and disallow updates to IE because it breaks their enterprise application code; and we don't want any over-worked enterprise coders now do we??!!
:-0</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181833</id>
	<title>IE7 &amp; IE8's topbar sucks</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243956180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If IE's newer versions let you customize the topbar like you can with IE6, I'd gladly switch my work computer over.  When you force a crappier UI (like Vista), many users will stick with the better, older version.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If IE 's newer versions let you customize the topbar like you can with IE6 , I 'd gladly switch my work computer over .
When you force a crappier UI ( like Vista ) , many users will stick with the better , older version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If IE's newer versions let you customize the topbar like you can with IE6, I'd gladly switch my work computer over.
When you force a crappier UI (like Vista), many users will stick with the better, older version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184391</id>
	<title>Re:Businesses</title>
	<author>Innova</author>
	<datestamp>1243965840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Try working at a large conservative insurance company.  Windows 2000.  Office 2003.  IE6.</p><p>Thank goodness I have administrator rights to my PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Try working at a large conservative insurance company .
Windows 2000 .
Office 2003 .
IE6.Thank goodness I have administrator rights to my PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Try working at a large conservative insurance company.
Windows 2000.
Office 2003.
IE6.Thank goodness I have administrator rights to my PC.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186199</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243973460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation.  It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.</p></div><p>IE 8 doesn't require Genuine Windows validation check.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that did n't require validation .
It lives on through piracy , which also promotes insecure computers that do n't have the latest updates.IE 8 does n't require Genuine Windows validation check .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think this proliferation of IE6 is because it was the last upgrade that didn't require validation.
It lives on through piracy, which also promotes insecure computers that don't have the latest updates.IE 8 doesn't require Genuine Windows validation check.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182313</id>
	<title>Re:Just because it has users...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243957740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well, you're kind of right.  The users don't care... but the guy I'm building the site for, who is paying the bill, does care.  Very much so.  No, he won't upgrade to a newer browser.  Yes, he thinks I'm the world's worst designer if I can't achieve pixel perfect layouts between browsers. And this is not some sort of aberration.  I have worked with dozens of clients like this.  They don't care about browsers or why they should upgrade, but they sure know what they want their site to look like. And clearly I must be a swindling lying asshole if their site doesn't look and function exactly the same in IE5 on a Mac as it does in Chrome.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , you 're kind of right .
The users do n't care... but the guy I 'm building the site for , who is paying the bill , does care .
Very much so .
No , he wo n't upgrade to a newer browser .
Yes , he thinks I 'm the world 's worst designer if I ca n't achieve pixel perfect layouts between browsers .
And this is not some sort of aberration .
I have worked with dozens of clients like this .
They do n't care about browsers or why they should upgrade , but they sure know what they want their site to look like .
And clearly I must be a swindling lying asshole if their site does n't look and function exactly the same in IE5 on a Mac as it does in Chrome .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, you're kind of right.
The users don't care... but the guy I'm building the site for, who is paying the bill, does care.
Very much so.
No, he won't upgrade to a newer browser.
Yes, he thinks I'm the world's worst designer if I can't achieve pixel perfect layouts between browsers.
And this is not some sort of aberration.
I have worked with dozens of clients like this.
They don't care about browsers or why they should upgrade, but they sure know what they want their site to look like.
And clearly I must be a swindling lying asshole if their site doesn't look and function exactly the same in IE5 on a Mac as it does in Chrome.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190245</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies</title>
	<author>chrismcb</author>
	<datestamp>1243949760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HARASSED? How so?
Sure I've got a upgrade to SP3 pending, but I know SP3 forces IE7 on me. So I don't upgrade. The icon sits in my tray. I ignore it, he ignores me. Not sure what harassment you are talking about.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HARASSED ?
How so ?
Sure I 've got a upgrade to SP3 pending , but I know SP3 forces IE7 on me .
So I do n't upgrade .
The icon sits in my tray .
I ignore it , he ignores me .
Not sure what harassment you are talking about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HARASSED?
How so?
Sure I've got a upgrade to SP3 pending, but I know SP3 forces IE7 on me.
So I don't upgrade.
The icon sits in my tray.
I ignore it, he ignores me.
Not sure what harassment you are talking about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181599</id>
	<title>It's time to start breaking IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243955400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>No more hacks, no more workarounds.  If it works, great, if not, too bad.  We gave up on Netscape 4, and it's time to give up on IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>No more hacks , no more workarounds .
If it works , great , if not , too bad .
We gave up on Netscape 4 , and it 's time to give up on IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No more hacks, no more workarounds.
If it works, great, if not, too bad.
We gave up on Netscape 4, and it's time to give up on IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28197995</id>
	<title>Re:Developers should charge more for IE6 support</title>
	<author>matt20102</author>
	<datestamp>1244052900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>While I would like to see every browser support every web standard, as they are written, I've yet to encounter a situation wherein a small change couldn't be made to make any sites I've coded work in FF 2&amp;3, IE6+, Opera, and Safari.  Having to code in substantial 'hacks', browser detection schemes, or similar workarounds tells me that the developer who thinks this is 'necessary' either doesn't have a good design for the page layout, is a pure standards idealist (the kind who thinks that standards are a moral crusade akin to civil rights), or, potentially, works in an environment with a 200+ page coding standards book.
<br>
<br>
I would love to see some of the newer features, like display:table-cell, work across the board but I'm not going to lose sleep or hair over it.  Neither should you.  'Having' to spend extra time to develop cross-browser could very well translate into job stability anyway...</htmltext>
<tokenext>While I would like to see every browser support every web standard , as they are written , I 've yet to encounter a situation wherein a small change could n't be made to make any sites I 've coded work in FF 2&amp;3 , IE6 + , Opera , and Safari .
Having to code in substantial 'hacks ' , browser detection schemes , or similar workarounds tells me that the developer who thinks this is 'necessary ' either does n't have a good design for the page layout , is a pure standards idealist ( the kind who thinks that standards are a moral crusade akin to civil rights ) , or , potentially , works in an environment with a 200 + page coding standards book .
I would love to see some of the newer features , like display : table-cell , work across the board but I 'm not going to lose sleep or hair over it .
Neither should you .
'Having ' to spend extra time to develop cross-browser could very well translate into job stability anyway.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>While I would like to see every browser support every web standard, as they are written, I've yet to encounter a situation wherein a small change couldn't be made to make any sites I've coded work in FF 2&amp;3, IE6+, Opera, and Safari.
Having to code in substantial 'hacks', browser detection schemes, or similar workarounds tells me that the developer who thinks this is 'necessary' either doesn't have a good design for the page layout, is a pure standards idealist (the kind who thinks that standards are a moral crusade akin to civil rights), or, potentially, works in an environment with a 200+ page coding standards book.
I would love to see some of the newer features, like display:table-cell, work across the board but I'm not going to lose sleep or hair over it.
Neither should you.
'Having' to spend extra time to develop cross-browser could very well translate into job stability anyway...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183187</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 exists because of illegal Windows XP copies</title>
	<author>wkurzius</author>
	<datestamp>1243960680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Partially true, but I think anyone who's smart enough to pirate a copy of XP is also smart enough to not use IE6.  It's still there, but laying dormant.</p><p>In this case it's about active versions of IE6, like at the school I teach at.  They never upgraded to 7, and I'm not holding my breath on them rolling forward to 8 over the summer.  Lazy/reluctant IT and ignorant XP users are the reasons IE6 is clinging to life.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Partially true , but I think anyone who 's smart enough to pirate a copy of XP is also smart enough to not use IE6 .
It 's still there , but laying dormant.In this case it 's about active versions of IE6 , like at the school I teach at .
They never upgraded to 7 , and I 'm not holding my breath on them rolling forward to 8 over the summer .
Lazy/reluctant IT and ignorant XP users are the reasons IE6 is clinging to life .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Partially true, but I think anyone who's smart enough to pirate a copy of XP is also smart enough to not use IE6.
It's still there, but laying dormant.In this case it's about active versions of IE6, like at the school I teach at.
They never upgraded to 7, and I'm not holding my breath on them rolling forward to 8 over the summer.
Lazy/reluctant IT and ignorant XP users are the reasons IE6 is clinging to life.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182109</id>
	<title>IE6 will not die (true), FF overtakes IE (false).</title>
	<author>Khopesh</author>
	<datestamp>1243957080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is misrepresentative and a sign of false hope; IE has lost <b>no</b> ground to FF according to that chart:

</p><p>IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0\% share<br>
FF3 + FF2 + FF1 = 18.58 + 1.45  + 0.17 = 20.2\% share
</p><p> <b>This is unchanged</b> from the average (71.6\% v 19.84\%) or the oldest data in Dec '08 (70.8\% v 20.8\%).

</p><p>There is no growth here, just the obvious resistance to change in the corporate world, which will be more reflected in Windows (IE6) than anything else.

</p><p>.</p><p>We'll only really see the demise if IE6 when the corporate world fully adopts the next OS, which would be Windows 7, a year or three after its first service pack (assuming MS plays it smart).  That means we're stuck with IE6 for at least another 2-3 years.

</p><p>(Yes, I know that a large percentage of corporate deployments are still on Windows 2000.  If they're moving to XP but aren't already too far along, it will hopefully be with IE7 or IE8, or even something else entirely.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is misrepresentative and a sign of false hope ; IE has lost no ground to FF according to that chart : IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0 \ % share FF3 + FF2 + FF1 = 18.58 + 1.45 + 0.17 = 20.2 \ % share This is unchanged from the average ( 71.6 \ % v 19.84 \ % ) or the oldest data in Dec '08 ( 70.8 \ % v 20.8 \ % ) .
There is no growth here , just the obvious resistance to change in the corporate world , which will be more reflected in Windows ( IE6 ) than anything else .
.We 'll only really see the demise if IE6 when the corporate world fully adopts the next OS , which would be Windows 7 , a year or three after its first service pack ( assuming MS plays it smart ) .
That means we 're stuck with IE6 for at least another 2-3 years .
( Yes , I know that a large percentage of corporate deployments are still on Windows 2000 .
If they 're moving to XP but are n't already too far along , it will hopefully be with IE7 or IE8 , or even something else entirely .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is misrepresentative and a sign of false hope; IE has lost no ground to FF according to that chart:

IE7 + IE6 + IE8 = 43.51 + 18.23 + 8.26 = 70.0\% share
FF3 + FF2 + FF1 = 18.58 + 1.45  + 0.17 = 20.2\% share
 This is unchanged from the average (71.6\% v 19.84\%) or the oldest data in Dec '08 (70.8\% v 20.8\%).
There is no growth here, just the obvious resistance to change in the corporate world, which will be more reflected in Windows (IE6) than anything else.
.We'll only really see the demise if IE6 when the corporate world fully adopts the next OS, which would be Windows 7, a year or three after its first service pack (assuming MS plays it smart).
That means we're stuck with IE6 for at least another 2-3 years.
(Yes, I know that a large percentage of corporate deployments are still on Windows 2000.
If they're moving to XP but aren't already too far along, it will hopefully be with IE7 or IE8, or even something else entirely.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183825</id>
	<title>Portable Firefox = No Excuses to Use IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243963320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm tired of people complaining about how they're stuck with IE6 at their company and can't install other programs. Why not download Portable Firefox which requires no installation and use that?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm tired of people complaining about how they 're stuck with IE6 at their company and ca n't install other programs .
Why not download Portable Firefox which requires no installation and use that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm tired of people complaining about how they're stuck with IE6 at their company and can't install other programs.
Why not download Portable Firefox which requires no installation and use that?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185409</id>
	<title>Late to the party</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1243970040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. powers, I run IceWeasel and your website only works well with user-agent switched to IE6.  Remember when you point a finger at someine, three fingers point back at yourself.  Or whatever.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To the / .
powers , I run IceWeasel and your website only works well with user-agent switched to IE6 .
Remember when you point a finger at someine , three fingers point back at yourself .
Or whatever .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To the /.
powers, I run IceWeasel and your website only works well with user-agent switched to IE6.
Remember when you point a finger at someine, three fingers point back at yourself.
Or whatever.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182425
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183005
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182273
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28194801
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184079
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28206701
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181745
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28191183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28187211
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182299
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184631
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182605
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182303
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183327
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182695
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181677
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185261
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183019
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186615
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185711
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181643
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182263
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182355
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183509
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183143
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182153
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183505
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183573
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183765
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190215
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183031
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181903
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183187
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184391
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182193
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28194963
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181815
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181843
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181901
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182507
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181587
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181837
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181641
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184023
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182097
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183941
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183479
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182337
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182313
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183937
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190845
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190245
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183057
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184081
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182117
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182141
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184809
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28197995
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_02_134224_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186275
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181549
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181813
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181889
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190845
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182355
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181709
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183005
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182273
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28194801
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182695
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182299
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183505
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184079
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181683
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182499
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181815
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183031
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181843
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181903
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181587
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181837
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182193
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181999
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183825
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181537
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182699
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181583
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28194963
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190215
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182153
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182337
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182313
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183941
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28187211
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181641
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183509
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184023
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181533
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182109
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184073
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181901
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182507
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181643
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182263
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181535
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182219
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184531
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182605
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184809
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185711
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181715
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182117
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28206701
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184631
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183143
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183057
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186199
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183187
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28190245
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183327
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183525
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184231
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183765
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184391
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28184081
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181833
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182101
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28185261
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28197995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183479
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186615
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181467
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181873
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181789
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28186275
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183573
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28183937
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181559
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182425
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28191183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181677
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28182729
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_02_134224.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_02_134224.28181707
</commentlist>
</conversation>
