<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_02_10_0056257</id>
	<title>Is Internet Explorer 6/7 Support Required Now?</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1265829720000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>k33l0r writes <i>"Following Google's announcement <a href="//tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/30/1315226/Google-To-End-Support-For-IE6">ending support for Internet Explorer 6</a>, I find myself wondering whether we (Web developers) really need to continue providing support for IE6 and IE7. Especially when creating Web sites intended for technical audiences, wouldn't it be best to end support for obsoleted browsers? Would this not provide additional incentives to upgrade? Recently I and my colleagues had to decide whether it was worth our time to try to support anything before IE8, and in the end we decided to redirect any IE6/7 user-agent to a separate page explaining that the site is not accessible with IE 6 or 7. This was easy once we saw from our analytics that fewer than 5\% of visitors to the site were using IE at all. Have you had to make a choice like this? If so, what was your decision and what was the reasoning behind it?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>k33l0r writes " Following Google 's announcement ending support for Internet Explorer 6 , I find myself wondering whether we ( Web developers ) really need to continue providing support for IE6 and IE7 .
Especially when creating Web sites intended for technical audiences , would n't it be best to end support for obsoleted browsers ?
Would this not provide additional incentives to upgrade ?
Recently I and my colleagues had to decide whether it was worth our time to try to support anything before IE8 , and in the end we decided to redirect any IE6/7 user-agent to a separate page explaining that the site is not accessible with IE 6 or 7 .
This was easy once we saw from our analytics that fewer than 5 \ % of visitors to the site were using IE at all .
Have you had to make a choice like this ?
If so , what was your decision and what was the reasoning behind it ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>k33l0r writes "Following Google's announcement ending support for Internet Explorer 6, I find myself wondering whether we (Web developers) really need to continue providing support for IE6 and IE7.
Especially when creating Web sites intended for technical audiences, wouldn't it be best to end support for obsoleted browsers?
Would this not provide additional incentives to upgrade?
Recently I and my colleagues had to decide whether it was worth our time to try to support anything before IE8, and in the end we decided to redirect any IE6/7 user-agent to a separate page explaining that the site is not accessible with IE 6 or 7.
This was easy once we saw from our analytics that fewer than 5\% of visitors to the site were using IE at all.
Have you had to make a choice like this?
If so, what was your decision and what was the reasoning behind it?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085360</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Draek</author>
	<datestamp>1265038320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>"Popular" is subjective. I even consider Opera to be such, but there's no inherent contradiction in those that don't consider IE6 to be worth caring for.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" Popular " is subjective .
I even consider Opera to be such , but there 's no inherent contradiction in those that do n't consider IE6 to be worth caring for .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Popular" is subjective.
I even consider Opera to be such, but there's no inherent contradiction in those that don't consider IE6 to be worth caring for.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083252</id>
	<title>Well</title>
	<author>Muskstick</author>
	<datestamp>1265017860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I just started working for a governement agency and we only support IE6 apparently.

Working with JSF/ICEfaces atm.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I just started working for a governement agency and we only support IE6 apparently .
Working with JSF/ICEfaces atm .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just started working for a governement agency and we only support IE6 apparently.
Working with JSF/ICEfaces atm.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</id>
	<title>Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>ResQuad</author>
	<datestamp>1265056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Depends on your clients.  If you're talking about a mostly technical crowd? No, probably don't need IE6.  If you're talking about a site for corporate users, yea, you need IE6.  There are many major companies out there still running IE6 on XP.  It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter.  Oh and if you're trying to sell people something, then most likely yet again.</p><p>Of course it all depends on what your usage stats/analytic say.  Personally, I've not supported IE6 for a long time, but then on most of my sites Firefox is more than 50\% of the market.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Depends on your clients .
If you 're talking about a mostly technical crowd ?
No , probably do n't need IE6 .
If you 're talking about a site for corporate users , yea , you need IE6 .
There are many major companies out there still running IE6 on XP .
It sucks , they should all switch to Firefox ( Or Chrome , or Opera , or anything but IE ) , but unfortunately most do n't have a choice in the matter .
Oh and if you 're trying to sell people something , then most likely yet again.Of course it all depends on what your usage stats/analytic say .
Personally , I 've not supported IE6 for a long time , but then on most of my sites Firefox is more than 50 \ % of the market .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Depends on your clients.
If you're talking about a mostly technical crowd?
No, probably don't need IE6.
If you're talking about a site for corporate users, yea, you need IE6.
There are many major companies out there still running IE6 on XP.
It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter.
Oh and if you're trying to sell people something, then most likely yet again.Of course it all depends on what your usage stats/analytic say.
Personally, I've not supported IE6 for a long time, but then on most of my sites Firefox is more than 50\% of the market.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084108</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ah but that's why browser vendors like Opera, Apple, Google, Mozilla have had their paws all over HTML5- to make all the fucked up stuff they've done over the years part of the standard! See the introduction of marquee into the standard as a deprecated element for example, when previously, it was simply just never part of the standard.</p><p>Unfortunately, in letting browser developers with their history of an inability to adhere to the standards control the spec, we've ended up with something that may well be great for them, but is shit for professional web application developers who want a clean, extensible spec.</p><p>At least people have got canvas and a half arsed video tag to play with though I suppose, which seems to have been enough to pacify most people into ignoring the plethora of bad decisions that plague the spec.</p><p>Really, the biggest problem with web standards IS browser developers, so the fact they've been allowed to molest the HTML spec, rather than be forced to grow the fuck up and start complying with the standards is a sad reflection of the way the web has evolved. Web standards should support web developers, not browser vendors, but as it stands, it's a real step backwards from modern good practice development ideology that XHTML followed a little better, even if XHTML2 itself was a poor implementation.</p><p>So really, however you cut it, the web has to support browsers, rather than browsers being a tool to support the web. I like you agree, a nice clean, standards based approach would be ideal, but even that's been shafted now by the merging of bad browser practices into the official standards.</p><p>You only have to compare HTML5 to other more professionally developed standards through the years like XML to see what a horrible spec it is, bloated with crap, encouraging bad practice, and not forward thinking enough in some areas.</p><p>Really, it's a shame browsers are so essential to the web, because they're also the biggest problem for it plagued by years of bad security models, proprietary features, refusal to comply with standards and so forth.</p><p>I hoped the opening up of the market as Firefox originally broke through IE6's monopoly was a good start towards a better web, but on the contrary, it seems to have got worse, and browsers seem to be getting ever more bloated.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ah but that 's why browser vendors like Opera , Apple , Google , Mozilla have had their paws all over HTML5- to make all the fucked up stuff they 've done over the years part of the standard !
See the introduction of marquee into the standard as a deprecated element for example , when previously , it was simply just never part of the standard.Unfortunately , in letting browser developers with their history of an inability to adhere to the standards control the spec , we 've ended up with something that may well be great for them , but is shit for professional web application developers who want a clean , extensible spec.At least people have got canvas and a half arsed video tag to play with though I suppose , which seems to have been enough to pacify most people into ignoring the plethora of bad decisions that plague the spec.Really , the biggest problem with web standards IS browser developers , so the fact they 've been allowed to molest the HTML spec , rather than be forced to grow the fuck up and start complying with the standards is a sad reflection of the way the web has evolved .
Web standards should support web developers , not browser vendors , but as it stands , it 's a real step backwards from modern good practice development ideology that XHTML followed a little better , even if XHTML2 itself was a poor implementation.So really , however you cut it , the web has to support browsers , rather than browsers being a tool to support the web .
I like you agree , a nice clean , standards based approach would be ideal , but even that 's been shafted now by the merging of bad browser practices into the official standards.You only have to compare HTML5 to other more professionally developed standards through the years like XML to see what a horrible spec it is , bloated with crap , encouraging bad practice , and not forward thinking enough in some areas.Really , it 's a shame browsers are so essential to the web , because they 're also the biggest problem for it plagued by years of bad security models , proprietary features , refusal to comply with standards and so forth.I hoped the opening up of the market as Firefox originally broke through IE6 's monopoly was a good start towards a better web , but on the contrary , it seems to have got worse , and browsers seem to be getting ever more bloated .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ah but that's why browser vendors like Opera, Apple, Google, Mozilla have had their paws all over HTML5- to make all the fucked up stuff they've done over the years part of the standard!
See the introduction of marquee into the standard as a deprecated element for example, when previously, it was simply just never part of the standard.Unfortunately, in letting browser developers with their history of an inability to adhere to the standards control the spec, we've ended up with something that may well be great for them, but is shit for professional web application developers who want a clean, extensible spec.At least people have got canvas and a half arsed video tag to play with though I suppose, which seems to have been enough to pacify most people into ignoring the plethora of bad decisions that plague the spec.Really, the biggest problem with web standards IS browser developers, so the fact they've been allowed to molest the HTML spec, rather than be forced to grow the fuck up and start complying with the standards is a sad reflection of the way the web has evolved.
Web standards should support web developers, not browser vendors, but as it stands, it's a real step backwards from modern good practice development ideology that XHTML followed a little better, even if XHTML2 itself was a poor implementation.So really, however you cut it, the web has to support browsers, rather than browsers being a tool to support the web.
I like you agree, a nice clean, standards based approach would be ideal, but even that's been shafted now by the merging of bad browser practices into the official standards.You only have to compare HTML5 to other more professionally developed standards through the years like XML to see what a horrible spec it is, bloated with crap, encouraging bad practice, and not forward thinking enough in some areas.Really, it's a shame browsers are so essential to the web, because they're also the biggest problem for it plagued by years of bad security models, proprietary features, refusal to comply with standards and so forth.I hoped the opening up of the market as Firefox originally broke through IE6's monopoly was a good start towards a better web, but on the contrary, it seems to have got worse, and browsers seem to be getting ever more bloated.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31098210</id>
	<title>Be Pragmatic</title>
	<author>jeffrlamb</author>
	<datestamp>1265894700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>One of our four Core Values is "Be Pragmatic." We're a custom web development shop. For us the decision was easy. We figured out what supporting IE6 was costing in terms of extra time and effort in development and testing up front, what it was costing in terms of features we weren't able to deliver to clients, and what it was costing in incompatibility bugs and fixes going forward. This was a cost that we would have to pass along to our customers. It just didn't make any sense, even if IE6 use stayed high, it wasn't worth the cost. Eight months ago we dropped support for it, put the language in our contracts, and build IE6 detectors to notify users of IE6 in a friendly way that they shouldn't expect the site to function properly, but they were welcome to try to fight their way through it. We make sure we point it out to customers before they engaged with us and when challenged on it we explained that we were doing it to save them money and deliver a broader feature set to the majority of their audience. It has been a resounding success for us and our customers.</htmltext>
<tokenext>One of our four Core Values is " Be Pragmatic .
" We 're a custom web development shop .
For us the decision was easy .
We figured out what supporting IE6 was costing in terms of extra time and effort in development and testing up front , what it was costing in terms of features we were n't able to deliver to clients , and what it was costing in incompatibility bugs and fixes going forward .
This was a cost that we would have to pass along to our customers .
It just did n't make any sense , even if IE6 use stayed high , it was n't worth the cost .
Eight months ago we dropped support for it , put the language in our contracts , and build IE6 detectors to notify users of IE6 in a friendly way that they should n't expect the site to function properly , but they were welcome to try to fight their way through it .
We make sure we point it out to customers before they engaged with us and when challenged on it we explained that we were doing it to save them money and deliver a broader feature set to the majority of their audience .
It has been a resounding success for us and our customers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>One of our four Core Values is "Be Pragmatic.
" We're a custom web development shop.
For us the decision was easy.
We figured out what supporting IE6 was costing in terms of extra time and effort in development and testing up front, what it was costing in terms of features we weren't able to deliver to clients, and what it was costing in incompatibility bugs and fixes going forward.
This was a cost that we would have to pass along to our customers.
It just didn't make any sense, even if IE6 use stayed high, it wasn't worth the cost.
Eight months ago we dropped support for it, put the language in our contracts, and build IE6 detectors to notify users of IE6 in a friendly way that they shouldn't expect the site to function properly, but they were welcome to try to fight their way through it.
We make sure we point it out to customers before they engaged with us and when challenged on it we explained that we were doing it to save them money and deliver a broader feature set to the majority of their audience.
It has been a resounding success for us and our customers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086160</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and No</title>
	<author>FooAtWFU</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company has just reached the point where the developers have permission to break IE6 on the fancy-new drag-n-drop customizable-homepage-layout for our application and other similar features. For new features like that, IE7+ is fine going forward.<p>
We're in the tens-of-thousands to millions-of-dollars off-the-shelf software segment, for what that's worth.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My company has just reached the point where the developers have permission to break IE6 on the fancy-new drag-n-drop customizable-homepage-layout for our application and other similar features .
For new features like that , IE7 + is fine going forward .
We 're in the tens-of-thousands to millions-of-dollars off-the-shelf software segment , for what that 's worth .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company has just reached the point where the developers have permission to break IE6 on the fancy-new drag-n-drop customizable-homepage-layout for our application and other similar features.
For new features like that, IE7+ is fine going forward.
We're in the tens-of-thousands to millions-of-dollars off-the-shelf software segment, for what that's worth.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083782</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>am 2k</author>
	<datestamp>1265025060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p> Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible...</p></div><p>How do you explain something like Mirror's Edge then?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers , who would never dare to do something innovative , edgy , fresh or even slightly offending , to get a target group as big as possible...How do you explain something like Mirror 's Edge then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible...How do you explain something like Mirror's Edge then?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082826</id>
	<title>Simple answer: no.</title>
	<author>eparker05</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Pages directed at 'technical audiences' often are composed of vanilla HTML and/or links to PDF files. There are of course exceptions to this, but a large proportion of the pages you described would easily support every modern browser.</p><p>For the exceptions to this, I think that there comes a point where it does not make sense to continue support for legacy systems. Now seems to be a good time to end support for old versions of IE, since this recent security fiasco that has put greater attention on upgrading to more secure browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Pages directed at 'technical audiences ' often are composed of vanilla HTML and/or links to PDF files .
There are of course exceptions to this , but a large proportion of the pages you described would easily support every modern browser.For the exceptions to this , I think that there comes a point where it does not make sense to continue support for legacy systems .
Now seems to be a good time to end support for old versions of IE , since this recent security fiasco that has put greater attention on upgrading to more secure browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Pages directed at 'technical audiences' often are composed of vanilla HTML and/or links to PDF files.
There are of course exceptions to this, but a large proportion of the pages you described would easily support every modern browser.For the exceptions to this, I think that there comes a point where it does not make sense to continue support for legacy systems.
Now seems to be a good time to end support for old versions of IE, since this recent security fiasco that has put greater attention on upgrading to more secure browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082800</id>
	<title>6\% of users on IE6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm seeing about 12\% of IE users (6\% of all users) on IE6. Almost none on IE5 and below. I would say dump IE5, but make IE6 usable at a minimum.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm seeing about 12 \ % of IE users ( 6 \ % of all users ) on IE6 .
Almost none on IE5 and below .
I would say dump IE5 , but make IE6 usable at a minimum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm seeing about 12\% of IE users (6\% of all users) on IE6.
Almost none on IE5 and below.
I would say dump IE5, but make IE6 usable at a minimum.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083430</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Nitewing98</author>
	<datestamp>1265019960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree. If you apply standards that all browsers should support, you'll also be friendly to other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, etc. There's no reason to have to build separate pages and do redirects (or detect browser in PHP and cough up different page code).  The whole point of HTML is that it should render in any browser (which includes Lynx, too).

As a Mac user, I'm glad to see the web lose its Microsoft-centric view of the world.  Firefox (which owes it's history to Netscape) finally put a dent in Microsoft's armor so others could succeed too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
If you apply standards that all browsers should support , you 'll also be friendly to other browsers like Firefox , Safari , Konqueror , Opera , etc .
There 's no reason to have to build separate pages and do redirects ( or detect browser in PHP and cough up different page code ) .
The whole point of HTML is that it should render in any browser ( which includes Lynx , too ) .
As a Mac user , I 'm glad to see the web lose its Microsoft-centric view of the world .
Firefox ( which owes it 's history to Netscape ) finally put a dent in Microsoft 's armor so others could succeed too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
If you apply standards that all browsers should support, you'll also be friendly to other browsers like Firefox, Safari, Konqueror, Opera, etc.
There's no reason to have to build separate pages and do redirects (or detect browser in PHP and cough up different page code).
The whole point of HTML is that it should render in any browser (which includes Lynx, too).
As a Mac user, I'm glad to see the web lose its Microsoft-centric view of the world.
Firefox (which owes it's history to Netscape) finally put a dent in Microsoft's armor so others could succeed too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084120</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Thanks, but no thanks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Thanks , but no thanks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Thanks, but no thanks.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086170</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>westlake</author>
	<datestamp>1265042040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>So if you think that they should switch, then just code close to the standards. If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years.</i> </p><p>It's a pity "the recent browser" only checks spelling but not grammar.</p><p>Moving on...</p><p>The pro - by definition - builds websites to serve his client's interests, not his own.</p><p>The client decides whether he wants and needs IE 6 support.</p><p>The corporate client may be more interested in maintaining his in-house enterprise apps then in "freakin' great" HTML 5, a work in progress since June of 2004:</p><p><i>Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification, expects the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and W3C Recommendation <b> <i>in the year 2022 or later.</i></b> </i> However, many parts of the specification are stable and may be implemented in products.<br>According to the W3C timetable, it is estimated that HTML5 will reach W3C Recommendation by late 2010. However, the First Public Working Draft estimate was missed with 8 months, and Last Call and Candidate Recommendation were expected to be reached in 2008 but as of late 2009 HTML5 had not reached W3C Last Call. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5" title="wikipedia.org">HTML5</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>
&nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So if you think that they should switch , then just code close to the standards .
If they want to use their site , it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser , and they know it for years .
It 's a pity " the recent browser " only checks spelling but not grammar.Moving on...The pro - by definition - builds websites to serve his client 's interests , not his own.The client decides whether he wants and needs IE 6 support.The corporate client may be more interested in maintaining his in-house enterprise apps then in " freakin ' great " HTML 5 , a work in progress since June of 2004 : Ian Hickson , editor of the HTML5 specification , expects the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012 , and W3C Recommendation in the year 2022 or later .
However , many parts of the specification are stable and may be implemented in products.According to the W3C timetable , it is estimated that HTML5 will reach W3C Recommendation by late 2010 .
However , the First Public Working Draft estimate was missed with 8 months , and Last Call and Candidate Recommendation were expected to be reached in 2008 but as of late 2009 HTML5 had not reached W3C Last Call .
HTML5 [ wikipedia.org ]  </tokentext>
<sentencetext>So if you think that they should switch, then just code close to the standards.
If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years.
It's a pity "the recent browser" only checks spelling but not grammar.Moving on...The pro - by definition - builds websites to serve his client's interests, not his own.The client decides whether he wants and needs IE 6 support.The corporate client may be more interested in maintaining his in-house enterprise apps then in "freakin' great" HTML 5, a work in progress since June of 2004:Ian Hickson, editor of the HTML5 specification, expects the specification to reach the W3C Candidate Recommendation stage during 2012, and W3C Recommendation  in the year 2022 or later.
However, many parts of the specification are stable and may be implemented in products.According to the W3C timetable, it is estimated that HTML5 will reach W3C Recommendation by late 2010.
However, the First Public Working Draft estimate was missed with 8 months, and Last Call and Candidate Recommendation were expected to be reached in 2008 but as of late 2009 HTML5 had not reached W3C Last Call.
HTML5 [wikipedia.org]
 </sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083440</id>
	<title>NO REDIRECTS</title>
	<author>leuk\_he</author>
	<datestamp>1265020140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>DONT FORCE PEOPLE. SHOW A BANNER SOMEWHERE.</p><p>probably 95\% of a site will render correct under a obsolete browser. Don't force people do to large technical stuff (like downloading) to show 5\%. Most of those obsolete browsers are in locked down offices, where people cannot install software.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>DONT FORCE PEOPLE .
SHOW A BANNER SOMEWHERE.probably 95 \ % of a site will render correct under a obsolete browser .
Do n't force people do to large technical stuff ( like downloading ) to show 5 \ % .
Most of those obsolete browsers are in locked down offices , where people can not install software .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>DONT FORCE PEOPLE.
SHOW A BANNER SOMEWHERE.probably 95\% of a site will render correct under a obsolete browser.
Don't force people do to large technical stuff (like downloading) to show 5\%.
Most of those obsolete browsers are in locked down offices, where people cannot install software.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083814</id>
	<title>very simply.</title>
	<author>Danzigism</author>
	<datestamp>1265025360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <tt> &lt;!--[if lt IE 7]&gt;<br> &lt;script type="text/javascript"&gt;<br> alert('Thanks for visiting! We have detected an outdated version of Internet Explorer on your computer. It is recommended that you upgrade your browser to view this site properly and to correct any security flaws on your system.');<br> &lt;/script&gt;</tt></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Regardless of what people actually *need* Internet 7 or below for, it has major security flaws. If it is one thing my customers want to know, it is how to better protect themselves.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>alert ( 'Thanks for visiting !
We have detected an outdated version of Internet Explorer on your computer .
It is recommended that you upgrade your browser to view this site properly and to correct any security flaws on your system .
' ) ; Regardless of what people actually * need * Internet 7 or below for , it has major security flaws .
If it is one thing my customers want to know , it is how to better protect themselves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>    alert('Thanks for visiting!
We have detected an outdated version of Internet Explorer on your computer.
It is recommended that you upgrade your browser to view this site properly and to correct any security flaws on your system.
');  
Regardless of what people actually *need* Internet 7 or below for, it has major security flaws.
If it is one thing my customers want to know, it is how to better protect themselves.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085614</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Inda</author>
	<datestamp>1265039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I cannot bypass "Cisco Security Agent"! I cannot run any executables! Although the silly fuckers still let me write VB that lets me hook into almost everything!<br><br>Oh, yeah, I have to use IE6 too.<br><br>How can I disable "Cisco Security Agent"?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I can not bypass " Cisco Security Agent " !
I can not run any executables !
Although the silly fuckers still let me write VB that lets me hook into almost everything ! Oh , yeah , I have to use IE6 too.How can I disable " Cisco Security Agent " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I cannot bypass "Cisco Security Agent"!
I cannot run any executables!
Although the silly fuckers still let me write VB that lets me hook into almost everything!Oh, yeah, I have to use IE6 too.How can I disable "Cisco Security Agent"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084166</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083790</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>imakemusic</author>
	<datestamp>1265025120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Absolutely this. I'm the webmaster for a town planning consultancy. The company deals with a lot of councils around the UK most of which use IE so the stats are as follows:</p><p>IE8: 25\%<br>IE7: 20\%<br>IE6: 12\%<br>IE total: 57\%<br>Firefox: 15\%</p><p>Now compare this to another site that I run for a local (trendy graffiti-type) art gallery/shop:</p><p>IE8: 16\%<br>IE7: 12\%<br>IE6: 5\%<br>IE total: 33\%<br>Firefox: 40\%</p><p>I've taken the time to make sure that they both work in IE6-8, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera because the site's are simple enough and don't contain much JavaScript but the point is that dropping IE6 support from the gallery site would have less of an impact than dropping it from the planners site.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Absolutely this .
I 'm the webmaster for a town planning consultancy .
The company deals with a lot of councils around the UK most of which use IE so the stats are as follows : IE8 : 25 \ % IE7 : 20 \ % IE6 : 12 \ % IE total : 57 \ % Firefox : 15 \ % Now compare this to another site that I run for a local ( trendy graffiti-type ) art gallery/shop : IE8 : 16 \ % IE7 : 12 \ % IE6 : 5 \ % IE total : 33 \ % Firefox : 40 \ % I 've taken the time to make sure that they both work in IE6-8 , Firefox , Safari , Chrome and Opera because the site 's are simple enough and do n't contain much JavaScript but the point is that dropping IE6 support from the gallery site would have less of an impact than dropping it from the planners site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Absolutely this.
I'm the webmaster for a town planning consultancy.
The company deals with a lot of councils around the UK most of which use IE so the stats are as follows:IE8: 25\%IE7: 20\%IE6: 12\%IE total: 57\%Firefox: 15\%Now compare this to another site that I run for a local (trendy graffiti-type) art gallery/shop:IE8: 16\%IE7: 12\%IE6: 5\%IE total: 33\%Firefox: 40\%I've taken the time to make sure that they both work in IE6-8, Firefox, Safari, Chrome and Opera because the site's are simple enough and don't contain much JavaScript but the point is that dropping IE6 support from the gallery site would have less of an impact than dropping it from the planners site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085414</id>
	<title>Because</title>
	<author>ubrgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The client demands it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The client demands it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The client demands it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083644</id>
	<title>Re:Measure it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Germany IE6 has about 5\% market share (ff total: ~60\%, ie total: ~30, statcounter.com) so<br>for any <em>typical</em> website you would be nuts to put up with the effort to support IE6 for so few visitors.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Germany IE6 has about 5 \ % market share ( ff total : ~ 60 \ % , ie total : ~ 30 , statcounter.com ) sofor any typical website you would be nuts to put up with the effort to support IE6 for so few visitors .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Germany IE6 has about 5\% market share (ff total: ~60\%, ie total: ~30, statcounter.com) sofor any typical website you would be nuts to put up with the effort to support IE6 for so few visitors.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084860</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>netsavior</author>
	<datestamp>1265035860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>250k employees here, we migrated to [b]IE7[/b] from IE6 LAST WEEK.</htmltext>
<tokenext>250k employees here , we migrated to [ b ] IE7 [ /b ] from IE6 LAST WEEK .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>250k employees here, we migrated to [b]IE7[/b] from IE6 LAST WEEK.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085806</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why did you configure IE8 to identify as IE6 instead of just adding your intranet domains to the compatibility view list or just checking the "display intranet sites in Compatibility View" option?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why did you configure IE8 to identify as IE6 instead of just adding your intranet domains to the compatibility view list or just checking the " display intranet sites in Compatibility View " option ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why did you configure IE8 to identify as IE6 instead of just adding your intranet domains to the compatibility view list or just checking the "display intranet sites in Compatibility View" option?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083076</id>
	<title>It's not your decision</title>
	<author>obarthelemy</author>
	<datestamp>1265015580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a developer, you need to do what the bosses ask of you. You may argue a bit about it at the beginning, especially if you can back your argument up (vulnerabilities, extra costs, missing features...), but once the choice is made you've got to suck it up.</p><p>My brother works for one of those infamous IE6-bound large corps. It hurts them quite badly (to the point where most users have installed firefox on the side and try and use it whenever it works), but they've got so much specific stuff (activeX controls,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.NET, just plian web stuff) invested in IE6 that switching would be a multimillion-dollar proposition. They're reluctant to even start phasing it out for new developments, since that would mean supporting 2 browsers instead of just the one.</p><p>Now, if you're your own boss and got a choice, you need to think carefully about who your users are, how willing they'll be to change browsers just for you...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a developer , you need to do what the bosses ask of you .
You may argue a bit about it at the beginning , especially if you can back your argument up ( vulnerabilities , extra costs , missing features... ) , but once the choice is made you 've got to suck it up.My brother works for one of those infamous IE6-bound large corps .
It hurts them quite badly ( to the point where most users have installed firefox on the side and try and use it whenever it works ) , but they 've got so much specific stuff ( activeX controls , .NET , just plian web stuff ) invested in IE6 that switching would be a multimillion-dollar proposition .
They 're reluctant to even start phasing it out for new developments , since that would mean supporting 2 browsers instead of just the one.Now , if you 're your own boss and got a choice , you need to think carefully about who your users are , how willing they 'll be to change browsers just for you.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a developer, you need to do what the bosses ask of you.
You may argue a bit about it at the beginning, especially if you can back your argument up (vulnerabilities, extra costs, missing features...), but once the choice is made you've got to suck it up.My brother works for one of those infamous IE6-bound large corps.
It hurts them quite badly (to the point where most users have installed firefox on the side and try and use it whenever it works), but they've got so much specific stuff (activeX controls, .NET, just plian web stuff) invested in IE6 that switching would be a multimillion-dollar proposition.
They're reluctant to even start phasing it out for new developments, since that would mean supporting 2 browsers instead of just the one.Now, if you're your own boss and got a choice, you need to think carefully about who your users are, how willing they'll be to change browsers just for you...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265021700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's even worse than pointless. I'm typing this on IE8, but it identifies itself as 6 to appease some of the dreadful apps used on the intranet. So even though the browser should be perfectly capable of rendering the site, filtering based on browser version will lose yet another set of potential eyeballs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's even worse than pointless .
I 'm typing this on IE8 , but it identifies itself as 6 to appease some of the dreadful apps used on the intranet .
So even though the browser should be perfectly capable of rendering the site , filtering based on browser version will lose yet another set of potential eyeballs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's even worse than pointless.
I'm typing this on IE8, but it identifies itself as 6 to appease some of the dreadful apps used on the intranet.
So even though the browser should be perfectly capable of rendering the site, filtering based on browser version will lose yet another set of potential eyeballs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083730</id>
	<title>Re:Measure it...</title>
	<author>JasterBobaMereel</author>
	<datestamp>1265024280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If it is only a small percentage that are using IE6 (or IE) then you should warn them and then make the page work at least minimally</p><p>The same goes for other "minority" browsers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... make sure it is usable, if only in a minimal fashion<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If it is only a small percentage that are using IE6 ( or IE ) then you should warn them and then make the page work at least minimallyThe same goes for other " minority " browsers ... make sure it is usable , if only in a minimal fashion .. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If it is only a small percentage that are using IE6 (or IE) then you should warn them and then make the page work at least minimallyThe same goes for other "minority" browsers ... make sure it is usable, if only in a minimal fashion ...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083924</id>
	<title>Heavy handed but, no absolutely not</title>
	<author>Phlatline\_ATL</author>
	<datestamp>1265026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a bit totalitarian about this. I believe that the web should be as CLOSE to the standard as possible.  If there are alternatives that are better than IE6/7 now, then by Zeus make sure that people know about it if the page their viewing b0rks out.</p><p>I have hated having to code around problems of rendering with IE at the expense of other browsers which render closer to the standard.</p><p>Just my<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.02 euros (or whatever dominant currency we have now)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a bit totalitarian about this .
I believe that the web should be as CLOSE to the standard as possible .
If there are alternatives that are better than IE6/7 now , then by Zeus make sure that people know about it if the page their viewing b0rks out.I have hated having to code around problems of rendering with IE at the expense of other browsers which render closer to the standard.Just my .02 euros ( or whatever dominant currency we have now )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a bit totalitarian about this.
I believe that the web should be as CLOSE to the standard as possible.
If there are alternatives that are better than IE6/7 now, then by Zeus make sure that people know about it if the page their viewing b0rks out.I have hated having to code around problems of rendering with IE at the expense of other browsers which render closer to the standard.Just my .02 euros (or whatever dominant currency we have now)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083578</id>
	<title>Why would you</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you support previous versions of any web browser, do you still explicitly support older versions of Opera, Chrome, Safari, or Firefox?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you support previous versions of any web browser , do you still explicitly support older versions of Opera , Chrome , Safari , or Firefox ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you support previous versions of any web browser, do you still explicitly support older versions of Opera, Chrome, Safari, or Firefox?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</id>
	<title>Corporations.</title>
	<author>jedrek</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's what it comes down to: corporations. There are still too many 10,000+ employee corporations out there that run Windows XP with the Flash 7 plug-in and IE6. You have to support that or there is no client.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's what it comes down to : corporations .
There are still too many 10,000 + employee corporations out there that run Windows XP with the Flash 7 plug-in and IE6 .
You have to support that or there is no client .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's what it comes down to: corporations.
There are still too many 10,000+ employee corporations out there that run Windows XP with the Flash 7 plug-in and IE6.
You have to support that or there is no client.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083108</id>
	<title>Re:sometimes users don't control their machines</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1265016000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I'd be pretty annoyed when it wasn't my fault I couldn't access it because I'm not allowed to update my own machine.</p></div></blockquote><p>Which would put pressure on to admins to fix it...</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd be pretty annoyed when it was n't my fault I could n't access it because I 'm not allowed to update my own machine.Which would put pressure on to admins to fix it.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd be pretty annoyed when it wasn't my fault I couldn't access it because I'm not allowed to update my own machine.Which would put pressure on to admins to fix it...
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089064</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265053800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My employer also happens to use Sharepoint (luckily I don't have to use it), it's not even the latest version and it works fine in IE7. What sort of ancient version are you running and why doesn't your company upgrade like I'm sure MS would love for you to do?
<br> <br>
Could it be that your company doesn't make that much money because it uses old horrid software and can't keep up with the times and therefore is just waiting to die off?
<br> <br>
Sites should block IE6. Fuck 'em. If it's so important for your job to keep IE6 then stay on your shitty intranet apps and quit ruining the internet for the rest of us.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer also happens to use Sharepoint ( luckily I do n't have to use it ) , it 's not even the latest version and it works fine in IE7 .
What sort of ancient version are you running and why does n't your company upgrade like I 'm sure MS would love for you to do ?
Could it be that your company does n't make that much money because it uses old horrid software and ca n't keep up with the times and therefore is just waiting to die off ?
Sites should block IE6 .
Fuck 'em .
If it 's so important for your job to keep IE6 then stay on your shitty intranet apps and quit ruining the internet for the rest of us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer also happens to use Sharepoint (luckily I don't have to use it), it's not even the latest version and it works fine in IE7.
What sort of ancient version are you running and why doesn't your company upgrade like I'm sure MS would love for you to do?
Could it be that your company doesn't make that much money because it uses old horrid software and can't keep up with the times and therefore is just waiting to die off?
Sites should block IE6.
Fuck 'em.
If it's so important for your job to keep IE6 then stay on your shitty intranet apps and quit ruining the internet for the rest of us.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084356</id>
	<title>Re:Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1265031660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If no one in an organization understands how some home grown widget works any longer, I should think one could make a case for that widget being replaced by a modern widget that conforms to internet standards so that the next upgrade won't break it and leave them screwed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If no one in an organization understands how some home grown widget works any longer , I should think one could make a case for that widget being replaced by a modern widget that conforms to internet standards so that the next upgrade wo n't break it and leave them screwed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If no one in an organization understands how some home grown widget works any longer, I should think one could make a case for that widget being replaced by a modern widget that conforms to internet standards so that the next upgrade won't break it and leave them screwed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086962</id>
	<title>People change</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1265045400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Contrary to popular opinion, people <b>do</b> change. Their friends, their habits, but also their browsers.</p><p>How do I know? I've been running <a href="http://battlemaster.org/" title="battlemaster.org">this website</a> [battlemaster.org] for the past eight or so years. As soon as it got the first CSS bits like six years ago, I decided to not support IE <b>at all</b>, no version of it. Instead, I captured IE users and told them when they were about to access a page that wouldn't work on their browser, told them why (e.g. no support for transparent PNGs, buggy CSS implementation, whatever) and gave them a link to access it anyways (e.g. in case they were using a real browser just masquerading as IE).</p><p>My browser statistics show that usage of IE dropped sharply, while user count has steadily increased. Since this is a trend constant over several years (IE is currently at 15.7\%) it isn't an anomaly, either.</p><p>The summary of it is that if you give people a <b>reason</b> to change, they will. Most people use IE because they are lazy. It came with the system and they aren't really familiar with this com-pu-ter thing, so installing a different browser frightens them somewhat, no matter how easy it is. But give them an incentive and they'll do it.</p><p>I'm certain the same holds true for moving them from IE6/7 to IE8 (or any alternative).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Contrary to popular opinion , people do change .
Their friends , their habits , but also their browsers.How do I know ?
I 've been running this website [ battlemaster.org ] for the past eight or so years .
As soon as it got the first CSS bits like six years ago , I decided to not support IE at all , no version of it .
Instead , I captured IE users and told them when they were about to access a page that would n't work on their browser , told them why ( e.g .
no support for transparent PNGs , buggy CSS implementation , whatever ) and gave them a link to access it anyways ( e.g .
in case they were using a real browser just masquerading as IE ) .My browser statistics show that usage of IE dropped sharply , while user count has steadily increased .
Since this is a trend constant over several years ( IE is currently at 15.7 \ % ) it is n't an anomaly , either.The summary of it is that if you give people a reason to change , they will .
Most people use IE because they are lazy .
It came with the system and they are n't really familiar with this com-pu-ter thing , so installing a different browser frightens them somewhat , no matter how easy it is .
But give them an incentive and they 'll do it.I 'm certain the same holds true for moving them from IE6/7 to IE8 ( or any alternative ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Contrary to popular opinion, people do change.
Their friends, their habits, but also their browsers.How do I know?
I've been running this website [battlemaster.org] for the past eight or so years.
As soon as it got the first CSS bits like six years ago, I decided to not support IE at all, no version of it.
Instead, I captured IE users and told them when they were about to access a page that wouldn't work on their browser, told them why (e.g.
no support for transparent PNGs, buggy CSS implementation, whatever) and gave them a link to access it anyways (e.g.
in case they were using a real browser just masquerading as IE).My browser statistics show that usage of IE dropped sharply, while user count has steadily increased.
Since this is a trend constant over several years (IE is currently at 15.7\%) it isn't an anomaly, either.The summary of it is that if you give people a reason to change, they will.
Most people use IE because they are lazy.
It came with the system and they aren't really familiar with this com-pu-ter thing, so installing a different browser frightens them somewhat, no matter how easy it is.
But give them an incentive and they'll do it.I'm certain the same holds true for moving them from IE6/7 to IE8 (or any alternative).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085520</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>denis-The-menace</author>
	<datestamp>1265039040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Setup a Citrix box (or equivalent) for running IE6 and use whatever transparent technology to make it seamless for the users of that ONE web app.</p><p>You can then move on, free from the security issues still lurking in IE6. You are also free to upgrade to Windows 7 without using the Virtual XP feature which would double the number of windows PCs you'd need to patch.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Setup a Citrix box ( or equivalent ) for running IE6 and use whatever transparent technology to make it seamless for the users of that ONE web app.You can then move on , free from the security issues still lurking in IE6 .
You are also free to upgrade to Windows 7 without using the Virtual XP feature which would double the number of windows PCs you 'd need to patch .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Setup a Citrix box (or equivalent) for running IE6 and use whatever transparent technology to make it seamless for the users of that ONE web app.You can then move on, free from the security issues still lurking in IE6.
You are also free to upgrade to Windows 7 without using the Virtual XP feature which would double the number of windows PCs you'd need to patch.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084650</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years</p></div><p>I'm afraid you don't understand the problem here.</p><p>Joe Sixpack doesn't even know what IE6 is, he just thinks it's "The Internet". If you ask him to upgrade, he'll say "wow, slow down there Mr Tech-Guru, I dont have a fancy degree in Computer-Tronics." He'll just look @ your site, say it's broken, and move on.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If they want to use their site , it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser , and they know it for yearsI 'm afraid you do n't understand the problem here.Joe Sixpack does n't even know what IE6 is , he just thinks it 's " The Internet " .
If you ask him to upgrade , he 'll say " wow , slow down there Mr Tech-Guru , I dont have a fancy degree in Computer-Tronics .
" He 'll just look @ your site , say it 's broken , and move on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for yearsI'm afraid you don't understand the problem here.Joe Sixpack doesn't even know what IE6 is, he just thinks it's "The Internet".
If you ask him to upgrade, he'll say "wow, slow down there Mr Tech-Guru, I dont have a fancy degree in Computer-Tronics.
" He'll just look @ your site, say it's broken, and move on.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083688</id>
	<title>Rather support browsers with disabled Javascript</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1265023860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i vote for web designers be more aware of missing/disabled javascript/java/flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>i vote for web designers be more aware of missing/disabled javascript/java/flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i vote for web designers be more aware of missing/disabled javascript/java/flash.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083082</id>
	<title>my code barely works in firefox and chrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265015640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>on my website if you're using IE and something doesn't work tough shit. get a real browser.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>on my website if you 're using IE and something does n't work tough shit .
get a real browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>on my website if you're using IE and something doesn't work tough shit.
get a real browser.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085544</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>FlyingBishop</author>
	<datestamp>1265039160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I just put "Your browser is unsupported. Upgrade to one of these fine alternatives: " in an element with css opacity:0; Older versions of FF, as well as all IE browsers and older webkits/Operas don't support opacity, so it filters out just about everyone I don't care about.</p><p>Of course, it filters out IE8, so it's not really good for production use.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I just put " Your browser is unsupported .
Upgrade to one of these fine alternatives : " in an element with css opacity : 0 ; Older versions of FF , as well as all IE browsers and older webkits/Operas do n't support opacity , so it filters out just about everyone I do n't care about.Of course , it filters out IE8 , so it 's not really good for production use .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I just put "Your browser is unsupported.
Upgrade to one of these fine alternatives: " in an element with css opacity:0; Older versions of FF, as well as all IE browsers and older webkits/Operas don't support opacity, so it filters out just about everyone I don't care about.Of course, it filters out IE8, so it's not really good for production use.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083674</id>
	<title>Re:Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There may be a gracefull way around it.</p><p>Put one computer - server and let users use remote desktop to it. Server has ie6, and users can enjoy modern (good?) browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There may be a gracefull way around it.Put one computer - server and let users use remote desktop to it .
Server has ie6 , and users can enjoy modern ( good ?
) browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There may be a gracefull way around it.Put one computer - server and let users use remote desktop to it.
Server has ie6, and users can enjoy modern (good?
) browsers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084740</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm sorry -- but no.  Corporate users are influenced by the same things that normal users are influenced by, only more so.  If even one VP of the company cannot get to his favorite web site because it stopped serving up IE6, there would be a push to start upgrading.  When the CIO hears it from two or more VPs, or from the CEO, you can be sure it's on his project plan for the year.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry -- but no .
Corporate users are influenced by the same things that normal users are influenced by , only more so .
If even one VP of the company can not get to his favorite web site because it stopped serving up IE6 , there would be a push to start upgrading .
When the CIO hears it from two or more VPs , or from the CEO , you can be sure it 's on his project plan for the year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry -- but no.
Corporate users are influenced by the same things that normal users are influenced by, only more so.
If even one VP of the company cannot get to his favorite web site because it stopped serving up IE6, there would be a push to start upgrading.
When the CIO hears it from two or more VPs, or from the CEO, you can be sure it's on his project plan for the year.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084524</id>
	<title>Depends on resources available</title>
	<author>fortapocalypse</author>
	<datestamp>1265033220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Drop IE6 support but not IE7 support if your company (like most) are short on resources these days.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Drop IE6 support but not IE7 support if your company ( like most ) are short on resources these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Drop IE6 support but not IE7 support if your company (like most) are short on resources these days.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083320</id>
	<title>Actually I block old MSIE</title>
	<author>tonk</author>
	<datestamp>1265018640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As clients using old version of MSIE are more likely to be infected with malware, I decided to not only stop support for them, but block them entirely.</p><p>If more sites did alike, users might feel slightly more motivated to update.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As clients using old version of MSIE are more likely to be infected with malware , I decided to not only stop support for them , but block them entirely.If more sites did alike , users might feel slightly more motivated to update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As clients using old version of MSIE are more likely to be infected with malware, I decided to not only stop support for them, but block them entirely.If more sites did alike, users might feel slightly more motivated to update.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085992</id>
	<title>Re:IE8 not yet authorized by IT</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265041200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's not new, it's nearly a year old. I've rolled it out company-wide with the proper adjustments to webapps, and admittedly we're in between smb and enterprise, but that is just lazy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not new , it 's nearly a year old .
I 've rolled it out company-wide with the proper adjustments to webapps , and admittedly we 're in between smb and enterprise , but that is just lazy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not new, it's nearly a year old.
I've rolled it out company-wide with the proper adjustments to webapps, and admittedly we're in between smb and enterprise, but that is just lazy.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082798</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084050</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>oliderid</author>
	<datestamp>1265028000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wish you would be right. We just finished a large extranet for some lobbying organizations. Most of their members are heavy industries. We discovered along the road that around 20\% of their members still use Internet Explorer 6 and any update are blocked by their IT department, they have no plans (yet???) to replace their activeX web based services. The only solution? Sniffing browser and creating a "light" version...</p><p>those users can safely surf over the Internet with this browser.(can you imagine...)</p><p>Conclusion: IT departments transferred all the cost of their laziness upon our shoulders. They spent mot of their time hunting down viruses on their intranet.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I wish you would be right .
We just finished a large extranet for some lobbying organizations .
Most of their members are heavy industries .
We discovered along the road that around 20 \ % of their members still use Internet Explorer 6 and any update are blocked by their IT department , they have no plans ( yet ? ? ?
) to replace their activeX web based services .
The only solution ?
Sniffing browser and creating a " light " version...those users can safely surf over the Internet with this browser .
( can you imagine... ) Conclusion : IT departments transferred all the cost of their laziness upon our shoulders .
They spent mot of their time hunting down viruses on their intranet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wish you would be right.
We just finished a large extranet for some lobbying organizations.
Most of their members are heavy industries.
We discovered along the road that around 20\% of their members still use Internet Explorer 6 and any update are blocked by their IT department, they have no plans (yet???
) to replace their activeX web based services.
The only solution?
Sniffing browser and creating a "light" version...those users can safely surf over the Internet with this browser.
(can you imagine...)Conclusion: IT departments transferred all the cost of their laziness upon our shoulders.
They spent mot of their time hunting down viruses on their intranet.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084660</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Talderas</author>
	<datestamp>1265034360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have one user who is still on a Windows 2000 platform. Last I knew Win2000 didn't support IE7 (and I assume IE8 by extension). He's been bitching about "certain" websites not working properly, which I am about 99\% certain is because a lot of websites just aren't bothering to support IE6. I told him to use Firefox, he bitched about that, I threw my hands up in disgust and left him to rot. Then he installed Firefox and bitched about Firefox not doing what IE does.</p><p>Some people are beyond redemption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have one user who is still on a Windows 2000 platform .
Last I knew Win2000 did n't support IE7 ( and I assume IE8 by extension ) .
He 's been bitching about " certain " websites not working properly , which I am about 99 \ % certain is because a lot of websites just are n't bothering to support IE6 .
I told him to use Firefox , he bitched about that , I threw my hands up in disgust and left him to rot .
Then he installed Firefox and bitched about Firefox not doing what IE does.Some people are beyond redemption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have one user who is still on a Windows 2000 platform.
Last I knew Win2000 didn't support IE7 (and I assume IE8 by extension).
He's been bitching about "certain" websites not working properly, which I am about 99\% certain is because a lot of websites just aren't bothering to support IE6.
I told him to use Firefox, he bitched about that, I threw my hands up in disgust and left him to rot.
Then he installed Firefox and bitched about Firefox not doing what IE does.Some people are beyond redemption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082964</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>stimpleton</author>
	<datestamp>1265057640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><i> The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply.</i>
<br> <br>And ship'em to gulags if they don't?</htmltext>
<tokenext>The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply .
And ship'em to gulags if they do n't ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply.
And ship'em to gulags if they don't?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083436</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>netJackDaw</author>
	<datestamp>1265020080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>If I had modpoints I would mod parent up. Indeed, do not spend energy on blocking, fail instead...</htmltext>
<tokenext>If I had modpoints I would mod parent up .
Indeed , do not spend energy on blocking , fail instead.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If I had modpoints I would mod parent up.
Indeed, do not spend energy on blocking, fail instead...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</id>
	<title>Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Get rid if IE6? Boy I wish we could. But we can't.</p><p>Our 4-man startup software company targets medium sized corporate customers (250-2500 seats) and they are still using lots of old computers with IE6. There are many reasons but a few of the most noticable ones are:</p><p>1.) a ton of old Line-of-Business applications still uses IE6 for presentation.<br>2.) a surprisingly large amount of corporate software uses embedded IE6 components in their GUI.</p><p>Most of these corporations have installed newer browsers on their machines (some of them even installed non-MS browsers) but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.</p><p>All those Line-of-Business applications are extremely hard to remove. They often solve critical business needs so nobody wants to throw them away. They work and "do the things they were built to do". And since they just work there is no budget to replace them with somerhing else. The people who created them have left the company years ago so nobody really knows exactly how and why they are implemented.</p><p>But everbody knows this about their old LOB apps: they neeed IE6, they still work as intended, nobody can tell how to make an alternate solution, and there is no budget to analyze or re-implement them (and why would anybody want to - right?).</p><p>I imagine this is quite common for many corporations around the world and not just in my region.</p><p>- Jesper<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp;</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Get rid if IE6 ?
Boy I wish we could .
But we ca n't.Our 4-man startup software company targets medium sized corporate customers ( 250-2500 seats ) and they are still using lots of old computers with IE6 .
There are many reasons but a few of the most noticable ones are : 1 .
) a ton of old Line-of-Business applications still uses IE6 for presentation.2 .
) a surprisingly large amount of corporate software uses embedded IE6 components in their GUI.Most of these corporations have installed newer browsers on their machines ( some of them even installed non-MS browsers ) but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.All those Line-of-Business applications are extremely hard to remove .
They often solve critical business needs so nobody wants to throw them away .
They work and " do the things they were built to do " .
And since they just work there is no budget to replace them with somerhing else .
The people who created them have left the company years ago so nobody really knows exactly how and why they are implemented.But everbody knows this about their old LOB apps : they neeed IE6 , they still work as intended , nobody can tell how to make an alternate solution , and there is no budget to analyze or re-implement them ( and why would anybody want to - right ?
) .I imagine this is quite common for many corporations around the world and not just in my region.- Jesper    </tokentext>
<sentencetext>Get rid if IE6?
Boy I wish we could.
But we can't.Our 4-man startup software company targets medium sized corporate customers (250-2500 seats) and they are still using lots of old computers with IE6.
There are many reasons but a few of the most noticable ones are:1.
) a ton of old Line-of-Business applications still uses IE6 for presentation.2.
) a surprisingly large amount of corporate software uses embedded IE6 components in their GUI.Most of these corporations have installed newer browsers on their machines (some of them even installed non-MS browsers) but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.All those Line-of-Business applications are extremely hard to remove.
They often solve critical business needs so nobody wants to throw them away.
They work and "do the things they were built to do".
And since they just work there is no budget to replace them with somerhing else.
The people who created them have left the company years ago so nobody really knows exactly how and why they are implemented.But everbody knows this about their old LOB apps: they neeed IE6, they still work as intended, nobody can tell how to make an alternate solution, and there is no budget to analyze or re-implement them (and why would anybody want to - right?
).I imagine this is quite common for many corporations around the world and not just in my region.- Jesper
   </sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084308</id>
	<title>Wrong...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265031120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>First of all that 35\% is the percentage of IE6 of the IE browsers. The overall metric is more like 20\%. To make matters worse, the measurement is of reported useragent strings. Not necessarily browsers. I know there are a number of non IE tools (web spiders, proxy servers) out there that have historically used the IE useragent string as it meant more websites would not block you from accessing them. (This originally came about due to the number of websites out there that filtered on useragent strings during and before the dot com bubble.</p><p>The 20\% is closer, but is still probably high. By relying solely on useragent string there are strong limitations as to what the data actually means. I'd imagine that the real number is more like 10-15\%, but can't be sure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>First of all that 35 \ % is the percentage of IE6 of the IE browsers .
The overall metric is more like 20 \ % .
To make matters worse , the measurement is of reported useragent strings .
Not necessarily browsers .
I know there are a number of non IE tools ( web spiders , proxy servers ) out there that have historically used the IE useragent string as it meant more websites would not block you from accessing them .
( This originally came about due to the number of websites out there that filtered on useragent strings during and before the dot com bubble.The 20 \ % is closer , but is still probably high .
By relying solely on useragent string there are strong limitations as to what the data actually means .
I 'd imagine that the real number is more like 10-15 \ % , but ca n't be sure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>First of all that 35\% is the percentage of IE6 of the IE browsers.
The overall metric is more like 20\%.
To make matters worse, the measurement is of reported useragent strings.
Not necessarily browsers.
I know there are a number of non IE tools (web spiders, proxy servers) out there that have historically used the IE useragent string as it meant more websites would not block you from accessing them.
(This originally came about due to the number of websites out there that filtered on useragent strings during and before the dot com bubble.The 20\% is closer, but is still probably high.
By relying solely on useragent string there are strong limitations as to what the data actually means.
I'd imagine that the real number is more like 10-15\%, but can't be sure.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083046</id>
	<title>Again, not needed</title>
	<author>BhaKi</author>
	<datestamp>1265015160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>They'll just quit the fray once enough number of people respect standards.</htmltext>
<tokenext>They 'll just quit the fray once enough number of people respect standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They'll just quit the fray once enough number of people respect standards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086016</id>
	<title>My policy on browser support..</title>
	<author>pak9rabid</author>
	<datestamp>1265041320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&lt;!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd"&gt;
<br> <br>
No browser-specific filtering, but If your browser fails to render the site correctly, then thats for you to fix.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No browser-specific filtering , but If your browser fails to render the site correctly , then thats for you to fix .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
 
No browser-specific filtering, but If your browser fails to render the site correctly, then thats for you to fix.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089780</id>
	<title>Re:sometimes users don't control their machines</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265056920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Yeah they're so secure that they use one of the most insecure browsers. Genius.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah they 're so secure that they use one of the most insecure browsers .
Genius .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah they're so secure that they use one of the most insecure browsers.
Genius.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084798</id>
	<title>Why continue to support any browser at all?</title>
	<author>QuietLagoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265035380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why not support Internet Standards, and let the browser manufacturers be saddled with the onus of creating a positive experience for the users?<p>

For example, writing a site that can be properly rendered by any browser that scores 100 on the ACID series of tests.</p><p>

Currently, the development of websites and browser software is completely backwards, mostly thanks to Microsoft's failed attempt to use Internet Explorer to take over web standards.  Ever since then, websites have been written for specific browsers as the primary objective, and not for compliance with Internet Standards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why not support Internet Standards , and let the browser manufacturers be saddled with the onus of creating a positive experience for the users ?
For example , writing a site that can be properly rendered by any browser that scores 100 on the ACID series of tests .
Currently , the development of websites and browser software is completely backwards , mostly thanks to Microsoft 's failed attempt to use Internet Explorer to take over web standards .
Ever since then , websites have been written for specific browsers as the primary objective , and not for compliance with Internet Standards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why not support Internet Standards, and let the browser manufacturers be saddled with the onus of creating a positive experience for the users?
For example, writing a site that can be properly rendered by any browser that scores 100 on the ACID series of tests.
Currently, the development of websites and browser software is completely backwards, mostly thanks to Microsoft's failed attempt to use Internet Explorer to take over web standards.
Ever since then, websites have been written for specific browsers as the primary objective, and not for compliance with Internet Standards.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085854</id>
	<title>wow</title>
	<author>buddyglass</author>
	<datestamp>1265040660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What kind of site has fewer than 5\% of its visitors using IE?  linuxrulez.de?</htmltext>
<tokenext>What kind of site has fewer than 5 \ % of its visitors using IE ?
linuxrulez.de ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What kind of site has fewer than 5\% of its visitors using IE?
linuxrulez.de?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085506</id>
	<title>Re:Could the real geeks please stand up?</title>
	<author>NeoSkandranon</author>
	<datestamp>1265038980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened?</p><p>Most of us got jobs and responsibilities in which the end-user is someone other than ourselves, and most of us came to realize that alienating userbase on the modern internet, <i>especially</i> if you're selling something, is poor judgement</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened ? Most of us got jobs and responsibilities in which the end-user is someone other than ourselves , and most of us came to realize that alienating userbase on the modern internet , especially if you 're selling something , is poor judgement</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened?Most of us got jobs and responsibilities in which the end-user is someone other than ourselves, and most of us came to realize that alienating userbase on the modern internet, especially if you're selling something, is poor judgement</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083204</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31100406</id>
	<title>Worst idea ever. Don't block based on browser.</title>
	<author>Nillerz</author>
	<datestamp>1265907540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>It's good to see that I think "redirection" is a dick move. Seriously, I fucking hate that. When someone is at work and HAS to use IE, or if someone just doesn't feel like upgrading, or is running a computer that can't run modern browsers, asking them to upgrade is okay, but telling them that this site isn't accessible from their browser is just straight up pissy.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's good to see that I think " redirection " is a dick move .
Seriously , I fucking hate that .
When someone is at work and HAS to use IE , or if someone just does n't feel like upgrading , or is running a computer that ca n't run modern browsers , asking them to upgrade is okay , but telling them that this site is n't accessible from their browser is just straight up pissy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's good to see that I think "redirection" is a dick move.
Seriously, I fucking hate that.
When someone is at work and HAS to use IE, or if someone just doesn't feel like upgrading, or is running a computer that can't run modern browsers, asking them to upgrade is okay, but telling them that this site isn't accessible from their browser is just straight up pissy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084726</id>
	<title>Upgrading IE6 to IE8 is difficult behind a proxy</title>
	<author>Max\_W</author>
	<datestamp>1265035020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember that I had to download a big IE8 file from Microsoft site on a computer, which was not behind corporate proxy. Than while installing, the IE8 installation tried to contact Microsoft website again to check if there are newer updates.</p><p>But proxy does not allow FTP connection. So instead of giving a message "could not connect" and continue, the installation has been trying to contact the website for about 30 minutes before finally continuing.</p><p>But why to check for updates of an installation file while installing it? Why just not update the installation file itself while it is on Microsoft's website? Why not allow a download of an upgrade file via HTTP in addition to FTP?</p><p>My point is that while it is relatively easy to upgrade from IE6 to IE8 in normal conditions, it is incredibly difficult to do so if there is a limited connection to the Internet.</p><p>If there is one imbecile-engineer it is somehow possible to work with his/her creations, but when two come together, one at Microsoft and one running a proxy, it results in a really tough luck.</p><p>I upgraded two IE6 to IE8 behind proxy in this way. Spent about 2+ hours on it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember that I had to download a big IE8 file from Microsoft site on a computer , which was not behind corporate proxy .
Than while installing , the IE8 installation tried to contact Microsoft website again to check if there are newer updates.But proxy does not allow FTP connection .
So instead of giving a message " could not connect " and continue , the installation has been trying to contact the website for about 30 minutes before finally continuing.But why to check for updates of an installation file while installing it ?
Why just not update the installation file itself while it is on Microsoft 's website ?
Why not allow a download of an upgrade file via HTTP in addition to FTP ? My point is that while it is relatively easy to upgrade from IE6 to IE8 in normal conditions , it is incredibly difficult to do so if there is a limited connection to the Internet.If there is one imbecile-engineer it is somehow possible to work with his/her creations , but when two come together , one at Microsoft and one running a proxy , it results in a really tough luck.I upgraded two IE6 to IE8 behind proxy in this way .
Spent about 2 + hours on it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember that I had to download a big IE8 file from Microsoft site on a computer, which was not behind corporate proxy.
Than while installing, the IE8 installation tried to contact Microsoft website again to check if there are newer updates.But proxy does not allow FTP connection.
So instead of giving a message "could not connect" and continue, the installation has been trying to contact the website for about 30 minutes before finally continuing.But why to check for updates of an installation file while installing it?
Why just not update the installation file itself while it is on Microsoft's website?
Why not allow a download of an upgrade file via HTTP in addition to FTP?My point is that while it is relatively easy to upgrade from IE6 to IE8 in normal conditions, it is incredibly difficult to do so if there is a limited connection to the Internet.If there is one imbecile-engineer it is somehow possible to work with his/her creations, but when two come together, one at Microsoft and one running a proxy, it results in a really tough luck.I upgraded two IE6 to IE8 behind proxy in this way.
Spent about 2+ hours on it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086094</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Civil\_Disobedient</author>
	<datestamp>1265041680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8?</i></p><p>Tell them that <a href="http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09\%2F01\%2F01\%2F145231" title="slashdot.org">Google has stopped supporting IE6.</a> [slashdot.org]  That's the straw that broke my financial services co.'s back.  We still "support" IE6 in the sense that it *should* work, but through the transitional period we're throwing an alert (through browser detection) that basically tells users, "IE6 support is ending, so if things look wacky... upgrade."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8 ? Tell them that Google has stopped supporting IE6 .
[ slashdot.org ] That 's the straw that broke my financial services co. 's back .
We still " support " IE6 in the sense that it * should * work , but through the transitional period we 're throwing an alert ( through browser detection ) that basically tells users , " IE6 support is ending , so if things look wacky.. .
upgrade. "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8?Tell them that Google has stopped supporting IE6.
[slashdot.org]  That's the straw that broke my financial services co.'s back.
We still "support" IE6 in the sense that it *should* work, but through the transitional period we're throwing an alert (through browser detection) that basically tells users, "IE6 support is ending, so if things look wacky...
upgrade."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822</id>
	<title>IE6 outdated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We're a web company, making different kind of websites for different kind of people. Which means we make anything from small "Mr and Mrs Smith My Pink Pony" kind of sites, to web shops with 5k+ transactions per day.</p><p>We recently (within the last year or so) put a note on our contracts, stating we don't support IE6 anymore, unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes. It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.</p><p>So basically, we state we only support the latest generation of browsers, included IE7 since the migration to IE8 isn't complete yet. A lot of people still on IE7.<br>And IE7 isn't TOO bad, the work arounds is mainly CSS, the rest is worked out by MooTools, Prototype, etc.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We 're a web company , making different kind of websites for different kind of people .
Which means we make anything from small " Mr and Mrs Smith My Pink Pony " kind of sites , to web shops with 5k + transactions per day.We recently ( within the last year or so ) put a note on our contracts , stating we do n't support IE6 anymore , unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes .
It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.So basically , we state we only support the latest generation of browsers , included IE7 since the migration to IE8 is n't complete yet .
A lot of people still on IE7.And IE7 is n't TOO bad , the work arounds is mainly CSS , the rest is worked out by MooTools , Prototype , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We're a web company, making different kind of websites for different kind of people.
Which means we make anything from small "Mr and Mrs Smith My Pink Pony" kind of sites, to web shops with 5k+ transactions per day.We recently (within the last year or so) put a note on our contracts, stating we don't support IE6 anymore, unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes.
It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.So basically, we state we only support the latest generation of browsers, included IE7 since the migration to IE8 isn't complete yet.
A lot of people still on IE7.And IE7 isn't TOO bad, the work arounds is mainly CSS, the rest is worked out by MooTools, Prototype, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</id>
	<title>Not needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, no browser should be explicitly/directly supported. Only standards need to be supported. The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , no browser should be explicitly/directly supported .
Only standards need to be supported .
The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, no browser should be explicitly/directly supported.
Only standards need to be supported.
The browsers and their makers should be forced to comply.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088162</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265050560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We are indeed running IE8 on windows XP. So I do not get the linking many ppl do between o.s. And browsers.(or old hardware): any pc that can actually access internet with a sufficient ease can run a decent browser. Don't link XP with IE6.<br>And: we are forced to use IE , any version, to access some public govt. Sites that reject any browser not identifying as IE. For all other uses we use firefox.<br>If we were *forced* to IE6 by our counterparts, Maybe we wold install virtual machines to run it in a sandbox accessed with rdp.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We are indeed running IE8 on windows XP .
So I do not get the linking many ppl do between o.s .
And browsers .
( or old hardware ) : any pc that can actually access internet with a sufficient ease can run a decent browser .
Do n't link XP with IE6.And : we are forced to use IE , any version , to access some public govt .
Sites that reject any browser not identifying as IE .
For all other uses we use firefox.If we were * forced * to IE6 by our counterparts , Maybe we wold install virtual machines to run it in a sandbox accessed with rdp .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We are indeed running IE8 on windows XP.
So I do not get the linking many ppl do between o.s.
And browsers.
(or old hardware): any pc that can actually access internet with a sufficient ease can run a decent browser.
Don't link XP with IE6.And: we are forced to use IE , any version, to access some public govt.
Sites that reject any browser not identifying as IE.
For all other uses we use firefox.If we were *forced* to IE6 by our counterparts, Maybe we wold install virtual machines to run it in a sandbox accessed with rdp.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>studpuppy</author>
	<datestamp>1265019600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company has 1 specific application out of 100+ (provided by a 3rd party vendor, not built internally) that is causing us to maintain IE6 as the corporate standard.
<p>
And since you can't have both IE6 and IE8 installed at the same time on the same machine without jumping through hoops (and apparently it's too difficult a learning curve for IT to support Firefox for some 99\% of the apps while relegating IE6 only for use with this one application in question), we're stuck with IE6 as a corporate standard.
</p><p>
Which also means we can't get off XP easily either. Bleah all around.
</p><p>
--
</p><p>
<i>Ya ever wonder if Slashdot had been a Facebook app, whether anyone would have used it?</i></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My company has 1 specific application out of 100 + ( provided by a 3rd party vendor , not built internally ) that is causing us to maintain IE6 as the corporate standard .
And since you ca n't have both IE6 and IE8 installed at the same time on the same machine without jumping through hoops ( and apparently it 's too difficult a learning curve for IT to support Firefox for some 99 \ % of the apps while relegating IE6 only for use with this one application in question ) , we 're stuck with IE6 as a corporate standard .
Which also means we ca n't get off XP easily either .
Bleah all around .
-- Ya ever wonder if Slashdot had been a Facebook app , whether anyone would have used it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company has 1 specific application out of 100+ (provided by a 3rd party vendor, not built internally) that is causing us to maintain IE6 as the corporate standard.
And since you can't have both IE6 and IE8 installed at the same time on the same machine without jumping through hoops (and apparently it's too difficult a learning curve for IT to support Firefox for some 99\% of the apps while relegating IE6 only for use with this one application in question), we're stuck with IE6 as a corporate standard.
Which also means we can't get off XP easily either.
Bleah all around.
--

Ya ever wonder if Slashdot had been a Facebook app, whether anyone would have used it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084166</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>When I worked at a job that not only used IE6, but used a heavily-locked-down IE6 that wouldn't even let me change the homepage.. I ran Portable Firefox from a USB drive and stopped caring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>When I worked at a job that not only used IE6 , but used a heavily-locked-down IE6 that would n't even let me change the homepage.. I ran Portable Firefox from a USB drive and stopped caring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>When I worked at a job that not only used IE6, but used a heavily-locked-down IE6 that wouldn't even let me change the homepage.. I ran Portable Firefox from a USB drive and stopped caring.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084032</id>
	<title>Support was NEVER required.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265027820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's foolish to believe that support was ever required. As a programmer / web designer your goal should have always been to comply with web standards. If a browser didn't support the standards properly, a browser developer would work to comply with them. Supporting IE6 and IE7 specifically did a disservice to everyone in that the pressure to comply with web standards was completely erased by people simply accepting the default / major browser's flaw as a standard rather than the published and accepted standards themselves. This caused the current situation where groups code-to-the-browsers which costs considerable time and money to support (everyone's time and money EXCEPT Microsoft's).</p><p>So long as there were perfectly good and compliant browsers available for free for the Windows platform, there was never any rational reason to "support" IE specifically. There still isn't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's foolish to believe that support was ever required .
As a programmer / web designer your goal should have always been to comply with web standards .
If a browser did n't support the standards properly , a browser developer would work to comply with them .
Supporting IE6 and IE7 specifically did a disservice to everyone in that the pressure to comply with web standards was completely erased by people simply accepting the default / major browser 's flaw as a standard rather than the published and accepted standards themselves .
This caused the current situation where groups code-to-the-browsers which costs considerable time and money to support ( everyone 's time and money EXCEPT Microsoft 's ) .So long as there were perfectly good and compliant browsers available for free for the Windows platform , there was never any rational reason to " support " IE specifically .
There still is n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's foolish to believe that support was ever required.
As a programmer / web designer your goal should have always been to comply with web standards.
If a browser didn't support the standards properly, a browser developer would work to comply with them.
Supporting IE6 and IE7 specifically did a disservice to everyone in that the pressure to comply with web standards was completely erased by people simply accepting the default / major browser's flaw as a standard rather than the published and accepted standards themselves.
This caused the current situation where groups code-to-the-browsers which costs considerable time and money to support (everyone's time and money EXCEPT Microsoft's).So long as there were perfectly good and compliant browsers available for free for the Windows platform, there was never any rational reason to "support" IE specifically.
There still isn't.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084746</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>mike2R</author>
	<datestamp>1265035080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I do see your point - I'm an ecommerce guy so the websites tend to be pretty simple, and the consequences of cutting off a percentage of visitors from being able to complete an order is obviously a percentage of sales.<br> <br>
We get over 2\% IE6 on our biggest site, and less than 30\% of our traffic is Windows (Mac focussed site) so I imagine that your average ecommerce site probably gets well over 5\% IE6 traffic* - failing to support IE6 == 5\% drop in sales.  It would have to be a fairly snazy feature that you want to implement that would be worth that..<br> <br>
*Thinking about those numbers a bit more, I expect most of our Windows traffic is from Mac owners surfing from Windows at work, and corporate environments are going to be the biggest IE6 holdouts, so I'm probably overestimating the figures for an average site.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do see your point - I 'm an ecommerce guy so the websites tend to be pretty simple , and the consequences of cutting off a percentage of visitors from being able to complete an order is obviously a percentage of sales .
We get over 2 \ % IE6 on our biggest site , and less than 30 \ % of our traffic is Windows ( Mac focussed site ) so I imagine that your average ecommerce site probably gets well over 5 \ % IE6 traffic * - failing to support IE6 = = 5 \ % drop in sales .
It would have to be a fairly snazy feature that you want to implement that would be worth that. . * Thinking about those numbers a bit more , I expect most of our Windows traffic is from Mac owners surfing from Windows at work , and corporate environments are going to be the biggest IE6 holdouts , so I 'm probably overestimating the figures for an average site .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I do see your point - I'm an ecommerce guy so the websites tend to be pretty simple, and the consequences of cutting off a percentage of visitors from being able to complete an order is obviously a percentage of sales.
We get over 2\% IE6 on our biggest site, and less than 30\% of our traffic is Windows (Mac focussed site) so I imagine that your average ecommerce site probably gets well over 5\% IE6 traffic* - failing to support IE6 == 5\% drop in sales.
It would have to be a fairly snazy feature that you want to implement that would be worth that.. 
*Thinking about those numbers a bit more, I expect most of our Windows traffic is from Mac owners surfing from Windows at work, and corporate environments are going to be the biggest IE6 holdouts, so I'm probably overestimating the figures for an average site.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083326</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265018700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Note that its a security issue to remain on an older version of the software.</p><p>Make certain you explain that many site are pulling support for IE 6 and soon web content will not be accessible to them if they remain on the outdated browser.</p><p>Explain that development time on any project ordered where IE6 support is required will be x3 longer, since many features are not supported by IE6.</p><p>Explain that IE 6 is a piece of crap (which it is - this is not up for debate. Ever.)</p><p>That if they want Round edges on their controls in IE 6 - they can damn well make them themselves!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Note that its a security issue to remain on an older version of the software.Make certain you explain that many site are pulling support for IE 6 and soon web content will not be accessible to them if they remain on the outdated browser.Explain that development time on any project ordered where IE6 support is required will be x3 longer , since many features are not supported by IE6.Explain that IE 6 is a piece of crap ( which it is - this is not up for debate .
Ever. ) That if they want Round edges on their controls in IE 6 - they can damn well make them themselves !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Note that its a security issue to remain on an older version of the software.Make certain you explain that many site are pulling support for IE 6 and soon web content will not be accessible to them if they remain on the outdated browser.Explain that development time on any project ordered where IE6 support is required will be x3 longer, since many features are not supported by IE6.Explain that IE 6 is a piece of crap (which it is - this is not up for debate.
Ever.)That if they want Round edges on their controls in IE 6 - they can damn well make them themselves!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085420</id>
	<title>Re:not just corporate lock-in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why wouldn't they download a more recent pirated version? Even I know they exist, and I haven't used Windows on any of my own computers for over 5 years.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would n't they download a more recent pirated version ?
Even I know they exist , and I have n't used Windows on any of my own computers for over 5 years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why wouldn't they download a more recent pirated version?
Even I know they exist, and I haven't used Windows on any of my own computers for over 5 years.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083592</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083004</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I&rsquo;ll be an example to you:</p><p>I left my well-payed day-job because my boss (who was a very powerful player on the net) wouldn&rsquo;t let go of IE6. (I had to write webapps for that piece of shit.)</p><p>I&rsquo;m happy and would I have the choice, I&rsquo;d do the exact same thing again. Just earlier. ^^</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I    ll be an example to you : I left my well-payed day-job because my boss ( who was a very powerful player on the net ) wouldn    t let go of IE6 .
( I had to write webapps for that piece of shit .
) I    m happy and would I have the choice , I    d do the exact same thing again .
Just earlier .
^ ^</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I’ll be an example to you:I left my well-payed day-job because my boss (who was a very powerful player on the net) wouldn’t let go of IE6.
(I had to write webapps for that piece of shit.
)I’m happy and would I have the choice, I’d do the exact same thing again.
Just earlier.
^^</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085916</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ya ever wonder why there is a specific signature field and you're a douche for including it in your post?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ya ever wonder why there is a specific signature field and you 're a douche for including it in your post ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ya ever wonder why there is a specific signature field and you're a douche for including it in your post?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084150</id>
	<title>Re:Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265029080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, it's more like a problem with a business plan than IE6.<br>Image what will happen in 5, 10 years for now.<br>How many of those old computers will gonna work by then?<br>And then the shit is gonna reeaally hit the fan...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , it 's more like a problem with a business plan than IE6.Image what will happen in 5 , 10 years for now.How many of those old computers will gon na work by then ? And then the shit is gon na reeaally hit the fan.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, it's more like a problem with a business plan than IE6.Image what will happen in 5, 10 years for now.How many of those old computers will gonna work by then?And then the shit is gonna reeaally hit the fan...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087198</id>
	<title>Let the vendor decide</title>
	<author>swordgeek</author>
	<datestamp>1265046360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, in this case I think that we should (gasp!) listen to Microsoft.</p><p>Near as I can tell from their convoluted pages, the last update for IE6sp3 was in April 2008; and that MS supports it for two years following that.</p><p>In other words, by May of this year, Microsoft will quit supporting it. If they don't support it, then nobody else should feel obliged to either. If you will lose revenue by blocking IE6, then well...make your own decisions. How much money do you spend supporting it to make 'x' dollars of revenue?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , in this case I think that we should ( gasp !
) listen to Microsoft.Near as I can tell from their convoluted pages , the last update for IE6sp3 was in April 2008 ; and that MS supports it for two years following that.In other words , by May of this year , Microsoft will quit supporting it .
If they do n't support it , then nobody else should feel obliged to either .
If you will lose revenue by blocking IE6 , then well...make your own decisions .
How much money do you spend supporting it to make 'x ' dollars of revenue ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, in this case I think that we should (gasp!
) listen to Microsoft.Near as I can tell from their convoluted pages, the last update for IE6sp3 was in April 2008; and that MS supports it for two years following that.In other words, by May of this year, Microsoft will quit supporting it.
If they don't support it, then nobody else should feel obliged to either.
If you will lose revenue by blocking IE6, then well...make your own decisions.
How much money do you spend supporting it to make 'x' dollars of revenue?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083934</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265026680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure all the evil blackhat hackers will be delighted to support users of such old software...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure all the evil blackhat hackers will be delighted to support users of such old software.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure all the evil blackhat hackers will be delighted to support users of such old software...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089684</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and No</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265056560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think IE7 should be supported for now. Some people go overboard on what should be done but really we need to get IE6 to go away. IE7 isn't great but it's a damn sight better than IE6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think IE7 should be supported for now .
Some people go overboard on what should be done but really we need to get IE6 to go away .
IE7 is n't great but it 's a damn sight better than IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think IE7 should be supported for now.
Some people go overboard on what should be done but really we need to get IE6 to go away.
IE7 isn't great but it's a damn sight better than IE6.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087962</id>
	<title>Individual Products vs. Standards</title>
	<author>psbrogna</author>
	<datestamp>1265049720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We'd make a lot more progress if everyone could support given standards rather than specific browser versions. I'm not saying we should cast disdain on those that make pragmatic decisions based on real business needs- just idealizing. Seems like we've made progress toward that ideal in recent years.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We 'd make a lot more progress if everyone could support given standards rather than specific browser versions .
I 'm not saying we should cast disdain on those that make pragmatic decisions based on real business needs- just idealizing .
Seems like we 've made progress toward that ideal in recent years .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We'd make a lot more progress if everyone could support given standards rather than specific browser versions.
I'm not saying we should cast disdain on those that make pragmatic decisions based on real business needs- just idealizing.
Seems like we've made progress toward that ideal in recent years.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083920</id>
	<title>Re:sometimes users don't control their machines</title>
	<author>Bert64</author>
	<datestamp>1265026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A lot of these "overly cautious" security people are actually being extremely detrimental to security...<br>They prefer to stick to what they know, even when that is known to be far less secure than something else they could switch to.<br>Also consider the various accreditation schemes, getting your product accredited is a costly and time consuming process, so quite often you will find that only old versions are accredited and new versions are not (and might not ever be)...</p><p>People erroneously think the accredited version is more secure when in fact it isn't and may well have known flaws that people could exploit. You end up with extremely ridiculous situations where a lot of effort is expended to work around the known flaws, additional software is purchased to try and mitigate the known flaws (and by having additional software there you increase the attack surface anyway), and time/money is even expended cleaning up the mess from worm/virus infections with such infections being considered an acceptable cost of doing business.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of these " overly cautious " security people are actually being extremely detrimental to security...They prefer to stick to what they know , even when that is known to be far less secure than something else they could switch to.Also consider the various accreditation schemes , getting your product accredited is a costly and time consuming process , so quite often you will find that only old versions are accredited and new versions are not ( and might not ever be ) ...People erroneously think the accredited version is more secure when in fact it is n't and may well have known flaws that people could exploit .
You end up with extremely ridiculous situations where a lot of effort is expended to work around the known flaws , additional software is purchased to try and mitigate the known flaws ( and by having additional software there you increase the attack surface anyway ) , and time/money is even expended cleaning up the mess from worm/virus infections with such infections being considered an acceptable cost of doing business .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of these "overly cautious" security people are actually being extremely detrimental to security...They prefer to stick to what they know, even when that is known to be far less secure than something else they could switch to.Also consider the various accreditation schemes, getting your product accredited is a costly and time consuming process, so quite often you will find that only old versions are accredited and new versions are not (and might not ever be)...People erroneously think the accredited version is more secure when in fact it isn't and may well have known flaws that people could exploit.
You end up with extremely ridiculous situations where a lot of effort is expended to work around the known flaws, additional software is purchased to try and mitigate the known flaws (and by having additional software there you increase the attack surface anyway), and time/money is even expended cleaning up the mess from worm/virus infections with such infections being considered an acceptable cost of doing business.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083618</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>jonaskoelker</author>
	<datestamp>1265022960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>playing with it all day long.</p></div><p>Something I'm sure at least a few slashdotters are familiar with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>playing with it all day long.Something I 'm sure at least a few slashdotters are familiar with ; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>playing with it all day long.Something I'm sure at least a few slashdotters are familiar with ;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087352</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 outdated.</title>
	<author>GreyWolf3000</author>
	<datestamp>1265047020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd agree with that assessment of IE7/8 not being *too* bad, except for three things:</p><p>1. If IE supported display: table/table-cell/etc., layout would be much simpler.  No more overflow:hidden/float:left nonsense.</p><p>2. inline-block support is shoddy.  You have to set display: inline on block level elements, and trigger hasLayout to get it to work.  Not to mention, you can't set a background image containing text and push the inner text out of the box with text-indent.  This is huge for designers that use fonts like Gotham for their buttons.</p><p>3. border-radius.  OMG... give me border-radius please.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd agree with that assessment of IE7/8 not being * too * bad , except for three things : 1 .
If IE supported display : table/table-cell/etc. , layout would be much simpler .
No more overflow : hidden/float : left nonsense.2 .
inline-block support is shoddy .
You have to set display : inline on block level elements , and trigger hasLayout to get it to work .
Not to mention , you ca n't set a background image containing text and push the inner text out of the box with text-indent .
This is huge for designers that use fonts like Gotham for their buttons.3 .
border-radius. OMG... give me border-radius please .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd agree with that assessment of IE7/8 not being *too* bad, except for three things:1.
If IE supported display: table/table-cell/etc., layout would be much simpler.
No more overflow:hidden/float:left nonsense.2.
inline-block support is shoddy.
You have to set display: inline on block level elements, and trigger hasLayout to get it to work.
Not to mention, you can't set a background image containing text and push the inner text out of the box with text-indent.
This is huge for designers that use fonts like Gotham for their buttons.3.
border-radius.  OMG... give me border-radius please.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085388</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>fractalus</author>
	<datestamp>1265038500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If only it were that simple. Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame <i>your site</i> rather than <i>their browser</i>. Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, <b>they will not know</b>.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If only it were that simple .
Users ( a ) are n't always aware that they 're using an outdated browser and ( b ) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser .
Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault , they will not know .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If only it were that simple.
Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser.
Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, they will not know.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084448</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1265032620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter.</i> <br>
<br>
Of course they have choice, however, their IT departments would prefer to externalize the costs of upgrading from IE6. These are people who have no idea what the overall cost of this decision is -- and probably have to deal with IE6-only intranets that were designed by "developers" who sneered at supporting firefox.</htmltext>
<tokenext>It sucks , they should all switch to Firefox ( Or Chrome , or Opera , or anything but IE ) , but unfortunately most do n't have a choice in the matter .
Of course they have choice , however , their IT departments would prefer to externalize the costs of upgrading from IE6 .
These are people who have no idea what the overall cost of this decision is -- and probably have to deal with IE6-only intranets that were designed by " developers " who sneered at supporting firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It sucks, they should all switch to Firefox (Or Chrome, or Opera, or anything but IE), but unfortunately most don't have a choice in the matter.
Of course they have choice, however, their IT departments would prefer to externalize the costs of upgrading from IE6.
These are people who have no idea what the overall cost of this decision is -- and probably have to deal with IE6-only intranets that were designed by "developers" who sneered at supporting firefox.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083944</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I agree. They should have never included the User Agent string in the protocol. It just leads to people serving different stuff to different browsers, of which insulting banners are a more innocent incarnation. But even those can suck, for various reasons. Before the Chromium-based browsers came out IE6 was the only thing that ran on my computer. Seeing an anti-IE6 banner under those circumstances, especially if the page renders just fine, translates directly into "I won't ever visit this site again." And then there are browser detection bugs. I still see anti-IE6 banners every now and then even though I am not using IE6 any more. And then you get even more fascist banners like "you're not using Firefox, you suck".<br>Frankly, people should just code to the standards. And keep the page simple, because that tends to look better on all browsers. (The latter has nothing to do with browser bugs of course.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree .
They should have never included the User Agent string in the protocol .
It just leads to people serving different stuff to different browsers , of which insulting banners are a more innocent incarnation .
But even those can suck , for various reasons .
Before the Chromium-based browsers came out IE6 was the only thing that ran on my computer .
Seeing an anti-IE6 banner under those circumstances , especially if the page renders just fine , translates directly into " I wo n't ever visit this site again .
" And then there are browser detection bugs .
I still see anti-IE6 banners every now and then even though I am not using IE6 any more .
And then you get even more fascist banners like " you 're not using Firefox , you suck " .Frankly , people should just code to the standards .
And keep the page simple , because that tends to look better on all browsers .
( The latter has nothing to do with browser bugs of course .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree.
They should have never included the User Agent string in the protocol.
It just leads to people serving different stuff to different browsers, of which insulting banners are a more innocent incarnation.
But even those can suck, for various reasons.
Before the Chromium-based browsers came out IE6 was the only thing that ran on my computer.
Seeing an anti-IE6 banner under those circumstances, especially if the page renders just fine, translates directly into "I won't ever visit this site again.
" And then there are browser detection bugs.
I still see anti-IE6 banners every now and then even though I am not using IE6 any more.
And then you get even more fascist banners like "you're not using Firefox, you suck".Frankly, people should just code to the standards.
And keep the page simple, because that tends to look better on all browsers.
(The latter has nothing to do with browser bugs of course.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31096526</id>
	<title>ChromeFrame</title>
	<author>GWBasic</author>
	<datestamp>1265053500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could also consider prompting IE6 users to install ChromeFrame instead of completely ignoring them.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could also consider prompting IE6 users to install ChromeFrame instead of completely ignoring them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could also consider prompting IE6 users to install ChromeFrame instead of completely ignoring them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083118</id>
	<title>Dropping IE6 may make sense, but not IE7.</title>
	<author>Just Brew It!</author>
	<datestamp>1265016180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are very few situations where it would make sense for an end user to continue using IE6. The only one that occurs to me off the top of my head is if you're in the unenviable position of being stuck on Win2K, <i>and</i> relying on mission-critical Intranet applications which absolutely require IE. Even in this case, Firefox can be installed alongside IE6 (and would be a much safer choice for accessing the public Internet anyway). Given these factors, I think dropping IE6 support for a public web site (in the sense of no longer continuing to test changes to the site against IE6) is reasonable.</p><p>Dropping support for IE7 seems rather premature to me though; it still has a sizable installed base. Furthermore, its CSS implementation -- while still not perfect -- is much less broken than IE6's, so it requires less effort to ensure that pages render correctly in IE7.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are very few situations where it would make sense for an end user to continue using IE6 .
The only one that occurs to me off the top of my head is if you 're in the unenviable position of being stuck on Win2K , and relying on mission-critical Intranet applications which absolutely require IE .
Even in this case , Firefox can be installed alongside IE6 ( and would be a much safer choice for accessing the public Internet anyway ) .
Given these factors , I think dropping IE6 support for a public web site ( in the sense of no longer continuing to test changes to the site against IE6 ) is reasonable.Dropping support for IE7 seems rather premature to me though ; it still has a sizable installed base .
Furthermore , its CSS implementation -- while still not perfect -- is much less broken than IE6 's , so it requires less effort to ensure that pages render correctly in IE7 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are very few situations where it would make sense for an end user to continue using IE6.
The only one that occurs to me off the top of my head is if you're in the unenviable position of being stuck on Win2K, and relying on mission-critical Intranet applications which absolutely require IE.
Even in this case, Firefox can be installed alongside IE6 (and would be a much safer choice for accessing the public Internet anyway).
Given these factors, I think dropping IE6 support for a public web site (in the sense of no longer continuing to test changes to the site against IE6) is reasonable.Dropping support for IE7 seems rather premature to me though; it still has a sizable installed base.
Furthermore, its CSS implementation -- while still not perfect -- is much less broken than IE6's, so it requires less effort to ensure that pages render correctly in IE7.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085836</id>
	<title>IE7 - yes</title>
	<author>nightsweat</author>
	<datestamp>1265040540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We can't upgrade large parts of our corporate network to IE8 because SAP and Hyperion - two very important tools - have told us they won't be supporting IE8 for a few months. In general, I think you should support the latest and the version just before that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>We ca n't upgrade large parts of our corporate network to IE8 because SAP and Hyperion - two very important tools - have told us they wo n't be supporting IE8 for a few months .
In general , I think you should support the latest and the version just before that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We can't upgrade large parts of our corporate network to IE8 because SAP and Hyperion - two very important tools - have told us they won't be supporting IE8 for a few months.
In general, I think you should support the latest and the version just before that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083038</id>
	<title>Why not use Win 98??</title>
	<author>SittingUnderBridge</author>
	<datestamp>1265015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Then you can use your old ass browser and be happy.  But seriously I'm always using the latest RC of whatever (no brand war bullshit) it is I use, doesn't matter if it OS or browser. Get with the times or become a dinosaur and everyone will forget about you. One of my local suppliers just upgraded from DOS (I shit you not) don't know what version to XP and at least now I don't have to put up with them rebooting 3 different POS terminals before they can actually bill something out to the company account. Waiting 20 minutes for an invoice is not acceptable I'm a contractor I don't get paid by the hour while 20 year old machines churn away wasting my time.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Then you can use your old ass browser and be happy .
But seriously I 'm always using the latest RC of whatever ( no brand war bullshit ) it is I use , does n't matter if it OS or browser .
Get with the times or become a dinosaur and everyone will forget about you .
One of my local suppliers just upgraded from DOS ( I shit you not ) do n't know what version to XP and at least now I do n't have to put up with them rebooting 3 different POS terminals before they can actually bill something out to the company account .
Waiting 20 minutes for an invoice is not acceptable I 'm a contractor I do n't get paid by the hour while 20 year old machines churn away wasting my time .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Then you can use your old ass browser and be happy.
But seriously I'm always using the latest RC of whatever (no brand war bullshit) it is I use, doesn't matter if it OS or browser.
Get with the times or become a dinosaur and everyone will forget about you.
One of my local suppliers just upgraded from DOS (I shit you not) don't know what version to XP and at least now I don't have to put up with them rebooting 3 different POS terminals before they can actually bill something out to the company account.
Waiting 20 minutes for an invoice is not acceptable I'm a contractor I don't get paid by the hour while 20 year old machines churn away wasting my time.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31107478</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>religious freak</author>
	<datestamp>1265893140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If people replying to your sig annoy you, wouldn't constantly changing it only illicit more responses, since there's constantly new verbiage to respond to?  People used to comment on my sig all the time, but now that it's been around for a couple years, it's fairly rare to get a response.  <br> <br>
(yes, irony intended<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:)</htmltext>
<tokenext>If people replying to your sig annoy you , would n't constantly changing it only illicit more responses , since there 's constantly new verbiage to respond to ?
People used to comment on my sig all the time , but now that it 's been around for a couple years , it 's fairly rare to get a response .
( yes , irony intended : )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If people replying to your sig annoy you, wouldn't constantly changing it only illicit more responses, since there's constantly new verbiage to respond to?
People used to comment on my sig all the time, but now that it's been around for a couple years, it's fairly rare to get a response.
(yes, irony intended :)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082850</id>
	<title>I think the same</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You know it is not big amount of code that has to be maintained to be compatible with all the browsers, but if getting new browser doesn't cost money, why to bother with some older browsers that do not event interpret standardized code correctly? Computers these days are not equipped whit cassette or 5"25 floppy drive even if people still have them. Windows 3.11 support definitely ended so it is the same with browsers. Just inform people that they have deprecated browser and thus the page might be rendered incorrectly. Of course the warning have to be medieval browsers compatible<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You know it is not big amount of code that has to be maintained to be compatible with all the browsers , but if getting new browser does n't cost money , why to bother with some older browsers that do not event interpret standardized code correctly ?
Computers these days are not equipped whit cassette or 5 " 25 floppy drive even if people still have them .
Windows 3.11 support definitely ended so it is the same with browsers .
Just inform people that they have deprecated browser and thus the page might be rendered incorrectly .
Of course the warning have to be medieval browsers compatible : - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You know it is not big amount of code that has to be maintained to be compatible with all the browsers, but if getting new browser doesn't cost money, why to bother with some older browsers that do not event interpret standardized code correctly?
Computers these days are not equipped whit cassette or 5"25 floppy drive even if people still have them.
Windows 3.11 support definitely ended so it is the same with browsers.
Just inform people that they have deprecated browser and thus the page might be rendered incorrectly.
Of course the warning have to be medieval browsers compatible :-)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083100</id>
	<title>An updateIE bar</title>
	<author>zefciu</author>
	<datestamp>1265015940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could alternatively use a widget from <a href="http://ie6update.com/" title="ie6update.com" rel="nofollow">http://ie6update.com/</a> [ie6update.com] it's quite a smartass idea. However it's meant for ie6 only, which really is obsolete now. I believe that IE 7 should still be supported. But it's your business and money.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could alternatively use a widget from http : //ie6update.com/ [ ie6update.com ] it 's quite a smartass idea .
However it 's meant for ie6 only , which really is obsolete now .
I believe that IE 7 should still be supported .
But it 's your business and money .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could alternatively use a widget from http://ie6update.com/ [ie6update.com] it's quite a smartass idea.
However it's meant for ie6 only, which really is obsolete now.
I believe that IE 7 should still be supported.
But it's your business and money.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31090300</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It depends how important the inaccessible content is to getting the message across.  If this content is crucial to your image then it might not be such a good thing to allow all traffic to pass.  But a this thread shows, blocking traffic would impact the site's image too.  An upgrade wouldn't be an optimal<br>choice and many users would simply move on, or use google cache<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) Some information is better than no information, right?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It depends how important the inaccessible content is to getting the message across .
If this content is crucial to your image then it might not be such a good thing to allow all traffic to pass .
But a this thread shows , blocking traffic would impact the site 's image too .
An upgrade would n't be an optimalchoice and many users would simply move on , or use google cache : ) Some information is better than no information , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It depends how important the inaccessible content is to getting the message across.
If this content is crucial to your image then it might not be such a good thing to allow all traffic to pass.
But a this thread shows, blocking traffic would impact the site's image too.
An upgrade wouldn't be an optimalchoice and many users would simply move on, or use google cache :) Some information is better than no information, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084856</id>
	<title>ZK</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I use ZK Framework and I have never had any problem with browser compliance. With this framework I don't even need to use Javascript+DOM so I think that the best way to develop we pages is by using a modern presentation web framework.<br>Anyway, if IE6/7 didn't exist, web applications could use advanced features that aren't used because they are not present in MS browsers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use ZK Framework and I have never had any problem with browser compliance .
With this framework I do n't even need to use Javascript + DOM so I think that the best way to develop we pages is by using a modern presentation web framework.Anyway , if IE6/7 did n't exist , web applications could use advanced features that are n't used because they are not present in MS browsers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I use ZK Framework and I have never had any problem with browser compliance.
With this framework I don't even need to use Javascript+DOM so I think that the best way to develop we pages is by using a modern presentation web framework.Anyway, if IE6/7 didn't exist, web applications could use advanced features that aren't used because they are not present in MS browsers.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083684</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not only is it pointless, it's totally mindless.  Like the first poster says let IE6 try it's best and stop trying to dictate to users.  They may have a perfectly good reason to use IE6.  You are not their parents and they are (probably) not five years old.</p><p>Either write to standards or don't bother at all.  There are quite enough crappy web pages in the world without you adding to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not only is it pointless , it 's totally mindless .
Like the first poster says let IE6 try it 's best and stop trying to dictate to users .
They may have a perfectly good reason to use IE6 .
You are not their parents and they are ( probably ) not five years old.Either write to standards or do n't bother at all .
There are quite enough crappy web pages in the world without you adding to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not only is it pointless, it's totally mindless.
Like the first poster says let IE6 try it's best and stop trying to dictate to users.
They may have a perfectly good reason to use IE6.
You are not their parents and they are (probably) not five years old.Either write to standards or don't bother at all.
There are quite enough crappy web pages in the world without you adding to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31160198</id>
	<title>Goverment agencies are sslllooowwww</title>
	<author>SyZ</author>
	<datestamp>1266314640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I build web interfaces for use by employees of state &amp; county governments.  Most users in large counties like Santa Clara or San Diego are using cookie-cutter machines that are 5-8 years old, locked down at IE6 on Windows 95. One is just getting ready for a bulk purchase of WinXP/IE7 machines (wow!) which took 3 years to plan for and are supposed to last for the next 5+ years.</p><p>Sadly, IE6 support must continue for a few more years in many arenas, especially when dealing with slow governments.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I build web interfaces for use by employees of state &amp; county governments .
Most users in large counties like Santa Clara or San Diego are using cookie-cutter machines that are 5-8 years old , locked down at IE6 on Windows 95 .
One is just getting ready for a bulk purchase of WinXP/IE7 machines ( wow !
) which took 3 years to plan for and are supposed to last for the next 5 + years.Sadly , IE6 support must continue for a few more years in many arenas , especially when dealing with slow governments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I build web interfaces for use by employees of state &amp; county governments.
Most users in large counties like Santa Clara or San Diego are using cookie-cutter machines that are 5-8 years old, locked down at IE6 on Windows 95.
One is just getting ready for a bulk purchase of WinXP/IE7 machines (wow!
) which took 3 years to plan for and are supposed to last for the next 5+ years.Sadly, IE6 support must continue for a few more years in many arenas, especially when dealing with slow governments.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083378</id>
	<title>Microsoft? Spit out the dung pill and ignore them</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>microsoft should be ignored until they disappear like a fart in the wind, really, where is innovation coming from redmond?</p><p>what truly free gifts spring from redmond which are useful in your everyday life? not counting mired in proprietary code software requiring windows or windows closed formats.</p><p>let's start comparing.</p><p>we're still choking on the closed nature of directx, for all we know there could be a universal backdoor in directx, a lot of popular proprietary software sure does eventually come out with a number of remote exploits (backdoors in disguise?).</p><p>anyone who continues to use windows products with their history of dozens upon dozens of remote exploits which could take over the entire PC should be fired from any job where they oversee any other individual in any shape or form.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>microsoft should be ignored until they disappear like a fart in the wind , really , where is innovation coming from redmond ? what truly free gifts spring from redmond which are useful in your everyday life ?
not counting mired in proprietary code software requiring windows or windows closed formats.let 's start comparing.we 're still choking on the closed nature of directx , for all we know there could be a universal backdoor in directx , a lot of popular proprietary software sure does eventually come out with a number of remote exploits ( backdoors in disguise ?
) .anyone who continues to use windows products with their history of dozens upon dozens of remote exploits which could take over the entire PC should be fired from any job where they oversee any other individual in any shape or form .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>microsoft should be ignored until they disappear like a fart in the wind, really, where is innovation coming from redmond?what truly free gifts spring from redmond which are useful in your everyday life?
not counting mired in proprietary code software requiring windows or windows closed formats.let's start comparing.we're still choking on the closed nature of directx, for all we know there could be a universal backdoor in directx, a lot of popular proprietary software sure does eventually come out with a number of remote exploits (backdoors in disguise?
).anyone who continues to use windows products with their history of dozens upon dozens of remote exploits which could take over the entire PC should be fired from any job where they oversee any other individual in any shape or form.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084628</id>
	<title>Graceful degredation only becoming more essential</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265034060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Forget the issue of IE6 (and IE7? I can only imagine that the site is some kind of "cutting-edge" javascript/css abomination if it fails utterly in IE7.), how do you imagine this guy's website is going to perform on cellphone and other mobile browsers?  If fewer than 5\% of the users are using any version of IE, they must be awfully technical indeed; I imagine that many of them also possess smartphones.  I know that since I have started browsing in earnest on my phone, I have run into far too many websites with extremely basic content that nevertheless completely implode in multiple mobile browsers.  And if the mobile browsers <i>can</i> render your website, I guarantee that you will also engender rage and resentment amongst users if they have to switch user agents just to placate your naive redirects.  <br> <br>While IE6 is declining in popularity, phones will only increase.  Firefox Mobile may be more powerful than IE6, but the same cannot be said for any of the other (currently far more common) browsers, and <i>no</i> phone has more than VGA resolution.  Many sites that do render mostly properly have nevertheless brought potent curses to my lips when I tried to use their tiny and/or heavily javascripted navigation menus with a touchscreen. And Flash!  I won't even go there...  <br> <br>Of course,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. is a shining example of many of those pitfalls.  While ajax support is indeed more efficient <i>in theory</i>, in addition to avoiding spurious reloads, the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. 2.0 design managed to destroy the client browsing experience in favor of (presumably) server-side efficiency.  Whenever there is, say, an evolution article (~1000 posts), firefox more often than not gives me a javascript timeout for the page on a Core2 (I browse at -1, nested, all comments; the "50/100 per page" views never really worked either since it would break between threads, which are sometimes hundreds of comments long, resulting in four or five nearly identical numbered pages--but at least they didn't bring processors to their knees).  And while<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. <i>does</i> render on my phone, it certainly cannot be said to render <i>well</i>, or with anything approaching speed.  At least it doesn't have insulting UA checks and I can read the bare comments (after I manage to log in, anyway--the threaded view is an absolute disaster).<br> <br> <b>Fail gracefully</b>.  Hell, that is the whole idea behind CSS.  So what if a website looks aesthetically awful in some browsers?  At least it renders!  When you start going overboard with javascript, however, and the content of the site (which has, maddeningly enough, been substantially present on the client all along) won't even appear until 5000 lines of script execute correctly...claiming that such things are "necessary" is total bullshit unless you have some kind of super heavyweight web-app like Google Documents; many of pages I browse work and look just fine with scripting disabled; many, however, were programmed by a bunch of assholes.

<br> <br>Salon.com comes to mind: until a few weeks ago, it worked just fine.  Then, they had some kind of web 2.0 revelation.  Actually, the site looks pretty much the same, except that now only two paragraphs of an article usually displays initially until you click the js link  which unhides the rest of the article...and then reloads the page one second later just to make you angry...sometimes in an infinite loop.  Ironically, the site works just fine with scripting turned totally off; it is only when scripting is allowed for the "salon.com" domain but not the tens of advertising/tracking partner domains that everything goes to hell.  The page reloads unnecessarily because the massive unhiding function blows up in some tracking code before it returns false, and if you get really lucky it then keeps running the function over and over and over again (I can't reproduce that at this moment, but reading the code, I can only imagine that it involves the story ids stored in the cookie, which can trigger instant expansion when the page is reloa</htmltext>
<tokenext>Forget the issue of IE6 ( and IE7 ?
I can only imagine that the site is some kind of " cutting-edge " javascript/css abomination if it fails utterly in IE7 .
) , how do you imagine this guy 's website is going to perform on cellphone and other mobile browsers ?
If fewer than 5 \ % of the users are using any version of IE , they must be awfully technical indeed ; I imagine that many of them also possess smartphones .
I know that since I have started browsing in earnest on my phone , I have run into far too many websites with extremely basic content that nevertheless completely implode in multiple mobile browsers .
And if the mobile browsers can render your website , I guarantee that you will also engender rage and resentment amongst users if they have to switch user agents just to placate your naive redirects .
While IE6 is declining in popularity , phones will only increase .
Firefox Mobile may be more powerful than IE6 , but the same can not be said for any of the other ( currently far more common ) browsers , and no phone has more than VGA resolution .
Many sites that do render mostly properly have nevertheless brought potent curses to my lips when I tried to use their tiny and/or heavily javascripted navigation menus with a touchscreen .
And Flash !
I wo n't even go there... Of course , / .
is a shining example of many of those pitfalls .
While ajax support is indeed more efficient in theory , in addition to avoiding spurious reloads , the / .
2.0 design managed to destroy the client browsing experience in favor of ( presumably ) server-side efficiency .
Whenever there is , say , an evolution article ( ~ 1000 posts ) , firefox more often than not gives me a javascript timeout for the page on a Core2 ( I browse at -1 , nested , all comments ; the " 50/100 per page " views never really worked either since it would break between threads , which are sometimes hundreds of comments long , resulting in four or five nearly identical numbered pages--but at least they did n't bring processors to their knees ) .
And while / .
does render on my phone , it certainly can not be said to render well , or with anything approaching speed .
At least it does n't have insulting UA checks and I can read the bare comments ( after I manage to log in , anyway--the threaded view is an absolute disaster ) .
Fail gracefully .
Hell , that is the whole idea behind CSS .
So what if a website looks aesthetically awful in some browsers ?
At least it renders !
When you start going overboard with javascript , however , and the content of the site ( which has , maddeningly enough , been substantially present on the client all along ) wo n't even appear until 5000 lines of script execute correctly...claiming that such things are " necessary " is total bullshit unless you have some kind of super heavyweight web-app like Google Documents ; many of pages I browse work and look just fine with scripting disabled ; many , however , were programmed by a bunch of assholes .
Salon.com comes to mind : until a few weeks ago , it worked just fine .
Then , they had some kind of web 2.0 revelation .
Actually , the site looks pretty much the same , except that now only two paragraphs of an article usually displays initially until you click the js link which unhides the rest of the article...and then reloads the page one second later just to make you angry...sometimes in an infinite loop .
Ironically , the site works just fine with scripting turned totally off ; it is only when scripting is allowed for the " salon.com " domain but not the tens of advertising/tracking partner domains that everything goes to hell .
The page reloads unnecessarily because the massive unhiding function blows up in some tracking code before it returns false , and if you get really lucky it then keeps running the function over and over and over again ( I ca n't reproduce that at this moment , but reading the code , I can only imagine that it involves the story ids stored in the cookie , which can trigger instant expansion when the page is reloa</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Forget the issue of IE6 (and IE7?
I can only imagine that the site is some kind of "cutting-edge" javascript/css abomination if it fails utterly in IE7.
), how do you imagine this guy's website is going to perform on cellphone and other mobile browsers?
If fewer than 5\% of the users are using any version of IE, they must be awfully technical indeed; I imagine that many of them also possess smartphones.
I know that since I have started browsing in earnest on my phone, I have run into far too many websites with extremely basic content that nevertheless completely implode in multiple mobile browsers.
And if the mobile browsers can render your website, I guarantee that you will also engender rage and resentment amongst users if they have to switch user agents just to placate your naive redirects.
While IE6 is declining in popularity, phones will only increase.
Firefox Mobile may be more powerful than IE6, but the same cannot be said for any of the other (currently far more common) browsers, and no phone has more than VGA resolution.
Many sites that do render mostly properly have nevertheless brought potent curses to my lips when I tried to use their tiny and/or heavily javascripted navigation menus with a touchscreen.
And Flash!
I won't even go there...   Of course, /.
is a shining example of many of those pitfalls.
While ajax support is indeed more efficient in theory, in addition to avoiding spurious reloads, the /.
2.0 design managed to destroy the client browsing experience in favor of (presumably) server-side efficiency.
Whenever there is, say, an evolution article (~1000 posts), firefox more often than not gives me a javascript timeout for the page on a Core2 (I browse at -1, nested, all comments; the "50/100 per page" views never really worked either since it would break between threads, which are sometimes hundreds of comments long, resulting in four or five nearly identical numbered pages--but at least they didn't bring processors to their knees).
And while /.
does render on my phone, it certainly cannot be said to render well, or with anything approaching speed.
At least it doesn't have insulting UA checks and I can read the bare comments (after I manage to log in, anyway--the threaded view is an absolute disaster).
Fail gracefully.
Hell, that is the whole idea behind CSS.
So what if a website looks aesthetically awful in some browsers?
At least it renders!
When you start going overboard with javascript, however, and the content of the site (which has, maddeningly enough, been substantially present on the client all along) won't even appear until 5000 lines of script execute correctly...claiming that such things are "necessary" is total bullshit unless you have some kind of super heavyweight web-app like Google Documents; many of pages I browse work and look just fine with scripting disabled; many, however, were programmed by a bunch of assholes.
Salon.com comes to mind: until a few weeks ago, it worked just fine.
Then, they had some kind of web 2.0 revelation.
Actually, the site looks pretty much the same, except that now only two paragraphs of an article usually displays initially until you click the js link  which unhides the rest of the article...and then reloads the page one second later just to make you angry...sometimes in an infinite loop.
Ironically, the site works just fine with scripting turned totally off; it is only when scripting is allowed for the "salon.com" domain but not the tens of advertising/tracking partner domains that everything goes to hell.
The page reloads unnecessarily because the massive unhiding function blows up in some tracking code before it returns false, and if you get really lucky it then keeps running the function over and over and over again (I can't reproduce that at this moment, but reading the code, I can only imagine that it involves the story ids stored in the cookie, which can trigger instant expansion when the page is reloa</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082816</id>
	<title>95\% Beats 5\%</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>For the IE 6/7 users, they most likely be using machine locked down badly or unaware of need to change. You will do your self and other 95\% of users a favour by moving to newer and better browser support. Why waste your time and effort on 5\% of users when you should really take care of 95\% of users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>For the IE 6/7 users , they most likely be using machine locked down badly or unaware of need to change .
You will do your self and other 95 \ % of users a favour by moving to newer and better browser support .
Why waste your time and effort on 5 \ % of users when you should really take care of 95 \ % of users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>For the IE 6/7 users, they most likely be using machine locked down badly or unaware of need to change.
You will do your self and other 95\% of users a favour by moving to newer and better browser support.
Why waste your time and effort on 5\% of users when you should really take care of 95\% of users.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31110382</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>SimonInOz</author>
	<datestamp>1266007860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It hasn't helped your spelling, though. You need to be standards compliant there too.</p><p>That's well-paid<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.... and by comparison, my well-paid day job is in a large corporation where they use IE6 on XP. And they seem a bit stunned anybody would use anything else.</p><p>But I have managed to get the testers to use other browsers, so progress is being made.</p><p>Your spelling, though, I despair of.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It has n't helped your spelling , though .
You need to be standards compliant there too.That 's well-paid .... and by comparison , my well-paid day job is in a large corporation where they use IE6 on XP .
And they seem a bit stunned anybody would use anything else.But I have managed to get the testers to use other browsers , so progress is being made.Your spelling , though , I despair of .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It hasn't helped your spelling, though.
You need to be standards compliant there too.That's well-paid .... and by comparison, my well-paid day job is in a large corporation where they use IE6 on XP.
And they seem a bit stunned anybody would use anything else.But I have managed to get the testers to use other browsers, so progress is being made.Your spelling, though, I despair of.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083004</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082828</id>
	<title>Support</title>
	<author>Fri13</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I would support last two Windowses and the latest Internet Explorer browser for them.</p><p>IE8 is available for XP so I can not find reason to support IE7 (or the IE6 at all) anymore.</p><p>Admins should start to notice that it is better to update to latest stable version of used software and we should drive all developers as well to understand that.</p><p>It is not good that one software company can keep all its clients having old version of other software when they need to use their one software and it is not supporting newer versions of next ones. Usual problem is the license fees of updating (every update costs extra), even that they are fixing bugs what they have done in the first place.</p><p>Just support last two version what is supported by browser developers but do not tie yourself to last one but always the newest.</p><p>I would like to know do we still need in the bottom the fine print "Best viewed with browser X and Y with resolution XY"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would support last two Windowses and the latest Internet Explorer browser for them.IE8 is available for XP so I can not find reason to support IE7 ( or the IE6 at all ) anymore.Admins should start to notice that it is better to update to latest stable version of used software and we should drive all developers as well to understand that.It is not good that one software company can keep all its clients having old version of other software when they need to use their one software and it is not supporting newer versions of next ones .
Usual problem is the license fees of updating ( every update costs extra ) , even that they are fixing bugs what they have done in the first place.Just support last two version what is supported by browser developers but do not tie yourself to last one but always the newest.I would like to know do we still need in the bottom the fine print " Best viewed with browser X and Y with resolution XY " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I would support last two Windowses and the latest Internet Explorer browser for them.IE8 is available for XP so I can not find reason to support IE7 (or the IE6 at all) anymore.Admins should start to notice that it is better to update to latest stable version of used software and we should drive all developers as well to understand that.It is not good that one software company can keep all its clients having old version of other software when they need to use their one software and it is not supporting newer versions of next ones.
Usual problem is the license fees of updating (every update costs extra), even that they are fixing bugs what they have done in the first place.Just support last two version what is supported by browser developers but do not tie yourself to last one but always the newest.I would like to know do we still need in the bottom the fine print "Best viewed with browser X and Y with resolution XY"?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083592</id>
	<title>not just corporate lock-in</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for an MMORPG and we found that a large (15+) precentage of our players are still on IE6</p><p>After a lot of headscratching we discovered that most of those IE6 users are unable to upgrade because the use pirated versions of Windows XP and as such can't run any updates from MS. Sure they could still run FF or Chrome, but for some reason most of them don't.</p><p>So, if your audience is such that it may contain a lot of "non-genuine" XP users you don't really have a choice.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for an MMORPG and we found that a large ( 15 + ) precentage of our players are still on IE6After a lot of headscratching we discovered that most of those IE6 users are unable to upgrade because the use pirated versions of Windows XP and as such ca n't run any updates from MS. Sure they could still run FF or Chrome , but for some reason most of them do n't.So , if your audience is such that it may contain a lot of " non-genuine " XP users you do n't really have a choice .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for an MMORPG and we found that a large (15+) precentage of our players are still on IE6After a lot of headscratching we discovered that most of those IE6 users are unable to upgrade because the use pirated versions of Windows XP and as such can't run any updates from MS. Sure they could still run FF or Chrome, but for some reason most of them don't.So, if your audience is such that it may contain a lot of "non-genuine" XP users you don't really have a choice.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082960</id>
	<title>The whole premise is faulty</title>
	<author>istartedi</author>
	<datestamp>1265057580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The stuff I really want on the web
would work fine with Netscape Navigator 3.x and the
correct plugins.</p><p>Do us all a favor and get rid of CSS,
XHTML, and all the other alphabeet soup.
Oh, and stop using target \_blank.  I've
held out quite a while, but I think I'm
finally going to install one of those script/tag-stripping
proxies just so I can get rid of target \_blank.</p><p>I wanna new window, I'll click right-click
and chose "open in new window".  That's what
it's there for.  Oh, and how's that back button
compatability thing working out?  No?  Still
not there?  Wankers.</p><p>Oh, and "get off my lawn".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The stuff I really want on the web would work fine with Netscape Navigator 3.x and the correct plugins.Do us all a favor and get rid of CSS , XHTML , and all the other alphabeet soup .
Oh , and stop using target \ _blank .
I 've held out quite a while , but I think I 'm finally going to install one of those script/tag-stripping proxies just so I can get rid of target \ _blank.I wan na new window , I 'll click right-click and chose " open in new window " .
That 's what it 's there for .
Oh , and how 's that back button compatability thing working out ?
No ? Still not there ?
Wankers.Oh , and " get off my lawn " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The stuff I really want on the web
would work fine with Netscape Navigator 3.x and the
correct plugins.Do us all a favor and get rid of CSS,
XHTML, and all the other alphabeet soup.
Oh, and stop using target \_blank.
I've
held out quite a while, but I think I'm
finally going to install one of those script/tag-stripping
proxies just so I can get rid of target \_blank.I wanna new window, I'll click right-click
and chose "open in new window".
That's what
it's there for.
Oh, and how's that back button
compatability thing working out?
No?  Still
not there?
Wankers.Oh, and "get off my lawn".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31092010</id>
	<title>Re:sometimes users don't control their machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Federal employee here.  IE6 is still very much the mainstream in our corner of the show.  No upgrades in sight so far as I know.  Sucks, but security and cost-efficient trump high-tech when tax dollars are paying the rent.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Federal employee here .
IE6 is still very much the mainstream in our corner of the show .
No upgrades in sight so far as I know .
Sucks , but security and cost-efficient trump high-tech when tax dollars are paying the rent .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Federal employee here.
IE6 is still very much the mainstream in our corner of the show.
No upgrades in sight so far as I know.
Sucks, but security and cost-efficient trump high-tech when tax dollars are paying the rent.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083532</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>weicco</author>
	<datestamp>1265021580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, that and my personal opinion is that web sites should have less (X)HTML/CSS/Javascript masturbation. I don't care about the fancy outlook. Content is everything.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , that and my personal opinion is that web sites should have less ( X ) HTML/CSS/Javascript masturbation .
I do n't care about the fancy outlook .
Content is everything .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, that and my personal opinion is that web sites should have less (X)HTML/CSS/Javascript masturbation.
I don't care about the fancy outlook.
Content is everything.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</id>
	<title>Hell no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Remember: The only thing you can achieve by supporting those &ldquo;browsers&rdquo;, is to be an enabler. Basically the only reason those people still use IE, is because they can. And the only reason they still can, is because you still code for IE 6/7. And the only reason you do that, is because people still use them.<br>Do you see the circular logic here?<br>Someone has to break the cycle. And you can bet your ass that it won&rsquo;t be the users. It&rsquo;s your job. It&rsquo;s mine. After all we&rsquo;re the experts for a reason.<br>Don&rsquo;t be an ass. Be nice. Don&rsquo;t push them. Pull them. Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites, is freakn&rsquo; great! It&rsquo;s like opening the box of your shiny new electronics device (or whatever you like) and playing with it all day long. Get that feeling across! And you <em>will</em> see them getting dragged in in the euphoria, switching in the blink of an eye.<br>People don&rsquo;t change anything if they think they don&rsquo;t have to. It&rsquo;s called efficiency. But sometimes it&rsquo;s bad. E.g. when there is a lack of information.</p><p>So if you think that they should switch, then just code close to the standards. If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years.</p><p>Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible... and then ending up with a shitty target group because the result of your work is bland, average, plastic-fantastic, non-innovative, boring shit that nobody hates but that also nobody loves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember : The only thing you can achieve by supporting those    browsers    , is to be an enabler .
Basically the only reason those people still use IE , is because they can .
And the only reason they still can , is because you still code for IE 6/7 .
And the only reason you do that , is because people still use them.Do you see the circular logic here ? Someone has to break the cycle .
And you can bet your ass that it won    t be the users .
It    s your job .
It    s mine .
After all we    re the experts for a reason.Don    t be an ass .
Be nice .
Don    t push them .
Pull them .
Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites , is freakn    great !
It    s like opening the box of your shiny new electronics device ( or whatever you like ) and playing with it all day long .
Get that feeling across !
And you will see them getting dragged in in the euphoria , switching in the blink of an eye.People don    t change anything if they think they don    t have to .
It    s called efficiency .
But sometimes it    s bad .
E.g. when there is a lack of information.So if you think that they should switch , then just code close to the standards .
If they want to use their site , it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser , and they know it for years.Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers , who would never dare to do something innovative , edgy , fresh or even slightly offending , to get a target group as big as possible... and then ending up with a shitty target group because the result of your work is bland , average , plastic-fantastic , non-innovative , boring shit that nobody hates but that also nobody loves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember: The only thing you can achieve by supporting those “browsers”, is to be an enabler.
Basically the only reason those people still use IE, is because they can.
And the only reason they still can, is because you still code for IE 6/7.
And the only reason you do that, is because people still use them.Do you see the circular logic here?Someone has to break the cycle.
And you can bet your ass that it won’t be the users.
It’s your job.
It’s mine.
After all we’re the experts for a reason.Don’t be an ass.
Be nice.
Don’t push them.
Pull them.
Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites, is freakn’ great!
It’s like opening the box of your shiny new electronics device (or whatever you like) and playing with it all day long.
Get that feeling across!
And you will see them getting dragged in in the euphoria, switching in the blink of an eye.People don’t change anything if they think they don’t have to.
It’s called efficiency.
But sometimes it’s bad.
E.g. when there is a lack of information.So if you think that they should switch, then just code close to the standards.
If they want to use their site, it takes them five minutes to install a recent browser, and they know it for years.Still supporting IE 6/7 is similar to acting like those EA managers, who would never dare to do something innovative, edgy, fresh or even slightly offending, to get a target group as big as possible... and then ending up with a shitty target group because the result of your work is bland, average, plastic-fantastic, non-innovative, boring shit that nobody hates but that also nobody loves.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully. Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
This is why browser sniffing is bad .
Just design it to be standards compliant , and let the browsers that ca n't follow the standards fail , hopefully gracefully .
Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
This is why browser sniffing is bad.
Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully.
Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31094716</id>
	<title>Re:Yes and No</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Do you realize that IE6 is the most recent release for most versions of Windows and as such IE6 is currently the most commonly used browser on the Internet? IE 7 &amp; 8 only install on NT 6 or higher. To make it worse NT 6&amp;7 require at least 2 cores and 1GB of RAM to do what NT5 can do with 1 core and 256MB of RAM. Normal computer users don't understand why they should fork out the cost of the new hardware and OS so they can upgrade their browser so they can do nothing new. Firefox isn't the answer for these people that are used to clicking the blue "e" so they can "download the internet".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you realize that IE6 is the most recent release for most versions of Windows and as such IE6 is currently the most commonly used browser on the Internet ?
IE 7 &amp; 8 only install on NT 6 or higher .
To make it worse NT 6&amp;7 require at least 2 cores and 1GB of RAM to do what NT5 can do with 1 core and 256MB of RAM .
Normal computer users do n't understand why they should fork out the cost of the new hardware and OS so they can upgrade their browser so they can do nothing new .
Firefox is n't the answer for these people that are used to clicking the blue " e " so they can " download the internet " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you realize that IE6 is the most recent release for most versions of Windows and as such IE6 is currently the most commonly used browser on the Internet?
IE 7 &amp; 8 only install on NT 6 or higher.
To make it worse NT 6&amp;7 require at least 2 cores and 1GB of RAM to do what NT5 can do with 1 core and 256MB of RAM.
Normal computer users don't understand why they should fork out the cost of the new hardware and OS so they can upgrade their browser so they can do nothing new.
Firefox isn't the answer for these people that are used to clicking the blue "e" so they can "download the internet".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084036</id>
	<title>Drop IE6 maybe IE 7 too early</title>
	<author>haplo21112</author>
	<datestamp>1265027880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are a lot of companies that mandate the standard of what goes on the Corporate machine image and are slow to update.  For example the one I work for got to IE 7 (on XPSP3) as a standard over IE 6 about a year and half ago.  The only thing thats going to bring them kicking and screaming to IE8  is the looming upgrade to Windows 7. The upgrade to Windows 7 isn't even a serious consideration until sometime next year.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are a lot of companies that mandate the standard of what goes on the Corporate machine image and are slow to update .
For example the one I work for got to IE 7 ( on XPSP3 ) as a standard over IE 6 about a year and half ago .
The only thing thats going to bring them kicking and screaming to IE8 is the looming upgrade to Windows 7 .
The upgrade to Windows 7 is n't even a serious consideration until sometime next year .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are a lot of companies that mandate the standard of what goes on the Corporate machine image and are slow to update.
For example the one I work for got to IE 7 (on XPSP3) as a standard over IE 6 about a year and half ago.
The only thing thats going to bring them kicking and screaming to IE8  is the looming upgrade to Windows 7.
The upgrade to Windows 7 isn't even a serious consideration until sometime next year.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085850</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>Temujin\_12</author>
	<datestamp>1265040600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The "but [insert mega corporation name here] requires IE 6 for internal tools" excuse is now nothing more than an excuse and is not sound a business decision. The <a href="http://support.microsoft.com/gp/lifesupsps/#Internet\_Explorer" title="microsoft.com">official EOL for IE 6</a> [microsoft.com] is July of this year. Any company that has tools that that they wish to run on a browser supported by its vendor (to say nothing of security issues) should have either already created a new version that supports newer browsers or should be actively developing one.</p><p>A corporate app that requires an EOL'ed browser is either not important enough to the company for them to invest in basic ongoing maintenance or is so poorly written/understood that nobody dares to touch it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The " but [ insert mega corporation name here ] requires IE 6 for internal tools " excuse is now nothing more than an excuse and is not sound a business decision .
The official EOL for IE 6 [ microsoft.com ] is July of this year .
Any company that has tools that that they wish to run on a browser supported by its vendor ( to say nothing of security issues ) should have either already created a new version that supports newer browsers or should be actively developing one.A corporate app that requires an EOL'ed browser is either not important enough to the company for them to invest in basic ongoing maintenance or is so poorly written/understood that nobody dares to touch it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The "but [insert mega corporation name here] requires IE 6 for internal tools" excuse is now nothing more than an excuse and is not sound a business decision.
The official EOL for IE 6 [microsoft.com] is July of this year.
Any company that has tools that that they wish to run on a browser supported by its vendor (to say nothing of security issues) should have either already created a new version that supports newer browsers or should be actively developing one.A corporate app that requires an EOL'ed browser is either not important enough to the company for them to invest in basic ongoing maintenance or is so poorly written/understood that nobody dares to touch it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083732</id>
	<title>It's our fault, just as much...</title>
	<author>Bunzinator</author>
	<datestamp>1265024400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>... as it is that of the browser vendors. As web developers, we NEVER should have coded to anything but the W3C standards. Browsers would have been forced to fall in line, and this fascinating banter would never have been necessary. While I have always tried to just code to the standards, I can understand the position other are in, with their PHBs squeezing them to do stupid things.
<br> <br>
Though it'd never happen, I'd like to see W3C monitor all web content, and have the power to issue DNS deregistration notices to all non-compliant sites.
<br> <br>
<strong>
Dear Sir,
<br> <br>
we have determined that you site, www.microsoft.com, is not compliant with the W3C 'xhtml1-transitional' standard it claims to implement. You are advised that you have 14 days in which to make the aforesaid site fully compliant. Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of your Domain Name registration, until such time your compliance is proven.
<br> <br>
Have a pleasant day.
</strong></htmltext>
<tokenext>... as it is that of the browser vendors .
As web developers , we NEVER should have coded to anything but the W3C standards .
Browsers would have been forced to fall in line , and this fascinating banter would never have been necessary .
While I have always tried to just code to the standards , I can understand the position other are in , with their PHBs squeezing them to do stupid things .
Though it 'd never happen , I 'd like to see W3C monitor all web content , and have the power to issue DNS deregistration notices to all non-compliant sites .
Dear Sir , we have determined that you site , www.microsoft.com , is not compliant with the W3C 'xhtml1-transitional ' standard it claims to implement .
You are advised that you have 14 days in which to make the aforesaid site fully compliant .
Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of your Domain Name registration , until such time your compliance is proven .
Have a pleasant day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as it is that of the browser vendors.
As web developers, we NEVER should have coded to anything but the W3C standards.
Browsers would have been forced to fall in line, and this fascinating banter would never have been necessary.
While I have always tried to just code to the standards, I can understand the position other are in, with their PHBs squeezing them to do stupid things.
Though it'd never happen, I'd like to see W3C monitor all web content, and have the power to issue DNS deregistration notices to all non-compliant sites.
Dear Sir,
 
we have determined that you site, www.microsoft.com, is not compliant with the W3C 'xhtml1-transitional' standard it claims to implement.
You are advised that you have 14 days in which to make the aforesaid site fully compliant.
Failure to do so will result in the immediate suspension of your Domain Name registration, until such time your compliance is proven.
Have a pleasant day.
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085818</id>
	<title>a little late</title>
	<author>cartercole</author>
	<datestamp>1265040420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>i wrote a post about this a couple days ago <a href="http://j.mp/aEJZnO" title="j.mp" rel="nofollow">http://j.mp/aEJZnO</a> [j.mp] i point to <a href="http://ie6nomore.com/" title="ie6nomore.com" rel="nofollow">http://ie6nomore.com/</a> [ie6nomore.com] and agree with the first comment. im not going to bend over backwards to try and get ie6 when im also dealing with quirks of ie8,firefox and chrome... write it as best to standards as i can and unless the client wants to pay more let those few little rendering errors slide</htmltext>
<tokenext>i wrote a post about this a couple days ago http : //j.mp/aEJZnO [ j.mp ] i point to http : //ie6nomore.com/ [ ie6nomore.com ] and agree with the first comment .
im not going to bend over backwards to try and get ie6 when im also dealing with quirks of ie8,firefox and chrome... write it as best to standards as i can and unless the client wants to pay more let those few little rendering errors slide</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i wrote a post about this a couple days ago http://j.mp/aEJZnO [j.mp] i point to http://ie6nomore.com/ [ie6nomore.com] and agree with the first comment.
im not going to bend over backwards to try and get ie6 when im also dealing with quirks of ie8,firefox and chrome... write it as best to standards as i can and unless the client wants to pay more let those few little rendering errors slide</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31090022</id>
	<title>Just give IE6 users something plain</title>
	<author>thetoadwarrior</author>
	<datestamp>1265015100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What sites need to do is support IE6 users but with little effort. Give them an alternative view of the site that's effectively just black text on a white background, like a print style sheet and put a warning at the top that they can't have the full experience until they get a real browser.
<br> <br>
Most people not upgrading are likely pirates who are too thick to get around WGA or use Firefox or backwards companies. Most websites don't really need to care about these people. If sites would stick together and give IE6 a bland but informative experience they'd be more likely to upgrade. As it is there is no real reason for these losers to upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What sites need to do is support IE6 users but with little effort .
Give them an alternative view of the site that 's effectively just black text on a white background , like a print style sheet and put a warning at the top that they ca n't have the full experience until they get a real browser .
Most people not upgrading are likely pirates who are too thick to get around WGA or use Firefox or backwards companies .
Most websites do n't really need to care about these people .
If sites would stick together and give IE6 a bland but informative experience they 'd be more likely to upgrade .
As it is there is no real reason for these losers to upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What sites need to do is support IE6 users but with little effort.
Give them an alternative view of the site that's effectively just black text on a white background, like a print style sheet and put a warning at the top that they can't have the full experience until they get a real browser.
Most people not upgrading are likely pirates who are too thick to get around WGA or use Firefox or backwards companies.
Most websites don't really need to care about these people.
If sites would stick together and give IE6 a bland but informative experience they'd be more likely to upgrade.
As it is there is no real reason for these losers to upgrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083742</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265024520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just because you don't require IE6, doesn't mean others don't. Not everyone in the company does the same type of work, and the IT dept are probably taking the "lowest common denominator" route to success.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just because you do n't require IE6 , does n't mean others do n't .
Not everyone in the company does the same type of work , and the IT dept are probably taking the " lowest common denominator " route to success .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just because you don't require IE6, doesn't mean others don't.
Not everyone in the company does the same type of work, and the IT dept are probably taking the "lowest common denominator" route to success.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083060</id>
	<title>Our visitors use it...</title>
	<author>Fotograf</author>
	<datestamp>1265015400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>our visitors still come 30\% with IE6 so:

decision is yours: do you want that that 1/3 of your possible customers cannot view the page properly</htmltext>
<tokenext>our visitors still come 30 \ % with IE6 so : decision is yours : do you want that that 1/3 of your possible customers can not view the page properly</tokentext>
<sentencetext>our visitors still come 30\% with IE6 so:

decision is yours: do you want that that 1/3 of your possible customers cannot view the page properly</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086898</id>
	<title>Javascript</title>
	<author>nate nice</author>
	<datestamp>1265045160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This has more to do with Javascript than anything.  the Javascript interpreter in IE6 is pretty awful.  I've spent many hours coding little jscript workarounds for IE6.  It doesn't fail gracefully and in complex jscript environments, it can be entirely painful to have to change a bit of script because IE6 can't handle what every other browser can.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This has more to do with Javascript than anything .
the Javascript interpreter in IE6 is pretty awful .
I 've spent many hours coding little jscript workarounds for IE6 .
It does n't fail gracefully and in complex jscript environments , it can be entirely painful to have to change a bit of script because IE6 ca n't handle what every other browser can .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This has more to do with Javascript than anything.
the Javascript interpreter in IE6 is pretty awful.
I've spent many hours coding little jscript workarounds for IE6.
It doesn't fail gracefully and in complex jscript environments, it can be entirely painful to have to change a bit of script because IE6 can't handle what every other browser can.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856</id>
	<title>Measure it...</title>
	<author>dacut</author>
	<datestamp>1265056740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... as you've done.  What percentage of those IE users are still running IE6/7?  Then ask yourself, "Am I willing to lose X\% of my visitors to save Y\% of coding effort?"</p><p>For any <i>typical</i> website which depends on traffic for revenue, I'd say you'd have to be nuts to cut support for IE 6/7; thats <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Msieshare1" title="wikipedia.org">about 35\%</a> [wikipedia.org] of the visitors to your site.  The fact that only 5\% (and not 62\%) of your visitors use IE at all, however, indicates that you're not running a typical site (or there's an error in your metrics collection).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... as you 've done .
What percentage of those IE users are still running IE6/7 ?
Then ask yourself , " Am I willing to lose X \ % of my visitors to save Y \ % of coding effort ?
" For any typical website which depends on traffic for revenue , I 'd say you 'd have to be nuts to cut support for IE 6/7 ; thats about 35 \ % [ wikipedia.org ] of the visitors to your site .
The fact that only 5 \ % ( and not 62 \ % ) of your visitors use IE at all , however , indicates that you 're not running a typical site ( or there 's an error in your metrics collection ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... as you've done.
What percentage of those IE users are still running IE6/7?
Then ask yourself, "Am I willing to lose X\% of my visitors to save Y\% of coding effort?
"For any typical website which depends on traffic for revenue, I'd say you'd have to be nuts to cut support for IE 6/7; thats about 35\% [wikipedia.org] of the visitors to your site.
The fact that only 5\% (and not 62\%) of your visitors use IE at all, however, indicates that you're not running a typical site (or there's an error in your metrics collection).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083820</id>
	<title>Take it one step farther and help the user.</title>
	<author>upuv</author>
	<datestamp>1265025480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dropping IE 6 is definitely something we all should promote and do.  IE 7 no chance as of yet.</p><p>I work in Enterprise and I constantly see ie6 numbers of 10\% of users.  Lots of people say that's enough to justify that we continue to support it.  I counter with.  How much cost are we devoting to ie6 bug fixing?  How much is ie 6 costing us in lost capability holding back the entire site?  How often have we put our users in jeopardy when a dodgy add sneaks through our add provider?  How much money have we lost because ie6 regression testing slowed product release.</p><p>I content that we should not only drop support.  We should actually redirect them to and upgrade or you get no access page.</p><p>The pennies that ie6 users provide my customers is simply not enough to justify the costs.  The business guys always get pissed when I bring up the topic of dropping any cash stream no matter how small.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dropping IE 6 is definitely something we all should promote and do .
IE 7 no chance as of yet.I work in Enterprise and I constantly see ie6 numbers of 10 \ % of users .
Lots of people say that 's enough to justify that we continue to support it .
I counter with .
How much cost are we devoting to ie6 bug fixing ?
How much is ie 6 costing us in lost capability holding back the entire site ?
How often have we put our users in jeopardy when a dodgy add sneaks through our add provider ?
How much money have we lost because ie6 regression testing slowed product release.I content that we should not only drop support .
We should actually redirect them to and upgrade or you get no access page.The pennies that ie6 users provide my customers is simply not enough to justify the costs .
The business guys always get pissed when I bring up the topic of dropping any cash stream no matter how small .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dropping IE 6 is definitely something we all should promote and do.
IE 7 no chance as of yet.I work in Enterprise and I constantly see ie6 numbers of 10\% of users.
Lots of people say that's enough to justify that we continue to support it.
I counter with.
How much cost are we devoting to ie6 bug fixing?
How much is ie 6 costing us in lost capability holding back the entire site?
How often have we put our users in jeopardy when a dodgy add sneaks through our add provider?
How much money have we lost because ie6 regression testing slowed product release.I content that we should not only drop support.
We should actually redirect them to and upgrade or you get no access page.The pennies that ie6 users provide my customers is simply not enough to justify the costs.
The business guys always get pissed when I bring up the topic of dropping any cash stream no matter how small.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083176</id>
	<title>Not until Windows XP support is dropped</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Until Windows XP has been phased out then I don't think you can drop IE6 support. Unfortunately people do have to reinstall Windows now and then, and when they do they will need to be able to surf the web etc to download drivers, or to even download IE8.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Until Windows XP has been phased out then I do n't think you can drop IE6 support .
Unfortunately people do have to reinstall Windows now and then , and when they do they will need to be able to surf the web etc to download drivers , or to even download IE8 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Until Windows XP has been phased out then I don't think you can drop IE6 support.
Unfortunately people do have to reinstall Windows now and then, and when they do they will need to be able to surf the web etc to download drivers, or to even download IE8.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082842</id>
	<title>be compatible or loose out</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*sigh* no - my technical blog still gets 40\% of its traffic from old outdated browsers - the information is still useful to these people regardless of what browser they are using</p><p>a lot of the traffic comes from corporate networks where no doubt the network/desktop/it security overlords dictate when/what patches/upgrades are applied.</p><p>Dictate to your audience which browser + version they must use and you alienate all the others.</p><p>Backwards compatability - whereever possible  maximises your audience.</p><p>And in the case of an eCommerce / shopping website - you never want to miss out on sale just because the website designer/programmer is too riteous to care about compatability. Do you think that maybe you only get 5\% IE traffic because your site may be broken/unusable for IE users and they refuse to come back to "that dodgy broken site that doesn't work for me" ?</p><p>I worked for the biggest ISP in the country doing tech support for customers, and believe me - just because you think it should be a certain way doesn't mean the end-user will think/do/behave/understand it that way.</p><p>Embrace the masses - make it work in as many browsers as possible - Do you think websites like Google, Facebook, Twitter would have so many users if they only worked in one browser version and told everyone else to pi** off ?</p><p>Why not write your websites to only work for the latest version on Lynx and see how popular you are?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* sigh * no - my technical blog still gets 40 \ % of its traffic from old outdated browsers - the information is still useful to these people regardless of what browser they are usinga lot of the traffic comes from corporate networks where no doubt the network/desktop/it security overlords dictate when/what patches/upgrades are applied.Dictate to your audience which browser + version they must use and you alienate all the others.Backwards compatability - whereever possible maximises your audience.And in the case of an eCommerce / shopping website - you never want to miss out on sale just because the website designer/programmer is too riteous to care about compatability .
Do you think that maybe you only get 5 \ % IE traffic because your site may be broken/unusable for IE users and they refuse to come back to " that dodgy broken site that does n't work for me " ? I worked for the biggest ISP in the country doing tech support for customers , and believe me - just because you think it should be a certain way does n't mean the end-user will think/do/behave/understand it that way.Embrace the masses - make it work in as many browsers as possible - Do you think websites like Google , Facebook , Twitter would have so many users if they only worked in one browser version and told everyone else to pi * * off ? Why not write your websites to only work for the latest version on Lynx and see how popular you are ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*sigh* no - my technical blog still gets 40\% of its traffic from old outdated browsers - the information is still useful to these people regardless of what browser they are usinga lot of the traffic comes from corporate networks where no doubt the network/desktop/it security overlords dictate when/what patches/upgrades are applied.Dictate to your audience which browser + version they must use and you alienate all the others.Backwards compatability - whereever possible  maximises your audience.And in the case of an eCommerce / shopping website - you never want to miss out on sale just because the website designer/programmer is too riteous to care about compatability.
Do you think that maybe you only get 5\% IE traffic because your site may be broken/unusable for IE users and they refuse to come back to "that dodgy broken site that doesn't work for me" ?I worked for the biggest ISP in the country doing tech support for customers, and believe me - just because you think it should be a certain way doesn't mean the end-user will think/do/behave/understand it that way.Embrace the masses - make it work in as many browsers as possible - Do you think websites like Google, Facebook, Twitter would have so many users if they only worked in one browser version and told everyone else to pi** off ?Why not write your websites to only work for the latest version on Lynx and see how popular you are?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083482</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265020860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Tell them you can only access 6/8 of the internet with IE6, and present a unproportional graph of the fraction so it looks a lot bigger (I recommend a pie chart, they're awesome!).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Tell them you can only access 6/8 of the internet with IE6 , and present a unproportional graph of the fraction so it looks a lot bigger ( I recommend a pie chart , they 're awesome !
) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Tell them you can only access 6/8 of the internet with IE6, and present a unproportional graph of the fraction so it looks a lot bigger (I recommend a pie chart, they're awesome!
).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083990</id>
	<title>Re:be compatible or loose out</title>
	<author>vtcodger</author>
	<datestamp>1265027340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>*** *sigh* no - my technical blog still gets 40\% of its traffic from old outdated browsers ***</p><p>If your web site is there to deliver technical content, why do you care what browsers are used to access it?  Write simple web pages that comply with HTML 4.01 Transitional.  Feed them through the W3C Validator before posting them.  And possibly everyone will be happy?</p><p>Yes, I understand that not everyone lives in a world that can work like that, but I should think that many -- probably most -- people do.  Why are they working so hard to make their world more painful for themselves and their users?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * * sigh * no - my technical blog still gets 40 \ % of its traffic from old outdated browsers * * * If your web site is there to deliver technical content , why do you care what browsers are used to access it ?
Write simple web pages that comply with HTML 4.01 Transitional .
Feed them through the W3C Validator before posting them .
And possibly everyone will be happy ? Yes , I understand that not everyone lives in a world that can work like that , but I should think that many -- probably most -- people do .
Why are they working so hard to make their world more painful for themselves and their users ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>*** *sigh* no - my technical blog still gets 40\% of its traffic from old outdated browsers ***If your web site is there to deliver technical content, why do you care what browsers are used to access it?
Write simple web pages that comply with HTML 4.01 Transitional.
Feed them through the W3C Validator before posting them.
And possibly everyone will be happy?Yes, I understand that not everyone lives in a world that can work like that, but I should think that many -- probably most -- people do.
Why are they working so hard to make their world more painful for themselves and their users?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082842</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082866</id>
	<title>Re:No more support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>None of my sites use browser detection. It's all very simple html and css. It'd be nice if more people did the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>None of my sites use browser detection .
It 's all very simple html and css .
It 'd be nice if more people did the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of my sites use browser detection.
It's all very simple html and css.
It'd be nice if more people did the same.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083604</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>***Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant***</p><p>You reckon that the folks who design web sites are even aware that there are standards for HTML?  I've never seen much sign of it.</p><p>Other than that, you are 100\% correct and will continue to be 98\% ignored, because doing things in the usual bizarre, gonzo fashion seems to be ever so much fun.</p><p>Unfortunately, I have no mod points today.</p><p>Well, actually, it wouldn't help if I did have mod points because Slashdot's mod point system is not compatible with Konqueror 3.5.9.  I wonder why?</p><p>***<br>Markup Validation Service<br>Check the markup (HTML, XHTML, ) of Web documents<br>Jump To:</p><p>Validation Output</p><p>Errors found while checking this document as HTML 4.01 Strict!<br>Result:       64 Errors, 2 warning(s)<br>Address:      <a href="http://slashdot.org/" title="slashdot.org">http://slashdot.org/</a> [slashdot.org]<br>Encoding:     iso-8859-1(detect automatically)<br>Doctype:      HTML 4.01 StrictInline<br>Root Element: HTML</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>* * * Agreed .
This is why browser sniffing is bad .
Just design it to be standards compliant * * * You reckon that the folks who design web sites are even aware that there are standards for HTML ?
I 've never seen much sign of it.Other than that , you are 100 \ % correct and will continue to be 98 \ % ignored , because doing things in the usual bizarre , gonzo fashion seems to be ever so much fun.Unfortunately , I have no mod points today.Well , actually , it would n't help if I did have mod points because Slashdot 's mod point system is not compatible with Konqueror 3.5.9 .
I wonder why ?
* * * Markup Validation ServiceCheck the markup ( HTML , XHTML , ) of Web documentsJump To : Validation OutputErrors found while checking this document as HTML 4.01 Strict ! Result : 64 Errors , 2 warning ( s ) Address : http : //slashdot.org/ [ slashdot.org ] Encoding : iso-8859-1 ( detect automatically ) Doctype : HTML 4.01 StrictInlineRoot Element : HTML</tokentext>
<sentencetext>***Agreed.
This is why browser sniffing is bad.
Just design it to be standards compliant***You reckon that the folks who design web sites are even aware that there are standards for HTML?
I've never seen much sign of it.Other than that, you are 100\% correct and will continue to be 98\% ignored, because doing things in the usual bizarre, gonzo fashion seems to be ever so much fun.Unfortunately, I have no mod points today.Well, actually, it wouldn't help if I did have mod points because Slashdot's mod point system is not compatible with Konqueror 3.5.9.
I wonder why?
***Markup Validation ServiceCheck the markup (HTML, XHTML, ) of Web documentsJump To:Validation OutputErrors found while checking this document as HTML 4.01 Strict!Result:       64 Errors, 2 warning(s)Address:      http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org]Encoding:     iso-8859-1(detect automatically)Doctype:      HTML 4.01 StrictInlineRoot Element: HTML</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083174</id>
	<title>Squeeze Them</title>
	<author>chill</author>
	<datestamp>1265016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Don't explicitly break IE6/7, just don't kill yourself to making your site 100\% compatible.</p><p>Use <a href="http://www.ie6nomore.com/" title="ie6nomore.com">IE6NoMore</a> [ie6nomore.com]</p><p>As for corporate sites...I haven't seen much of an issue, honestly.  The last few big corps I've worked with that still use IE6 also have Firefox installed.  Yes, their desktop machines come with 2 browsers and IE6 is used almost explicitly with a couple of legacy apps that rely on ActiveX.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Do n't explicitly break IE6/7 , just do n't kill yourself to making your site 100 \ % compatible.Use IE6NoMore [ ie6nomore.com ] As for corporate sites...I have n't seen much of an issue , honestly .
The last few big corps I 've worked with that still use IE6 also have Firefox installed .
Yes , their desktop machines come with 2 browsers and IE6 is used almost explicitly with a couple of legacy apps that rely on ActiveX .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Don't explicitly break IE6/7, just don't kill yourself to making your site 100\% compatible.Use IE6NoMore [ie6nomore.com]As for corporate sites...I haven't seen much of an issue, honestly.
The last few big corps I've worked with that still use IE6 also have Firefox installed.
Yes, their desktop machines come with 2 browsers and IE6 is used almost explicitly with a couple of legacy apps that rely on ActiveX.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083390</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>The Mighty Buzzard</author>
	<datestamp>1265019600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Ask Google what site they were sent to for that exploit then go around visiting it on as many computers as you can find at work.  Something will definitely change.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask Google what site they were sent to for that exploit then go around visiting it on as many computers as you can find at work .
Something will definitely change .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask Google what site they were sent to for that exploit then go around visiting it on as many computers as you can find at work.
Something will definitely change.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082952</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>Antony-Kyre</author>
	<datestamp>1265057460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>But if someone bundles, I mean, releases a popular browser to the world, in which it breaks the standards, what then?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>But if someone bundles , I mean , releases a popular browser to the world , in which it breaks the standards , what then ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>But if someone bundles, I mean, releases a popular browser to the world, in which it breaks the standards, what then?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086640</id>
	<title>Re:No more support</title>
	<author>Malc</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would you block somebody?  That's nasty behaviour by you.  It's highly irritating when web developers do that.  Especially they also tend to make mistakes with their sniffing... the number of times I've been blocked for using a newer version of a browser, or something on the Mac, that they were too stupid to consider.  If they've got IE6, display a warning, but let them try to at least proceed.  They'll know what to do if things fail, but they might also succeed.  Why be an arsehole about it?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would you block somebody ?
That 's nasty behaviour by you .
It 's highly irritating when web developers do that .
Especially they also tend to make mistakes with their sniffing... the number of times I 've been blocked for using a newer version of a browser , or something on the Mac , that they were too stupid to consider .
If they 've got IE6 , display a warning , but let them try to at least proceed .
They 'll know what to do if things fail , but they might also succeed .
Why be an arsehole about it ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would you block somebody?
That's nasty behaviour by you.
It's highly irritating when web developers do that.
Especially they also tend to make mistakes with their sniffing... the number of times I've been blocked for using a newer version of a browser, or something on the Mac, that they were too stupid to consider.
If they've got IE6, display a warning, but let them try to at least proceed.
They'll know what to do if things fail, but they might also succeed.
Why be an arsehole about it?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082804</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088300</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>gstoddart</author>
	<datestamp>1265051160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser. Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, they will not know.</p></div></blockquote><p>My rule of thumb is that if an earthquake (or <a href="http://www.snopes.com/humor/business/wordperfect.asp" title="snopes.com">power outage</a> [snopes.com]<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-) occurs at the same time the user presses a button on <em>your</em> software, that it was your fault.</p><p>Many users simply don't really understand the different roles of the components of their computer -- and when one goes wrong, the one they <em>meant</em> to be using was clearly the culprit.</p><p>Sadly, the now famous power outage story I linked to isn't really that far from what I've actually seen in the real world.  To some users, the computer will always be a completely unknowable device which operates on magic.  I can absolutely see a lot of users not understanding what is meant by an out of date browser or how to fix it.</p><p>Cheers</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Users ( a ) are n't always aware that they 're using an outdated browser and ( b ) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser .
Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault , they will not know.My rule of thumb is that if an earthquake ( or power outage [ snopes.com ] ; - ) occurs at the same time the user presses a button on your software , that it was your fault.Many users simply do n't really understand the different roles of the components of their computer -- and when one goes wrong , the one they meant to be using was clearly the culprit.Sadly , the now famous power outage story I linked to is n't really that far from what I 've actually seen in the real world .
To some users , the computer will always be a completely unknowable device which operates on magic .
I can absolutely see a lot of users not understanding what is meant by an out of date browser or how to fix it.Cheers</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Users (a) aren't always aware that they're using an outdated browser and (b) will therefore simply blame your site rather than their browser.
Unless you tell them explicitly their browser is at fault, they will not know.My rule of thumb is that if an earthquake (or power outage [snopes.com] ;-) occurs at the same time the user presses a button on your software, that it was your fault.Many users simply don't really understand the different roles of the components of their computer -- and when one goes wrong, the one they meant to be using was clearly the culprit.Sadly, the now famous power outage story I linked to isn't really that far from what I've actually seen in the real world.
To some users, the computer will always be a completely unknowable device which operates on magic.
I can absolutely see a lot of users not understanding what is meant by an out of date browser or how to fix it.Cheers
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085388</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083114</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>LingNoi</author>
	<datestamp>1265016180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Set your boss's default homepage to <a href="http://www.crashie.com/" title="crashie.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.crashie.com/</a> [crashie.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Set your boss 's default homepage to http : //www.crashie.com/ [ crashie.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Set your boss's default homepage to http://www.crashie.com/ [crashie.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083638</id>
	<title>Why is this still a debate?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265023380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A long, long time ago in an internet not so far, far away, every website simply had "Best viewed with<nobr> <wbr></nobr>..." and usually some combination of the latest IE and Mozilla.  Problem solved.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A long , long time ago in an internet not so far , far away , every website simply had " Best viewed with ... " and usually some combination of the latest IE and Mozilla .
Problem solved .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A long, long time ago in an internet not so far, far away, every website simply had "Best viewed with ..." and usually some combination of the latest IE and Mozilla.
Problem solved.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088010</id>
	<title>Here at my University in our web dev group</title>
	<author>bjdevil66</author>
	<datestamp>1265049960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We don't support IE6 anymore, but we also don't forward people or otherwise make them angry. Instead, we just let the site be a little off in IE6 and move on.</p><p>We have a standardized theme/template that we use for all of our university sites now, and it was initially built a while ago when we supported IE6 (using its own little ie6.css file to fix the problems). Thanks to that work, the sites generally still "work" due to earlier efforts, but the newer ones aren't always perfectly laid out. (I usually take a look at them in IE6 in a VM for our group to be sure they're "good enough", and that's it.) Like other commenters here have said, the only reason we ever support IE6 now is if a picky client uses it in their office (and that is rare in our University environment thanks to a central IT department that has been pushing people to upgrade for years).</p><p>On IE7, however, we can't ignore it. Too many people still use it.. Yes, IE8 is light years ahead of IE7 in standards support (IE8 is what IE7 SHOULD have been), but IE7 is much more manageable in Standards Mode than IE6 ever was, so we tolerate it. Dealing with it is cake when compared to IE6 pain and suffering.</p><p>We will drop IE7 support about when the Google Analytics tell us that IE7 usage is between 5-10\%.</p><p>IE6 - No new work to support it. IE7 - Support it fully.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We do n't support IE6 anymore , but we also do n't forward people or otherwise make them angry .
Instead , we just let the site be a little off in IE6 and move on.We have a standardized theme/template that we use for all of our university sites now , and it was initially built a while ago when we supported IE6 ( using its own little ie6.css file to fix the problems ) .
Thanks to that work , the sites generally still " work " due to earlier efforts , but the newer ones are n't always perfectly laid out .
( I usually take a look at them in IE6 in a VM for our group to be sure they 're " good enough " , and that 's it .
) Like other commenters here have said , the only reason we ever support IE6 now is if a picky client uses it in their office ( and that is rare in our University environment thanks to a central IT department that has been pushing people to upgrade for years ) .On IE7 , however , we ca n't ignore it .
Too many people still use it.. Yes , IE8 is light years ahead of IE7 in standards support ( IE8 is what IE7 SHOULD have been ) , but IE7 is much more manageable in Standards Mode than IE6 ever was , so we tolerate it .
Dealing with it is cake when compared to IE6 pain and suffering.We will drop IE7 support about when the Google Analytics tell us that IE7 usage is between 5-10 \ % .IE6 - No new work to support it .
IE7 - Support it fully .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We don't support IE6 anymore, but we also don't forward people or otherwise make them angry.
Instead, we just let the site be a little off in IE6 and move on.We have a standardized theme/template that we use for all of our university sites now, and it was initially built a while ago when we supported IE6 (using its own little ie6.css file to fix the problems).
Thanks to that work, the sites generally still "work" due to earlier efforts, but the newer ones aren't always perfectly laid out.
(I usually take a look at them in IE6 in a VM for our group to be sure they're "good enough", and that's it.
) Like other commenters here have said, the only reason we ever support IE6 now is if a picky client uses it in their office (and that is rare in our University environment thanks to a central IT department that has been pushing people to upgrade for years).On IE7, however, we can't ignore it.
Too many people still use it.. Yes, IE8 is light years ahead of IE7 in standards support (IE8 is what IE7 SHOULD have been), but IE7 is much more manageable in Standards Mode than IE6 ever was, so we tolerate it.
Dealing with it is cake when compared to IE6 pain and suffering.We will drop IE7 support about when the Google Analytics tell us that IE7 usage is between 5-10\%.IE6 - No new work to support it.
IE7 - Support it fully.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083208</id>
	<title>back in the days...</title>
	<author>MancunianMaskMan</author>
	<datestamp>1265017380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>back in the days not just tech websites proudly presented the "this site requires IE3 / Netscape 3" icons. And Netscape 2 before that. And NS 1.4, iirc that was quite an important release feature-wise.
I suppose the web was not catering for non-geeks on the whole. <p>

Simple answer to the above question: what's the cost of continued support of $OBSOLETE\_BROWSER\_X compared with the revenue your website makes from customers with $OBSOLETE\_BROWSER\_X who won't switch to $SANE\_BROWSER and rather abscond tom $EVIL\_COMPETITOR.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>back in the days not just tech websites proudly presented the " this site requires IE3 / Netscape 3 " icons .
And Netscape 2 before that .
And NS 1.4 , iirc that was quite an important release feature-wise .
I suppose the web was not catering for non-geeks on the whole .
Simple answer to the above question : what 's the cost of continued support of $ OBSOLETE \ _BROWSER \ _X compared with the revenue your website makes from customers with $ OBSOLETE \ _BROWSER \ _X who wo n't switch to $ SANE \ _BROWSER and rather abscond tom $ EVIL \ _COMPETITOR .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>back in the days not just tech websites proudly presented the "this site requires IE3 / Netscape 3" icons.
And Netscape 2 before that.
And NS 1.4, iirc that was quite an important release feature-wise.
I suppose the web was not catering for non-geeks on the whole.
Simple answer to the above question: what's the cost of continued support of $OBSOLETE\_BROWSER\_X compared with the revenue your website makes from customers with $OBSOLETE\_BROWSER\_X who won't switch to $SANE\_BROWSER and rather abscond tom $EVIL\_COMPETITOR.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084614</id>
	<title>Charge extra</title>
	<author>tonelust</author>
	<datestamp>1265033940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>We code to standards, however we identify which browsers the site will be tested in and will be targeted upfront. When clients request specifically for IE6 we then quote them how much it will cost to make the necessary changes. You can "drop" support by clearly identifying which browser you will test in and support and then leave it up to the client to pay for the additional work that it requires to support a browser that most people won't or don't want to support.</div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>We code to standards , however we identify which browsers the site will be tested in and will be targeted upfront .
When clients request specifically for IE6 we then quote them how much it will cost to make the necessary changes .
You can " drop " support by clearly identifying which browser you will test in and support and then leave it up to the client to pay for the additional work that it requires to support a browser that most people wo n't or do n't want to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We code to standards, however we identify which browsers the site will be tested in and will be targeted upfront.
When clients request specifically for IE6 we then quote them how much it will cost to make the necessary changes.
You can "drop" support by clearly identifying which browser you will test in and support and then leave it up to the client to pay for the additional work that it requires to support a browser that most people won't or don't want to support.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087820</id>
	<title>Don't support MS-BS</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1265049120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't support Microsoft Internet Explorer at all other than where it follows web standards, which it often doesn't. If IE breaks then so be it. I have a note on my web sites warning IE users to convert to something, almost anything, else.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't support Microsoft Internet Explorer at all other than where it follows web standards , which it often does n't .
If IE breaks then so be it .
I have a note on my web sites warning IE users to convert to something , almost anything , else .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't support Microsoft Internet Explorer at all other than where it follows web standards, which it often doesn't.
If IE breaks then so be it.
I have a note on my web sites warning IE users to convert to something, almost anything, else.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084600</id>
	<title>Insensitive clod, LYNX!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265033820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You insensitive clod, anyone who designs a website that doesn't work right in lynx should be dragged through the streets and have their hands chopped off!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You insensitive clod , anyone who designs a website that does n't work right in lynx should be dragged through the streets and have their hands chopped off !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You insensitive clod, anyone who designs a website that doesn't work right in lynx should be dragged through the streets and have their hands chopped off!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31092288</id>
	<title>Chrome Frame...Anyone?</title>
	<author>TheTyrannyOfForcedRe</author>
	<datestamp>1265025180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the <a href="http://www.google.com/chromeframe" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">Google Chrome Frame</a> [google.com] plugin for IE6/7/8.  It's the easiest way to handle IE6 insanity and it gives the user a great experience.  We've had good luck getting people to install it for <a href="http://www.twitgrids.com/" title="twitgrids.com" rel="nofollow">TwitGrids</a> [twitgrids.com].  We were concerned about peoples' willingness to install a plugin to access the site but our worry was totally unfounded.  Users could care less.  A couple clicks and they're getting a zippy Chrome experience inside their dumpy old IE6/7 browser.  The people who actually care which plugins are installed are already hitting us with Chrome or Firefox.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Google Chrome Frame [ google.com ] plugin for IE6/7/8 .
It 's the easiest way to handle IE6 insanity and it gives the user a great experience .
We 've had good luck getting people to install it for TwitGrids [ twitgrids.com ] .
We were concerned about peoples ' willingness to install a plugin to access the site but our worry was totally unfounded .
Users could care less .
A couple clicks and they 're getting a zippy Chrome experience inside their dumpy old IE6/7 browser .
The people who actually care which plugins are installed are already hitting us with Chrome or Firefox .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned the Google Chrome Frame [google.com] plugin for IE6/7/8.
It's the easiest way to handle IE6 insanity and it gives the user a great experience.
We've had good luck getting people to install it for TwitGrids [twitgrids.com].
We were concerned about peoples' willingness to install a plugin to access the site but our worry was totally unfounded.
Users could care less.
A couple clicks and they're getting a zippy Chrome experience inside their dumpy old IE6/7 browser.
The people who actually care which plugins are installed are already hitting us with Chrome or Firefox.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085574</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>flatrock</author>
	<datestamp>1265039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even though the software upgrade is free, it requires time from support personel and some loss of productivity to upgrade.  In this economy, money for anything that is not essential is tight.</p><p>If it becomes difficult for you and your coworkers to do your job with IE6, then you have a good argument that might bear some weight.  If there isn't a compelling business reason, they are likely to continue to put it off until cash flow improves.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even though the software upgrade is free , it requires time from support personel and some loss of productivity to upgrade .
In this economy , money for anything that is not essential is tight.If it becomes difficult for you and your coworkers to do your job with IE6 , then you have a good argument that might bear some weight .
If there is n't a compelling business reason , they are likely to continue to put it off until cash flow improves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even though the software upgrade is free, it requires time from support personel and some loss of productivity to upgrade.
In this economy, money for anything that is not essential is tight.If it becomes difficult for you and your coworkers to do your job with IE6, then you have a good argument that might bear some weight.
If there isn't a compelling business reason, they are likely to continue to put it off until cash flow improves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</id>
	<title>I'm posting this from IE6.  HELP!</title>
	<author>mykos</author>
	<datestamp>1265056620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>My employer hasn't switched from IE6.  Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8?  We have exactly zero software which requires IE6; in fact, some of our software doesn't work properly with it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My employer has n't switched from IE6 .
Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8 ?
We have exactly zero software which requires IE6 ; in fact , some of our software does n't work properly with it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My employer hasn't switched from IE6.
Does anyone have tips on how to convince them to move to IE8?
We have exactly zero software which requires IE6; in fact, some of our software doesn't work properly with it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085098</id>
	<title>Re:Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>david.given</author>
	<datestamp>1265037180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been on the other end of this: I got sent out to work with a Korean customer on-site. They wouldn't allow our machine to be connected to their LAN without installing some security software (name and shame: Waterwall).

</p><p>The installation goes halfway through and fails obscurely. Three hours of debugging later they finally realise that I have IE8, but Waterwall only works on IE6 or IE7.

</p><p>So I try to install IE7. I can't, because IE8 is installed. I try to uninstall IE8. I can't, because our sysadmin is, like, competent, and had set up the laptop with a DVD image with IE8 slipstreamed into it.

</p><p>I eventually had to borrow an XP disk from the customer and reinstall Windows. Then I installed Microsoft Security Essentials and removed the virus that was on their XP disk.

</p><p>The real joke? Waterwall blocks web access, enforces encryption on USB keys and recordable media, etc. (It's intended to stop 'information leakage'.) The internet? Wide open. ssh worked fine...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been on the other end of this : I got sent out to work with a Korean customer on-site .
They would n't allow our machine to be connected to their LAN without installing some security software ( name and shame : Waterwall ) .
The installation goes halfway through and fails obscurely .
Three hours of debugging later they finally realise that I have IE8 , but Waterwall only works on IE6 or IE7 .
So I try to install IE7 .
I ca n't , because IE8 is installed .
I try to uninstall IE8 .
I ca n't , because our sysadmin is , like , competent , and had set up the laptop with a DVD image with IE8 slipstreamed into it .
I eventually had to borrow an XP disk from the customer and reinstall Windows .
Then I installed Microsoft Security Essentials and removed the virus that was on their XP disk .
The real joke ?
Waterwall blocks web access , enforces encryption on USB keys and recordable media , etc .
( It 's intended to stop 'information leakage' .
) The internet ?
Wide open .
ssh worked fine.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been on the other end of this: I got sent out to work with a Korean customer on-site.
They wouldn't allow our machine to be connected to their LAN without installing some security software (name and shame: Waterwall).
The installation goes halfway through and fails obscurely.
Three hours of debugging later they finally realise that I have IE8, but Waterwall only works on IE6 or IE7.
So I try to install IE7.
I can't, because IE8 is installed.
I try to uninstall IE8.
I can't, because our sysadmin is, like, competent, and had set up the laptop with a DVD image with IE8 slipstreamed into it.
I eventually had to borrow an XP disk from the customer and reinstall Windows.
Then I installed Microsoft Security Essentials and removed the virus that was on their XP disk.
The real joke?
Waterwall blocks web access, enforces encryption on USB keys and recordable media, etc.
(It's intended to stop 'information leakage'.
) The internet?
Wide open.
ssh worked fine...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824</id>
	<title>sometimes users don't control their machines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I worked for a federal agency and just this past summer we were finally upgraded to IE 7 - a lot of places where security is tight the IT people can be overly cautious when upgrading software, meaning employees could be years behind. If your site is something I need to access (technical documentation, etc) I'd be pretty annoyed when it wasn't my fault I couldn't access it because I'm not allowed to update my own machine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I worked for a federal agency and just this past summer we were finally upgraded to IE 7 - a lot of places where security is tight the IT people can be overly cautious when upgrading software , meaning employees could be years behind .
If your site is something I need to access ( technical documentation , etc ) I 'd be pretty annoyed when it was n't my fault I could n't access it because I 'm not allowed to update my own machine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I worked for a federal agency and just this past summer we were finally upgraded to IE 7 - a lot of places where security is tight the IT people can be overly cautious when upgrading software, meaning employees could be years behind.
If your site is something I need to access (technical documentation, etc) I'd be pretty annoyed when it wasn't my fault I couldn't access it because I'm not allowed to update my own machine.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085942</id>
	<title>Does your site make money?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you have a site designed to sell a product/service to arbitrary people you frankly can't drop ie6.<br>Telling 5\% of customers to go away, you don't want their money, on the basis of personal evangelism is not good business.<br>It's really not that hard to support anyway, just requires consistent/well-thought-out frameworks. Jquery does the heavy lifting for you for javascript side, and simple css/xhtml pages will make layout issues not too intractable.</p><p>We run huge-volume adult sites, and all our products work great with ie6, but still contain bells&amp;whistles for modern browsers, css3 additional eyecandy and full mobile compatibility.</p><p>IE6 users turn out to be only 5\% of traffic, but about 10\% of sales, so it's well worth the money to support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you have a site designed to sell a product/service to arbitrary people you frankly ca n't drop ie6.Telling 5 \ % of customers to go away , you do n't want their money , on the basis of personal evangelism is not good business.It 's really not that hard to support anyway , just requires consistent/well-thought-out frameworks .
Jquery does the heavy lifting for you for javascript side , and simple css/xhtml pages will make layout issues not too intractable.We run huge-volume adult sites , and all our products work great with ie6 , but still contain bells&amp;whistles for modern browsers , css3 additional eyecandy and full mobile compatibility.IE6 users turn out to be only 5 \ % of traffic , but about 10 \ % of sales , so it 's well worth the money to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you have a site designed to sell a product/service to arbitrary people you frankly can't drop ie6.Telling 5\% of customers to go away, you don't want their money, on the basis of personal evangelism is not good business.It's really not that hard to support anyway, just requires consistent/well-thought-out frameworks.
Jquery does the heavy lifting for you for javascript side, and simple css/xhtml pages will make layout issues not too intractable.We run huge-volume adult sites, and all our products work great with ie6, but still contain bells&amp;whistles for modern browsers, css3 additional eyecandy and full mobile compatibility.IE6 users turn out to be only 5\% of traffic, but about 10\% of sales, so it's well worth the money to support.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812</id>
	<title>Yes and No</title>
	<author>Kickboy12</author>
	<datestamp>1265056320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At my web development company we officially stopped testing our sites on IE6 last year. However, we do still test sites in IE6 when we know the client is specifically using that browser (so they don't complain). However, IE7 is still pretty common among XP users, so we still have to test all sites on IE7 and IE8.</p><p>Though as far as we're concerned, IE6 is dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At my web development company we officially stopped testing our sites on IE6 last year .
However , we do still test sites in IE6 when we know the client is specifically using that browser ( so they do n't complain ) .
However , IE7 is still pretty common among XP users , so we still have to test all sites on IE7 and IE8.Though as far as we 're concerned , IE6 is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At my web development company we officially stopped testing our sites on IE6 last year.
However, we do still test sites in IE6 when we know the client is specifically using that browser (so they don't complain).
However, IE7 is still pretty common among XP users, so we still have to test all sites on IE7 and IE8.Though as far as we're concerned, IE6 is dead.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084094</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>phoenix321</author>
	<datestamp>1265028420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How much money would you devote to supporting IE6?</p><p>In the real world, money is a hard constraint.</p><p>Would you rather drop a nice-to-have feature working on IE8 and Firefox (80\% of your visitors) to free up some money for implementing and testing with IE6 (2\% of your visitors)?</p><p>If you've got a shop or saloon, do you put a water trough in front of the entrance for the few customers riding horses?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How much money would you devote to supporting IE6 ? In the real world , money is a hard constraint.Would you rather drop a nice-to-have feature working on IE8 and Firefox ( 80 \ % of your visitors ) to free up some money for implementing and testing with IE6 ( 2 \ % of your visitors ) ? If you 've got a shop or saloon , do you put a water trough in front of the entrance for the few customers riding horses ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How much money would you devote to supporting IE6?In the real world, money is a hard constraint.Would you rather drop a nice-to-have feature working on IE8 and Firefox (80\% of your visitors) to free up some money for implementing and testing with IE6 (2\% of your visitors)?If you've got a shop or saloon, do you put a water trough in front of the entrance for the few customers riding horses?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I consider myself a technical user.</p><p>On one of my systems I still use IE6 because (A) my employer requires us to use Sharepoint, and for some "inexplicable" reason Sharepoint only supports a JS HTML editor in IE browsers and (B) because IE7 and IE8 don't allow me to access briefcase folders while browsing the files in those folders at the same time, which I need to do on my laptop.</p><p>I wouldn't have a problem with IE6 support ending, but no support != banning.</p><p>OTOH, how interresting can a site be for a, if it treat browser versions like this. How much could one possibly learn from a zealot?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I consider myself a technical user.On one of my systems I still use IE6 because ( A ) my employer requires us to use Sharepoint , and for some " inexplicable " reason Sharepoint only supports a JS HTML editor in IE browsers and ( B ) because IE7 and IE8 do n't allow me to access briefcase folders while browsing the files in those folders at the same time , which I need to do on my laptop.I would n't have a problem with IE6 support ending , but no support ! = banning.OTOH , how interresting can a site be for a , if it treat browser versions like this .
How much could one possibly learn from a zealot ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I consider myself a technical user.On one of my systems I still use IE6 because (A) my employer requires us to use Sharepoint, and for some "inexplicable" reason Sharepoint only supports a JS HTML editor in IE browsers and (B) because IE7 and IE8 don't allow me to access briefcase folders while browsing the files in those folders at the same time, which I need to do on my laptop.I wouldn't have a problem with IE6 support ending, but no support != banning.OTOH, how interresting can a site be for a, if it treat browser versions like this.
How much could one possibly learn from a zealot?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31100720</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1265909040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's not that simple. For 99\% of web development, even if you follow the specifications to the letter, you'll find that your markup/code just plain doesn't work <i>at all</i> on IE6 and most of the time IE7 as well. Graceful degradation is a myth for anything but static content.</p><p>But I do agree that actively blocking users via their User Agent string is dumb. Any good web developer writes code according to standards and <i>then</i> makes exceptions for popular browsers with known bugs or incomplete implementations. Or they risk locking out 20\%-30\% of their potential audience.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's not that simple .
For 99 \ % of web development , even if you follow the specifications to the letter , you 'll find that your markup/code just plain does n't work at all on IE6 and most of the time IE7 as well .
Graceful degradation is a myth for anything but static content.But I do agree that actively blocking users via their User Agent string is dumb .
Any good web developer writes code according to standards and then makes exceptions for popular browsers with known bugs or incomplete implementations .
Or they risk locking out 20 \ % -30 \ % of their potential audience .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's not that simple.
For 99\% of web development, even if you follow the specifications to the letter, you'll find that your markup/code just plain doesn't work at all on IE6 and most of the time IE7 as well.
Graceful degradation is a myth for anything but static content.But I do agree that actively blocking users via their User Agent string is dumb.
Any good web developer writes code according to standards and then makes exceptions for popular browsers with known bugs or incomplete implementations.
Or they risk locking out 20\%-30\% of their potential audience.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085612</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265039400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Remember: The only thing you can achieve by supporting those "browsers", is to be an enabler. Basically the only reason those people still use IE, is because they can. And the only reason they still can, is because you still code for IE 6/7. And the only reason you do that, is because people still use them.</i></p><p>You do not need to "code for IE6". Most html websites will display reasonably well on IE6 as is.</p><p>Trouble starts to occur with advanced ajax &amp; javascript, but you can get trouble with firefox &amp; other browsers (blackberry, iphone, android) too. Further, much like coding your entire website in flash, many websites go overboard with ajax widgets that don't accomplish very much.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Remember : The only thing you can achieve by supporting those " browsers " , is to be an enabler .
Basically the only reason those people still use IE , is because they can .
And the only reason they still can , is because you still code for IE 6/7 .
And the only reason you do that , is because people still use them.You do not need to " code for IE6 " .
Most html websites will display reasonably well on IE6 as is.Trouble starts to occur with advanced ajax &amp; javascript , but you can get trouble with firefox &amp; other browsers ( blackberry , iphone , android ) too .
Further , much like coding your entire website in flash , many websites go overboard with ajax widgets that do n't accomplish very much .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Remember: The only thing you can achieve by supporting those "browsers", is to be an enabler.
Basically the only reason those people still use IE, is because they can.
And the only reason they still can, is because you still code for IE 6/7.
And the only reason you do that, is because people still use them.You do not need to "code for IE6".
Most html websites will display reasonably well on IE6 as is.Trouble starts to occur with advanced ajax &amp; javascript, but you can get trouble with firefox &amp; other browsers (blackberry, iphone, android) too.
Further, much like coding your entire website in flash, many websites go overboard with ajax widgets that don't accomplish very much.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084574</id>
	<title>Depends on Demographic</title>
	<author>seangw</author>
	<datestamp>1265033640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a web developer, I hate supporting IE6.  It lacks so many things that make the web a better place today (poor CSS support, no PNGs -- yes there are fixes).</p><p>I've found it depends on your target demographic.  If you are looking at business people, IE6 is still in the ballgame.  Offices are still lagging behind in their conversion to modern browsers.  This is probably because the IT staff just doesn't care.</p><p>In talking with user groups, I've heard people say (frequently) that they prefer Firefox or Chrome at home, but at work aren't allowed to install those browsers -- so they are forced to use IE6 during work hours.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a web developer , I hate supporting IE6 .
It lacks so many things that make the web a better place today ( poor CSS support , no PNGs -- yes there are fixes ) .I 've found it depends on your target demographic .
If you are looking at business people , IE6 is still in the ballgame .
Offices are still lagging behind in their conversion to modern browsers .
This is probably because the IT staff just does n't care.In talking with user groups , I 've heard people say ( frequently ) that they prefer Firefox or Chrome at home , but at work are n't allowed to install those browsers -- so they are forced to use IE6 during work hours .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a web developer, I hate supporting IE6.
It lacks so many things that make the web a better place today (poor CSS support, no PNGs -- yes there are fixes).I've found it depends on your target demographic.
If you are looking at business people, IE6 is still in the ballgame.
Offices are still lagging behind in their conversion to modern browsers.
This is probably because the IT staff just doesn't care.In talking with user groups, I've heard people say (frequently) that they prefer Firefox or Chrome at home, but at work aren't allowed to install those browsers -- so they are forced to use IE6 during work hours.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089608</id>
	<title>Who uses IE6 anymore?</title>
	<author>MattBD</author>
	<datestamp>1265056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm inclined to think that for most sites IE6 support isn't worth bothering about. I think IE6 users probably fall into two groups:
1) People using company hardware where the IT department hasn't upgraded IE yet.
2) Non-technical users who've disabled Windows updates because they made their computer slower.

In respect of the second group I think nagging reminders such as IE6nomore are a good idea, since if every site shows those then maybe these people might get the message eventually. The first group are more difficult since it's not their fault and many of them no doubt would actively like to upgrade since IE6 is such a bad way to browse the Internet today compared to a more modern browser (they certainly do where I work), but often legacy web apps prevent that. Probably the best way is to stop supporting IE6 and it'll make it harder for companies to keep using IE6. If someone can't use a website on IE6 at work but can that evening on Firefox at home, then they can do that.

I guess for an e-commerce site then they'd probably need to find out which users actually buy anything as if IE6 users visit the site but don't buy anything, then they can do without supporting them.

Personally, I do actually have one netbook with IE6 on but I use Chrome as the browser on that and I figured since I never use IE anyway then might as well stick with the smaller IE6 if I have to have IE on there at all, and it makes sense to have a copy available to test sites in IE if I need to.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm inclined to think that for most sites IE6 support is n't worth bothering about .
I think IE6 users probably fall into two groups : 1 ) People using company hardware where the IT department has n't upgraded IE yet .
2 ) Non-technical users who 've disabled Windows updates because they made their computer slower .
In respect of the second group I think nagging reminders such as IE6nomore are a good idea , since if every site shows those then maybe these people might get the message eventually .
The first group are more difficult since it 's not their fault and many of them no doubt would actively like to upgrade since IE6 is such a bad way to browse the Internet today compared to a more modern browser ( they certainly do where I work ) , but often legacy web apps prevent that .
Probably the best way is to stop supporting IE6 and it 'll make it harder for companies to keep using IE6 .
If someone ca n't use a website on IE6 at work but can that evening on Firefox at home , then they can do that .
I guess for an e-commerce site then they 'd probably need to find out which users actually buy anything as if IE6 users visit the site but do n't buy anything , then they can do without supporting them .
Personally , I do actually have one netbook with IE6 on but I use Chrome as the browser on that and I figured since I never use IE anyway then might as well stick with the smaller IE6 if I have to have IE on there at all , and it makes sense to have a copy available to test sites in IE if I need to .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm inclined to think that for most sites IE6 support isn't worth bothering about.
I think IE6 users probably fall into two groups:
1) People using company hardware where the IT department hasn't upgraded IE yet.
2) Non-technical users who've disabled Windows updates because they made their computer slower.
In respect of the second group I think nagging reminders such as IE6nomore are a good idea, since if every site shows those then maybe these people might get the message eventually.
The first group are more difficult since it's not their fault and many of them no doubt would actively like to upgrade since IE6 is such a bad way to browse the Internet today compared to a more modern browser (they certainly do where I work), but often legacy web apps prevent that.
Probably the best way is to stop supporting IE6 and it'll make it harder for companies to keep using IE6.
If someone can't use a website on IE6 at work but can that evening on Firefox at home, then they can do that.
I guess for an e-commerce site then they'd probably need to find out which users actually buy anything as if IE6 users visit the site but don't buy anything, then they can do without supporting them.
Personally, I do actually have one netbook with IE6 on but I use Chrome as the browser on that and I figured since I never use IE anyway then might as well stick with the smaller IE6 if I have to have IE on there at all, and it makes sense to have a copy available to test sites in IE if I need to.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084916</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>uncledrax</author>
	<datestamp>1265036280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In Soviet Russia, compatibility browses you?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In Soviet Russia , compatibility browses you ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In Soviet Russia, compatibility browses you?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082964</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31092478</id>
	<title>Public terminals</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265026560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>two words: public terminals.  sometimes very ill-maintained &amp; updated, but still a life-line in certain situations, and we can't just go around installing software on them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>two words : public terminals .
sometimes very ill-maintained &amp; updated , but still a life-line in certain situations , and we ca n't just go around installing software on them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>two words: public terminals.
sometimes very ill-maintained &amp; updated, but still a life-line in certain situations, and we can't just go around installing software on them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086292</id>
	<title>Re:Support</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265042580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Best viewed with browser X and Y with resolution XY</p></div><p>People still do that?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Best viewed with browser X and Y with resolution XYPeople still do that ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Best viewed with browser X and Y with resolution XYPeople still do that?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082828</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085904</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265040780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you make it standards compliant, isn't that alienating all IE versions?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you make it standards compliant , is n't that alienating all IE versions ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you make it standards compliant, isn't that alienating all IE versions?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086156</id>
	<title>It's about Money, with a capital 'M'</title>
	<author>aero2600-5</author>
	<datestamp>1265041980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm a web developer for a top 100 online retailer. I hate IE6 like most of you. I realize that IE6 has caused millions of man-hours lost on a global scale. I also know that I was hired and paid well because of my expertise in working around IE6's many flaws. But it what boils down to is money.</p><p>In the past month, according to our Google Analytics, we have had 5,279,955 visits. That's visits, not pageviews. Of those 5.2m visits, 3,716,805, or 70.39\% were users running some form of IE with javascript enabled. (no javascript, no countie) Of that 70.39\%, 12.73\% were running IE6. That's 473,168 visits from customers using IE6 in the past month. That's about 8.96\% of our total traffic. Would we like to stop supporting IE6? Certainly. Would we like to encourage IE6 users to upgrade to a better browser? Certainly. Can we tell 473,168 users that we don't want their fucking money? <strong>Absolutely fucking not.</strong> </p><p>So, as much as we hate IE6, we'll make damn sure that our stores look good in IE6 because it's about the money.</p><p>-- aero2600</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm a web developer for a top 100 online retailer .
I hate IE6 like most of you .
I realize that IE6 has caused millions of man-hours lost on a global scale .
I also know that I was hired and paid well because of my expertise in working around IE6 's many flaws .
But it what boils down to is money.In the past month , according to our Google Analytics , we have had 5,279,955 visits .
That 's visits , not pageviews .
Of those 5.2m visits , 3,716,805 , or 70.39 \ % were users running some form of IE with javascript enabled .
( no javascript , no countie ) Of that 70.39 \ % , 12.73 \ % were running IE6 .
That 's 473,168 visits from customers using IE6 in the past month .
That 's about 8.96 \ % of our total traffic .
Would we like to stop supporting IE6 ?
Certainly. Would we like to encourage IE6 users to upgrade to a better browser ?
Certainly. Can we tell 473,168 users that we do n't want their fucking money ?
Absolutely fucking not .
So , as much as we hate IE6 , we 'll make damn sure that our stores look good in IE6 because it 's about the money.-- aero2600</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm a web developer for a top 100 online retailer.
I hate IE6 like most of you.
I realize that IE6 has caused millions of man-hours lost on a global scale.
I also know that I was hired and paid well because of my expertise in working around IE6's many flaws.
But it what boils down to is money.In the past month, according to our Google Analytics, we have had 5,279,955 visits.
That's visits, not pageviews.
Of those 5.2m visits, 3,716,805, or 70.39\% were users running some form of IE with javascript enabled.
(no javascript, no countie) Of that 70.39\%, 12.73\% were running IE6.
That's 473,168 visits from customers using IE6 in the past month.
That's about 8.96\% of our total traffic.
Would we like to stop supporting IE6?
Certainly. Would we like to encourage IE6 users to upgrade to a better browser?
Certainly. Can we tell 473,168 users that we don't want their fucking money?
Absolutely fucking not.
So, as much as we hate IE6, we'll make damn sure that our stores look good in IE6 because it's about the money.-- aero2600</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087128</id>
	<title>Re:Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265046120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>  but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.</p></div><p>That's fine, but there is no reason that they have to use an application ( IE6) to explore outside their intranet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.That 's fine , but there is no reason that they have to use an application ( IE6 ) to explore outside their intranet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  but IE6 is still there - under the surface - because critical business applications are still depending on it.That's fine, but there is no reason that they have to use an application ( IE6) to explore outside their intranet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086144</id>
	<title>Is handicap accessibility required now?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265041920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Fewer than 5\% of my customers are handicapped. Can I just ignore them?</p><p>dom</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Fewer than 5 \ % of my customers are handicapped .
Can I just ignore them ? dom</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Fewer than 5\% of my customers are handicapped.
Can I just ignore them?dom</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083576</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>PenquinCoder</author>
	<datestamp>1265022360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I agree with this. All of the websites I've helped to design, have been made first and foremost standards compliant. If your browser can't render a properly designed page, then get a better browser. Don't force us to cater to your mishandling of markup.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I agree with this .
All of the websites I 've helped to design , have been made first and foremost standards compliant .
If your browser ca n't render a properly designed page , then get a better browser .
Do n't force us to cater to your mishandling of markup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I agree with this.
All of the websites I've helped to design, have been made first and foremost standards compliant.
If your browser can't render a properly designed page, then get a better browser.
Don't force us to cater to your mishandling of markup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083016</id>
	<title>Why shut people out?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265014860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's fine to have a statement saying their browser version may decrease their experience at your website but I really hope you still allow those users to continue to browse your site should they want to ignore your suggestion of an upgrade. Why shut then out when they may be perfectly happy to get a lower user experience as long as they can access your content?</p><p>There are many cases where you have no power over the browser you use; case in point my office continues to use IE6 internally (and then for external sites since they opened up their proxies). It's only recently that I've had the ability to install and use Firefox and even then that's only because I'm a developer, everyone else is mostly still on IE6. I imagine I fit the profile of your target audience and if I'm shut out of your website at work purely because of something I can't do anything about, it's not exactly going to endear your site to me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's fine to have a statement saying their browser version may decrease their experience at your website but I really hope you still allow those users to continue to browse your site should they want to ignore your suggestion of an upgrade .
Why shut then out when they may be perfectly happy to get a lower user experience as long as they can access your content ? There are many cases where you have no power over the browser you use ; case in point my office continues to use IE6 internally ( and then for external sites since they opened up their proxies ) .
It 's only recently that I 've had the ability to install and use Firefox and even then that 's only because I 'm a developer , everyone else is mostly still on IE6 .
I imagine I fit the profile of your target audience and if I 'm shut out of your website at work purely because of something I ca n't do anything about , it 's not exactly going to endear your site to me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's fine to have a statement saying their browser version may decrease their experience at your website but I really hope you still allow those users to continue to browse your site should they want to ignore your suggestion of an upgrade.
Why shut then out when they may be perfectly happy to get a lower user experience as long as they can access your content?There are many cases where you have no power over the browser you use; case in point my office continues to use IE6 internally (and then for external sites since they opened up their proxies).
It's only recently that I've had the ability to install and use Firefox and even then that's only because I'm a developer, everyone else is mostly still on IE6.
I imagine I fit the profile of your target audience and if I'm shut out of your website at work purely because of something I can't do anything about, it's not exactly going to endear your site to me.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>mike2R</author>
	<datestamp>1265022180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Agreed. This is why browser sniffing is bad. Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully. Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.</p></div></blockquote><p>Don't be ridiculous.  Unless it is just a vanity site where you don't care about your users, you support any browser that is popular.  This still includes ie6.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Agreed .
This is why browser sniffing is bad .
Just design it to be standards compliant , and let the browsers that ca n't follow the standards fail , hopefully gracefully .
Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.Do n't be ridiculous .
Unless it is just a vanity site where you do n't care about your users , you support any browser that is popular .
This still includes ie6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Agreed.
This is why browser sniffing is bad.
Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully.
Blocking IE6 users completely is just pointless.Don't be ridiculous.
Unless it is just a vanity site where you don't care about your users, you support any browser that is popular.
This still includes ie6.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774</id>
	<title>Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265055960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>You could just let IE6 "try its best". And use a big red notice bar at the top with a link explaining it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>You could just let IE6 " try its best " .
And use a big red notice bar at the top with a link explaining it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could just let IE6 "try its best".
And use a big red notice bar at the top with a link explaining it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084834</id>
	<title>Re:Wish we could :-/</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Its 2010 for cryin out loud.  I can and do run 3 different OSes at the same time on my computer in VMs.  I have a total of like 8-12 web browsers between the 3 OSes installed.  Is supporting or at least supplying a free browser on your computer for modern websites an issue in modern times?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Its 2010 for cryin out loud .
I can and do run 3 different OSes at the same time on my computer in VMs .
I have a total of like 8-12 web browsers between the 3 OSes installed .
Is supporting or at least supplying a free browser on your computer for modern websites an issue in modern times ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Its 2010 for cryin out loud.
I can and do run 3 different OSes at the same time on my computer in VMs.
I have a total of like 8-12 web browsers between the 3 OSes installed.
Is supporting or at least supplying a free browser on your computer for modern websites an issue in modern times?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086412</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>socsoc</author>
	<datestamp>1265043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Even more reason to stop developing with Flash.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Even more reason to stop developing with Flash .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even more reason to stop developing with Flash.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082798</id>
	<title>IE8 not yet authorized by IT</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE8 is still fairly new.  My workplace hasn't yet authorized its use, as some of the web applications used in our business do not work properly with it.  Thus, we are all stuck with IE7 for the time being.  My recommendation is to support the last two major versions of each browser.  There are very good reasons why users may not yet be able to use the latest version.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE8 is still fairly new .
My workplace has n't yet authorized its use , as some of the web applications used in our business do not work properly with it .
Thus , we are all stuck with IE7 for the time being .
My recommendation is to support the last two major versions of each browser .
There are very good reasons why users may not yet be able to use the latest version .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE8 is still fairly new.
My workplace hasn't yet authorized its use, as some of the web applications used in our business do not work properly with it.
Thus, we are all stuck with IE7 for the time being.
My recommendation is to support the last two major versions of each browser.
There are very good reasons why users may not yet be able to use the latest version.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083080</id>
	<title>Don't paint them both with the same brush</title>
	<author>93 Escort Wagon</author>
	<datestamp>1265015580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>IE 6 is about a decade old, while IE 7 just came out three years or so ago - why are you lumping them together? I'm not fond of IE 7, but from a coding point of view it's far less broken than IE 6.</p><p>On a related note, I suggest you shouldn't plan on writing pages that require HTML 5 canvas support for a while yet.</p><p>C'mon, I've ranted about IE as much as anyone - but seriously, are you going to hold Firefox or Webkit up to the same standards? Heck, Webkit seems to be pushing the envelope the hardest... so maybe you need to deny access to anyone who's not using a bleeding-edge Chrome or Safari build.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 6 is about a decade old , while IE 7 just came out three years or so ago - why are you lumping them together ?
I 'm not fond of IE 7 , but from a coding point of view it 's far less broken than IE 6.On a related note , I suggest you should n't plan on writing pages that require HTML 5 canvas support for a while yet.C'mon , I 've ranted about IE as much as anyone - but seriously , are you going to hold Firefox or Webkit up to the same standards ?
Heck , Webkit seems to be pushing the envelope the hardest... so maybe you need to deny access to anyone who 's not using a bleeding-edge Chrome or Safari build .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 6 is about a decade old, while IE 7 just came out three years or so ago - why are you lumping them together?
I'm not fond of IE 7, but from a coding point of view it's far less broken than IE 6.On a related note, I suggest you shouldn't plan on writing pages that require HTML 5 canvas support for a while yet.C'mon, I've ranted about IE as much as anyone - but seriously, are you going to hold Firefox or Webkit up to the same standards?
Heck, Webkit seems to be pushing the envelope the hardest... so maybe you need to deny access to anyone who's not using a bleeding-edge Chrome or Safari build.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084076</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265028300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>As a data point, my company's user base of 80,000 plus employees were just given the option to upgrade to IE7 a few weeks ago. I did it immediately, but I'm guessing only about 25\% of users have done so at this point. By summer I'm sure it will be everybody. (We're still running XP, BTW.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>As a data point , my company 's user base of 80,000 plus employees were just given the option to upgrade to IE7 a few weeks ago .
I did it immediately , but I 'm guessing only about 25 \ % of users have done so at this point .
By summer I 'm sure it will be everybody .
( We 're still running XP , BTW .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As a data point, my company's user base of 80,000 plus employees were just given the option to upgrade to IE7 a few weeks ago.
I did it immediately, but I'm guessing only about 25\% of users have done so at this point.
By summer I'm sure it will be everybody.
(We're still running XP, BTW.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084676</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>tehcyder</author>
	<datestamp>1265034540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Would you rather drop a nice-to-have feature working on IE8 and Firefox (80\% of your visitors) to free up some money for
implementing and testing with IE6 (2\% of your visitors)?</p></div>
</blockquote><p>
Your web site should still be functional for people using IE6, Netscape 3, Lynx or whatever.  Otherwise you end up with monstrosities like Flash-only navigation.
<br>
Just call me old-fashioned.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Would you rather drop a nice-to-have feature working on IE8 and Firefox ( 80 \ % of your visitors ) to free up some money for implementing and testing with IE6 ( 2 \ % of your visitors ) ?
Your web site should still be functional for people using IE6 , Netscape 3 , Lynx or whatever .
Otherwise you end up with monstrosities like Flash-only navigation .
Just call me old-fashioned .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Would you rather drop a nice-to-have feature working on IE8 and Firefox (80\% of your visitors) to free up some money for
implementing and testing with IE6 (2\% of your visitors)?
Your web site should still be functional for people using IE6, Netscape 3, Lynx or whatever.
Otherwise you end up with monstrosities like Flash-only navigation.
Just call me old-fashioned.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084094</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083424</id>
	<title>Wait for the Hardware to fail</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Eventually the hardware people are using to run machines with Windows XP will fail. And then they'll have to buy new machines. Sure, they can probably still get XP on there, at least for a few more years. But eventually those machines will fail too, and they'll have to buy new machines, and those will, with any luck, *not come with IE6*. Maybe they'll have XP install CDs lying around, but eventually those will wear out too.</p><p>Ok, maybe that's not amazingly realistic, but for a lot of companies it might be the only option before they upgrade. If it becomes impossible for them to *get* XP, then they'll have to install Vista, or Windows 7 (or whichever version of Windows is out at that point), none of which come with IE6.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Eventually the hardware people are using to run machines with Windows XP will fail .
And then they 'll have to buy new machines .
Sure , they can probably still get XP on there , at least for a few more years .
But eventually those machines will fail too , and they 'll have to buy new machines , and those will , with any luck , * not come with IE6 * .
Maybe they 'll have XP install CDs lying around , but eventually those will wear out too.Ok , maybe that 's not amazingly realistic , but for a lot of companies it might be the only option before they upgrade .
If it becomes impossible for them to * get * XP , then they 'll have to install Vista , or Windows 7 ( or whichever version of Windows is out at that point ) , none of which come with IE6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Eventually the hardware people are using to run machines with Windows XP will fail.
And then they'll have to buy new machines.
Sure, they can probably still get XP on there, at least for a few more years.
But eventually those machines will fail too, and they'll have to buy new machines, and those will, with any luck, *not come with IE6*.
Maybe they'll have XP install CDs lying around, but eventually those will wear out too.Ok, maybe that's not amazingly realistic, but for a lot of companies it might be the only option before they upgrade.
If it becomes impossible for them to *get* XP, then they'll have to install Vista, or Windows 7 (or whichever version of Windows is out at that point), none of which come with IE6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083332</id>
	<title>Microsoft phases out Netscape 4 support, so there</title>
	<author>David Gerard</author>
	<datestamp>1265018820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4, in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a "<a href="http://newstechnica.com/2010/01/30/microsoft-phases-out-support-for-netscape-4-so-there/" title="newstechnica.com">pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore</a> [newstechnica.com] with no mates. And bad breath. Who smells funny."</p><p>Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites, directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser. Any other browser. "Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience. Now it will, anyway."</p><p>"The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for <i>years</i>," said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness. "Furthermore, Firefox gets <i>just as many</i> hacks as Internet Explorer, and pay no attention to my lengthening nose."</p><p>In December, Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September. Following this, governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6, except Britain, which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.</p><p>Web designers around the world welcomed Google's move, but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards <i>just</i> yet. "'That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.' Steve Ballmer said that, you know."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4 , in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a " pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore [ newstechnica.com ] with no mates .
And bad breath .
Who smells funny .
" Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites , directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser .
Any other browser .
" Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience .
Now it will , anyway .
" " The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for years , " said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness .
" Furthermore , Firefox gets just as many hacks as Internet Explorer , and pay no attention to my lengthening nose .
" In December , Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September .
Following this , governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6 , except Britain , which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.Web designers around the world welcomed Google 's move , but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards just yet .
" 'That is not dead which can eternal lie , And with strange aeons even death may die .
' Steve Ballmer said that , you know .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Microsoft is phasing out support for Netscape 4, in retaliation for Google declaring Internet Explorer 6 a "pustulent syphilitic drunken crack whore [newstechnica.com] with no mates.
And bad breath.
Who smells funny.
"Google has given up bothering to support IE6 on its sites, directing the doubtless hideously virus-infected users of the browser to download another browser.
Any other browser.
"Lynx will give you a vastly superior YouTube experience.
Now it will, anyway.
""The Mozilla Foundation has completely failed to fix problems in Netscape 4 that have been around for years," said Microsoft marketing marketer Jonathan Ness.
"Furthermore, Firefox gets just as many hacks as Internet Explorer, and pay no attention to my lengthening nose.
"In December, Chinese hackers exploited a weak spot in IE6 that Microsoft had only known about since September.
Following this, governments worldwide told people to get the hell off IE6, except Britain, which relies on IE6 to leak data when there are insufficient funds for USB sticks or train journeys for civil servants.Web designers around the world welcomed Google's move, but have not given up their Bill Gates dartboards just yet.
"'That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die.
' Steve Ballmer said that, you know.
"</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085566</id>
	<title>My company does this...</title>
	<author>HockeyPuck</author>
	<datestamp>1265039220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a company that considers itself very forward thinking with it's own products... you know those products that replace products like the telephone and fax with HD Videoconferencing... or 10baseT with 10Gb Ethernet... or dial up networking with VPN... or ancient parallel SCSI with 8/10Gb FibreChannel... or routers that take up multiple racks...  or replace PBXs with VOIP.. Our workforce has a choice of lenovo or apple laptops (internal community supported which is pretty amazing btw)<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...pretty forward thinking...</p><p>yet we just rolled out a new expense reporting system which requires IE6.  Ask them why they just announced this new tool that requires IE6... falls on deaf ears.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a company that considers itself very forward thinking with it 's own products... you know those products that replace products like the telephone and fax with HD Videoconferencing... or 10baseT with 10Gb Ethernet... or dial up networking with VPN... or ancient parallel SCSI with 8/10Gb FibreChannel... or routers that take up multiple racks... or replace PBXs with VOIP.. Our workforce has a choice of lenovo or apple laptops ( internal community supported which is pretty amazing btw ) ...pretty forward thinking...yet we just rolled out a new expense reporting system which requires IE6 .
Ask them why they just announced this new tool that requires IE6... falls on deaf ears .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a company that considers itself very forward thinking with it's own products... you know those products that replace products like the telephone and fax with HD Videoconferencing... or 10baseT with 10Gb Ethernet... or dial up networking with VPN... or ancient parallel SCSI with 8/10Gb FibreChannel... or routers that take up multiple racks...  or replace PBXs with VOIP.. Our workforce has a choice of lenovo or apple laptops (internal community supported which is pretty amazing btw) ...pretty forward thinking...yet we just rolled out a new expense reporting system which requires IE6.
Ask them why they just announced this new tool that requires IE6... falls on deaf ears.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083170</id>
	<title>Strange place to draw the line</title>
	<author>bw-sf</author>
	<datestamp>1265016960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE 6 and IE 7 are completely different animals. For most uses, IE 7 is just a bit weird and broken, whereas IE 6 is a complete mutant clusterfuck. It's much easier to support 7 than 6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 6 and IE 7 are completely different animals .
For most uses , IE 7 is just a bit weird and broken , whereas IE 6 is a complete mutant clusterfuck .
It 's much easier to support 7 than 6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 6 and IE 7 are completely different animals.
For most uses, IE 7 is just a bit weird and broken, whereas IE 6 is a complete mutant clusterfuck.
It's much easier to support 7 than 6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086264</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>Creepy</author>
	<datestamp>1265042400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know about the JS editor, but have you tried IE7 or IE8 compatibility view with sharepoint briefcases?  I seem to recall my wife had the same issue and that got her around it. Go to the page you want and you should see an icon that looks like a ripped piece of paper after the URL or use the tools menu compatibility view and add the url.  You may need to reload the page (F5) afterward.</p><p>As for IE6, I have to use it at work - it is the lowest common denominator browser we support.  I also use Firefox 3.0 even though it nags me continuously about updating (until recently, Firefox 2.0.14 as well, but we dropped that support recently).  We also support Safari, but not Opera or Chrome - both work quite well, however (some of us like to use our product in unsupported browsers - I'm in chrome right now, for instance, and I have my test stuff up in another tab).  Until recently, some parts of our product worked in IE6 only.  Most of our software works on IE6+, Firefox 3+, Safari 3+, Chrome (unsupported), Opera (unsupported), Konqueror (unsupported), but we do have issues with any SVG viewer other than Adobe (which Adobe doesn't even support anymore).  I've heard Webkit is getting close - a couple more bugfixes and we can support Safari.  Firefox has a ways to go yet, and built-in IE support is non-existent.  I've heard the google SVG plugin thing for IE also is missing features we need.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know about the JS editor , but have you tried IE7 or IE8 compatibility view with sharepoint briefcases ?
I seem to recall my wife had the same issue and that got her around it .
Go to the page you want and you should see an icon that looks like a ripped piece of paper after the URL or use the tools menu compatibility view and add the url .
You may need to reload the page ( F5 ) afterward.As for IE6 , I have to use it at work - it is the lowest common denominator browser we support .
I also use Firefox 3.0 even though it nags me continuously about updating ( until recently , Firefox 2.0.14 as well , but we dropped that support recently ) .
We also support Safari , but not Opera or Chrome - both work quite well , however ( some of us like to use our product in unsupported browsers - I 'm in chrome right now , for instance , and I have my test stuff up in another tab ) .
Until recently , some parts of our product worked in IE6 only .
Most of our software works on IE6 + , Firefox 3 + , Safari 3 + , Chrome ( unsupported ) , Opera ( unsupported ) , Konqueror ( unsupported ) , but we do have issues with any SVG viewer other than Adobe ( which Adobe does n't even support anymore ) .
I 've heard Webkit is getting close - a couple more bugfixes and we can support Safari .
Firefox has a ways to go yet , and built-in IE support is non-existent .
I 've heard the google SVG plugin thing for IE also is missing features we need .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know about the JS editor, but have you tried IE7 or IE8 compatibility view with sharepoint briefcases?
I seem to recall my wife had the same issue and that got her around it.
Go to the page you want and you should see an icon that looks like a ripped piece of paper after the URL or use the tools menu compatibility view and add the url.
You may need to reload the page (F5) afterward.As for IE6, I have to use it at work - it is the lowest common denominator browser we support.
I also use Firefox 3.0 even though it nags me continuously about updating (until recently, Firefox 2.0.14 as well, but we dropped that support recently).
We also support Safari, but not Opera or Chrome - both work quite well, however (some of us like to use our product in unsupported browsers - I'm in chrome right now, for instance, and I have my test stuff up in another tab).
Until recently, some parts of our product worked in IE6 only.
Most of our software works on IE6+, Firefox 3+, Safari 3+, Chrome (unsupported), Opera (unsupported), Konqueror (unsupported), but we do have issues with any SVG viewer other than Adobe (which Adobe doesn't even support anymore).
I've heard Webkit is getting close - a couple more bugfixes and we can support Safari.
Firefox has a ways to go yet, and built-in IE support is non-existent.
I've heard the google SVG plugin thing for IE also is missing features we need.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082804</id>
	<title>No more support</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All of my sites now use browser detection for Firefox 2.* and IE versions prior to 8 and sends the user to a page giving them download options.  It'd be nice if more people did the same.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All of my sites now use browser detection for Firefox 2 .
* and IE versions prior to 8 and sends the user to a page giving them download options .
It 'd be nice if more people did the same .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All of my sites now use browser detection for Firefox 2.
* and IE versions prior to 8 and sends the user to a page giving them download options.
It'd be nice if more people did the same.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084298</id>
	<title>Problem not just IE6</title>
	<author>gtall</author>
	<datestamp>1265031000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A big system, the Defense Travel System, injected up our arses by DoD continues to require an IE browser. I found the company that produced that pile of stinking shit. They took some system intended for some other use, and somehow got DoD (probably via Congressional influence) to afflict the DoD proles who must use it. They have no intention of not requiring to use MS inspired CrapWare.</p><p>The Joint Naval/Marine IT infrastructure organization has "standardized" on MS technologies. With this kind of government inspired stupidity (does security mean anything to these compu-weenies?), there's no getting rid of the malevolent influence of MS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A big system , the Defense Travel System , injected up our arses by DoD continues to require an IE browser .
I found the company that produced that pile of stinking shit .
They took some system intended for some other use , and somehow got DoD ( probably via Congressional influence ) to afflict the DoD proles who must use it .
They have no intention of not requiring to use MS inspired CrapWare.The Joint Naval/Marine IT infrastructure organization has " standardized " on MS technologies .
With this kind of government inspired stupidity ( does security mean anything to these compu-weenies ?
) , there 's no getting rid of the malevolent influence of MS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A big system, the Defense Travel System, injected up our arses by DoD continues to require an IE browser.
I found the company that produced that pile of stinking shit.
They took some system intended for some other use, and somehow got DoD (probably via Congressional influence) to afflict the DoD proles who must use it.
They have no intention of not requiring to use MS inspired CrapWare.The Joint Naval/Marine IT infrastructure organization has "standardized" on MS technologies.
With this kind of government inspired stupidity (does security mean anything to these compu-weenies?
), there's no getting rid of the malevolent influence of MS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084532</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>josecanuc</author>
	<datestamp>1265033280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work with web applications that cater to technical academics (engineering professors and graduate students). One of my apps uses a relatively simple CSS layout that just happens to hide a big block of entry fields when viewed in IE6. I didn't think it would cause a problem, but it causes me to get so many emails from grad students in China who notice the problem.</p><p>I thought I would take care of it by putting up a blocking notice for IE6 users that says something like "IE 6 is not supported, please use a different web browser such as IE 7, IE 8, Safari, Firefox, or Opera".</p><p>But it just changed the question from the IE 6 users -&gt; "The page says IE 6 isn't supported, what do I do?"</p><p>When I helpfully explain by repeating the note in the warning, some do try another browser with success and report back, others say they cannot.</p><p>Chinese Slashdotters: Is IE 6 mandated in some Universities?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work with web applications that cater to technical academics ( engineering professors and graduate students ) .
One of my apps uses a relatively simple CSS layout that just happens to hide a big block of entry fields when viewed in IE6 .
I did n't think it would cause a problem , but it causes me to get so many emails from grad students in China who notice the problem.I thought I would take care of it by putting up a blocking notice for IE6 users that says something like " IE 6 is not supported , please use a different web browser such as IE 7 , IE 8 , Safari , Firefox , or Opera " .But it just changed the question from the IE 6 users - &gt; " The page says IE 6 is n't supported , what do I do ?
" When I helpfully explain by repeating the note in the warning , some do try another browser with success and report back , others say they can not.Chinese Slashdotters : Is IE 6 mandated in some Universities ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work with web applications that cater to technical academics (engineering professors and graduate students).
One of my apps uses a relatively simple CSS layout that just happens to hide a big block of entry fields when viewed in IE6.
I didn't think it would cause a problem, but it causes me to get so many emails from grad students in China who notice the problem.I thought I would take care of it by putting up a blocking notice for IE6 users that says something like "IE 6 is not supported, please use a different web browser such as IE 7, IE 8, Safari, Firefox, or Opera".But it just changed the question from the IE 6 users -&gt; "The page says IE 6 isn't supported, what do I do?
"When I helpfully explain by repeating the note in the warning, some do try another browser with success and report back, others say they cannot.Chinese Slashdotters: Is IE 6 mandated in some Universities?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083352</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265019000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>easy. tell them microsoft is ending updates and support for ie6 in july.<br>therefore if they stick with ie6, they'll be stuck in a deadend.<br>the early they switch, the more money they'll save later on.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>easy .
tell them microsoft is ending updates and support for ie6 in july.therefore if they stick with ie6 , they 'll be stuck in a deadend.the early they switch , the more money they 'll save later on .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>easy.
tell them microsoft is ending updates and support for ie6 in july.therefore if they stick with ie6, they'll be stuck in a deadend.the early they switch, the more money they'll save later on.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083610</id>
	<title>Re:Measure it...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265022900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What those stats don't tell you is WHERE that 20\% of IE6 users come from. Most of the west is well below 10\%, Asia and Africa have a much higher percentage of IE6 users than the rest of the world (around 25\%). This bumps up the global average.</p><p>The UK is currently hovering around the 6\% mark (as is most of Europe and NA). We mainly build sites that cater for a UK audience so we don't really support IE6 any more.</p><p>But i'd say now is the time to drop support for IE6 entirely, build to standards, remove all your browser hacks. Until people realise the web doesn't work using IE6 any more they won't upgrade.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What those stats do n't tell you is WHERE that 20 \ % of IE6 users come from .
Most of the west is well below 10 \ % , Asia and Africa have a much higher percentage of IE6 users than the rest of the world ( around 25 \ % ) .
This bumps up the global average.The UK is currently hovering around the 6 \ % mark ( as is most of Europe and NA ) .
We mainly build sites that cater for a UK audience so we do n't really support IE6 any more.But i 'd say now is the time to drop support for IE6 entirely , build to standards , remove all your browser hacks .
Until people realise the web does n't work using IE6 any more they wo n't upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What those stats don't tell you is WHERE that 20\% of IE6 users come from.
Most of the west is well below 10\%, Asia and Africa have a much higher percentage of IE6 users than the rest of the world (around 25\%).
This bumps up the global average.The UK is currently hovering around the 6\% mark (as is most of Europe and NA).
We mainly build sites that cater for a UK audience so we don't really support IE6 any more.But i'd say now is the time to drop support for IE6 entirely, build to standards, remove all your browser hacks.
Until people realise the web doesn't work using IE6 any more they won't upgrade.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31098280</id>
	<title>Re:Corporations.</title>
	<author>aug24</author>
	<datestamp>1265895600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yeah, but very few corps actually want/care about their workers visiting anything but the intranet.</p><p>So fuck em, let em surf from home on IE8/FF/Ch/Op/whatever-the-fuck.</p><p>J.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yeah , but very few corps actually want/care about their workers visiting anything but the intranet.So fuck em , let em surf from home on IE8/FF/Ch/Op/whatever-the-fuck.J .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yeah, but very few corps actually want/care about their workers visiting anything but the intranet.So fuck em, let em surf from home on IE8/FF/Ch/Op/whatever-the-fuck.J.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082986</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265057820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This very page on ask.slashdot.org/comments faisl W3C Markup Validation Service with 23 errors, 5 warnings comparing it to HTML 4.01 Transitional.  More failures if you move to strict as well.</p><p>"Let he who is without errors cast the first validation test case..."</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This very page on ask.slashdot.org/comments faisl W3C Markup Validation Service with 23 errors , 5 warnings comparing it to HTML 4.01 Transitional .
More failures if you move to strict as well .
" Let he who is without errors cast the first validation test case... "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This very page on ask.slashdot.org/comments faisl W3C Markup Validation Service with 23 errors, 5 warnings comparing it to HTML 4.01 Transitional.
More failures if you move to strict as well.
"Let he who is without errors cast the first validation test case..."</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084226</id>
	<title>IE6/7 is too prevelant to disregard</title>
	<author>coastal984</author>
	<datestamp>1265030160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>I work in local government IT - our standard right now is IE7 - we won't push IE8 because several of our vendor web apps have issues with it. I know, not good, but it's what we've got and it won't change anytime soon. I can't imagine it's anything but the same in countless other localities and businesses. Thus, it'd be irresponsible as a web developer, if you value a broad audience, to disregard the older incarnations of IE. Go ahead and flame away with your "it's irresponsible to use IE 6/7 in your organization" - you gotta get over it and realize that's just the way it is, and decide whether you want to be inclusive of all audiences or want to tell potential viewers "my way or the highway".</htmltext>
<tokenext>I work in local government IT - our standard right now is IE7 - we wo n't push IE8 because several of our vendor web apps have issues with it .
I know , not good , but it 's what we 've got and it wo n't change anytime soon .
I ca n't imagine it 's anything but the same in countless other localities and businesses .
Thus , it 'd be irresponsible as a web developer , if you value a broad audience , to disregard the older incarnations of IE .
Go ahead and flame away with your " it 's irresponsible to use IE 6/7 in your organization " - you got ta get over it and realize that 's just the way it is , and decide whether you want to be inclusive of all audiences or want to tell potential viewers " my way or the highway " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work in local government IT - our standard right now is IE7 - we won't push IE8 because several of our vendor web apps have issues with it.
I know, not good, but it's what we've got and it won't change anytime soon.
I can't imagine it's anything but the same in countless other localities and businesses.
Thus, it'd be irresponsible as a web developer, if you value a broad audience, to disregard the older incarnations of IE.
Go ahead and flame away with your "it's irresponsible to use IE 6/7 in your organization" - you gotta get over it and realize that's just the way it is, and decide whether you want to be inclusive of all audiences or want to tell potential viewers "my way or the highway".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087018</id>
	<title>Houston ISD &amp; IE6</title>
	<author>parliboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265045580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A slightly related story:</p><p>I teach in Houston Independent School District.  Due to a recent change, we are required to use Internet Explorer to log into our online gradebooks when on campus.  There is no technological basis for this, as running a user agent switcher with Firefox causes no problems.  And yes, IE 6 is an allowable agent.</p><p>Of course, when we log in from home via the HISD-provided VPN client, it doesn't matter what browser we use.</p><p>Also of course, we can use that VPN client at work, and it doesn't matter what browser we use.</p><p>So yeah, it's just been a big bag of bureaucracy.</p><p>Allow me to tell you some time about their wireless networking policy changes that start next week.  That's a whole other ball of fail.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A slightly related story : I teach in Houston Independent School District .
Due to a recent change , we are required to use Internet Explorer to log into our online gradebooks when on campus .
There is no technological basis for this , as running a user agent switcher with Firefox causes no problems .
And yes , IE 6 is an allowable agent.Of course , when we log in from home via the HISD-provided VPN client , it does n't matter what browser we use.Also of course , we can use that VPN client at work , and it does n't matter what browser we use.So yeah , it 's just been a big bag of bureaucracy.Allow me to tell you some time about their wireless networking policy changes that start next week .
That 's a whole other ball of fail .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A slightly related story:I teach in Houston Independent School District.
Due to a recent change, we are required to use Internet Explorer to log into our online gradebooks when on campus.
There is no technological basis for this, as running a user agent switcher with Firefox causes no problems.
And yes, IE 6 is an allowable agent.Of course, when we log in from home via the HISD-provided VPN client, it doesn't matter what browser we use.Also of course, we can use that VPN client at work, and it doesn't matter what browser we use.So yeah, it's just been a big bag of bureaucracy.Allow me to tell you some time about their wireless networking policy changes that start next week.
That's a whole other ball of fail.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084864</id>
	<title>In the last day even IE5.5 appears</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265035920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>1. 8.0  2,170  54.18\%<br>2. 7.0  1,498  37.40\%<br>3. 6.0  335  8.36\%<br>4. 5.5  2  0.05\%</p><p>It isn't dead yet</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>1 .
8.0 2,170 54.18 \ % 2 .
7.0 1,498 37.40 \ % 3 .
6.0 335 8.36 \ % 4 .
5.5 2 0.05 \ % It is n't dead yet</tokentext>
<sentencetext>1.
8.0  2,170  54.18\%2.
7.0  1,498  37.40\%3.
6.0  335  8.36\%4.
5.5  2  0.05\%It isn't dead yet</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083056</id>
	<title>I hear ya, but no</title>
	<author>dmomo</author>
	<datestamp>1265015340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'd love to ditch IE6. But where I work, it's not reasonable. Even if only 5\% of our users are running it, quitting support for IE6 would mean tens of thousands of dollars a month. I think some sites have the clout to try and force the users to upgrade, but not us. They can simply go somewhere else.</p><p>There will definitely come a time when the cost of supporting those users will be less than the revenue they bring in.  Soon, but not quite yet. So, I'm still spending the 11th hour before roll-out pathetically debugging some hard to get at IE Glitch.</p><p>At least our policy has gone from "IE6 must be pixel perfect" to "it just can't look like ass, at least where the site doesn't already". And for certain behind the scenes features (analytics, content tests) we do not have to support it.</p><p>I would argue that for more technical sites (ours is not from the point of view or the browser) ie6 will certainly hinder progress and is likely a liability. I don't mention ie7 here because, for the most part, it's okay. It works. At least for our sites.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'd love to ditch IE6 .
But where I work , it 's not reasonable .
Even if only 5 \ % of our users are running it , quitting support for IE6 would mean tens of thousands of dollars a month .
I think some sites have the clout to try and force the users to upgrade , but not us .
They can simply go somewhere else.There will definitely come a time when the cost of supporting those users will be less than the revenue they bring in .
Soon , but not quite yet .
So , I 'm still spending the 11th hour before roll-out pathetically debugging some hard to get at IE Glitch.At least our policy has gone from " IE6 must be pixel perfect " to " it just ca n't look like ass , at least where the site does n't already " .
And for certain behind the scenes features ( analytics , content tests ) we do not have to support it.I would argue that for more technical sites ( ours is not from the point of view or the browser ) ie6 will certainly hinder progress and is likely a liability .
I do n't mention ie7 here because , for the most part , it 's okay .
It works .
At least for our sites .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'd love to ditch IE6.
But where I work, it's not reasonable.
Even if only 5\% of our users are running it, quitting support for IE6 would mean tens of thousands of dollars a month.
I think some sites have the clout to try and force the users to upgrade, but not us.
They can simply go somewhere else.There will definitely come a time when the cost of supporting those users will be less than the revenue they bring in.
Soon, but not quite yet.
So, I'm still spending the 11th hour before roll-out pathetically debugging some hard to get at IE Glitch.At least our policy has gone from "IE6 must be pixel perfect" to "it just can't look like ass, at least where the site doesn't already".
And for certain behind the scenes features (analytics, content tests) we do not have to support it.I would argue that for more technical sites (ours is not from the point of view or the browser) ie6 will certainly hinder progress and is likely a liability.
I don't mention ie7 here because, for the most part, it's okay.
It works.
At least for our sites.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087584</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265048160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites, is freakn&rsquo; great!</p></div><p>I dunno, I use the following browsers on multiple platforms...<br>IE6, 7, 8<br>Firefox 2, 3</p><p>I don't notice any real difference in browsing experience other than javascript performance... IE8 has them slightly beat on the sites I visit... other than all sites look and feel the same. So what's the point of upgrading from 6 again?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites , is freakn    great ! I dunno , I use the following browsers on multiple platforms...IE6 , 7 , 8Firefox 2 , 3I do n't notice any real difference in browsing experience other than javascript performance... IE8 has them slightly beat on the sites I visit... other than all sites look and feel the same .
So what 's the point of upgrading from 6 again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Coming from IE6 to a full-featured modern browser with HTML5-enabled sites, is freakn’ great!I dunno, I use the following browsers on multiple platforms...IE6, 7, 8Firefox 2, 3I don't notice any real difference in browsing experience other than javascript performance... IE8 has them slightly beat on the sites I visit... other than all sites look and feel the same.
So what's the point of upgrading from 6 again?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084908</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>raphael75</author>
	<datestamp>1265036220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Is it possible to use the <a href="https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/59" title="mozilla.org" rel="nofollow">User Agent Switcher</a> [mozilla.org] addon for Firefox and trick your employer's site into thinking you're using ie6?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it possible to use the User Agent Switcher [ mozilla.org ] addon for Firefox and trick your employer 's site into thinking you 're using ie6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it possible to use the User Agent Switcher [mozilla.org] addon for Firefox and trick your employer's site into thinking you're using ie6?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084888</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 outdated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>We recently (within the last year or so) put a note on our contracts, stating we don't support IE6 anymore, unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes. It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.</i></p><p>Most of the time, you don't need to "support" IE6. If some of your w3-validated page elements are offset in IE6, that isn't that big a deal - the website still works.</p><p>The problems occur with bleeding edge ajax, and often that doesn't work reliably on *any* browser. Firefox has some nasty memory leaks that can build up.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We recently ( within the last year or so ) put a note on our contracts , stating we do n't support IE6 anymore , unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes .
It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.Most of the time , you do n't need to " support " IE6 .
If some of your w3-validated page elements are offset in IE6 , that is n't that big a deal - the website still works.The problems occur with bleeding edge ajax , and often that does n't work reliably on * any * browser .
Firefox has some nasty memory leaks that can build up .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We recently (within the last year or so) put a note on our contracts, stating we don't support IE6 anymore, unless the customer is actually paying extra for making the appropiate changes.
It was just too much a hassle to manage all the hacks and workarounds all the time.Most of the time, you don't need to "support" IE6.
If some of your w3-validated page elements are offset in IE6, that isn't that big a deal - the website still works.The problems occur with bleeding edge ajax, and often that doesn't work reliably on *any* browser.
Firefox has some nasty memory leaks that can build up.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083204</id>
	<title>Could the real geeks please stand up?</title>
	<author>redGiraffe</author>
	<datestamp>1265017320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What happened to the tried and tested option of ignoring the browsers you don't want to support; web1.0 was built on these sound principles. When we could not access the site due to the webmaster (remember them?) implementing the latest Netscape tag, we would assume it was our fault and upgrade.</p><p>I blame agile development practices for worrying about what the user can handle: pussies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What happened to the tried and tested option of ignoring the browsers you do n't want to support ; web1.0 was built on these sound principles .
When we could not access the site due to the webmaster ( remember them ?
) implementing the latest Netscape tag , we would assume it was our fault and upgrade.I blame agile development practices for worrying about what the user can handle : pussies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What happened to the tried and tested option of ignoring the browsers you don't want to support; web1.0 was built on these sound principles.
When we could not access the site due to the webmaster (remember them?
) implementing the latest Netscape tag, we would assume it was our fault and upgrade.I blame agile development practices for worrying about what the user can handle: pussies.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086592</id>
	<title>"IE6" is often a spider or bot</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265043720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>What I've realized from poring over web logs is that a lot of hits come from spiders/bots that accurately spoof a generic IE6 User Agent string. I'm not sure what fraction of IE6 hits that accounts for, but at this point it does seem significant.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What I 've realized from poring over web logs is that a lot of hits come from spiders/bots that accurately spoof a generic IE6 User Agent string .
I 'm not sure what fraction of IE6 hits that accounts for , but at this point it does seem significant .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What I've realized from poring over web logs is that a lot of hits come from spiders/bots that accurately spoof a generic IE6 User Agent string.
I'm not sure what fraction of IE6 hits that accounts for, but at this point it does seem significant.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084382</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265032020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You could put in an IT support request, pointing to articles like <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8488751.stm" title="bbc.co.uk" rel="nofollow">this one</a> [bbc.co.uk], and say that the industry has moved on, and that an EOL date for IE6 has already been announced. Your support request could then ask "what are our plans to change to the more up-to-date software?"</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You could put in an IT support request , pointing to articles like this one [ bbc.co.uk ] , and say that the industry has moved on , and that an EOL date for IE6 has already been announced .
Your support request could then ask " what are our plans to change to the more up-to-date software ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You could put in an IT support request, pointing to articles like this one [bbc.co.uk], and say that the industry has moved on, and that an EOL date for IE6 has already been announced.
Your support request could then ask "what are our plans to change to the more up-to-date software?
"</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084780</id>
	<title>Security of the inept.</title>
	<author>Ranzear</author>
	<datestamp>1265035260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Security has become enough of a concern for Final Fantasy XI players that browser recommendations and plugin advice abounds on almost every site and forum anymore. Years of playtime lost to a compromised account can go for months before being restored by Square-Enix.<br> <br>
Security became enough of a concern that one enigmatic third-party developer has <a href="http://windower.net/ie6.html" title="windower.net" rel="nofollow">banned IE6 users from his site</a> [windower.net] for their own protection (IE6 accesses redirect to that page), because even his own site has been hijacked, exploited, and injected with iFrames and scripts to steal credentials and push keylogging and hijacking methods.<br> <br>I think the standard response to users of IE6 not being able to access pages when the security of their own browser is more important to them than they know is 'Tough Shit'.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Security has become enough of a concern for Final Fantasy XI players that browser recommendations and plugin advice abounds on almost every site and forum anymore .
Years of playtime lost to a compromised account can go for months before being restored by Square-Enix .
Security became enough of a concern that one enigmatic third-party developer has banned IE6 users from his site [ windower.net ] for their own protection ( IE6 accesses redirect to that page ) , because even his own site has been hijacked , exploited , and injected with iFrames and scripts to steal credentials and push keylogging and hijacking methods .
I think the standard response to users of IE6 not being able to access pages when the security of their own browser is more important to them than they know is 'Tough Shit' .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Security has become enough of a concern for Final Fantasy XI players that browser recommendations and plugin advice abounds on almost every site and forum anymore.
Years of playtime lost to a compromised account can go for months before being restored by Square-Enix.
Security became enough of a concern that one enigmatic third-party developer has banned IE6 users from his site [windower.net] for their own protection (IE6 accesses redirect to that page), because even his own site has been hijacked, exploited, and injected with iFrames and scripts to steal credentials and push keylogging and hijacking methods.
I think the standard response to users of IE6 not being able to access pages when the security of their own browser is more important to them than they know is 'Tough Shit'.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083214</id>
	<title>Re:Not needed</title>
	<author>StripedCow</author>
	<datestamp>1265017440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This would be true in a perfect world.</p><p>A somewhat more realistic motto would be: support only browsers which have a built-in update mechanism.</p><p>That would help prevent disasters like IE6 to happen again.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This would be true in a perfect world.A somewhat more realistic motto would be : support only browsers which have a built-in update mechanism.That would help prevent disasters like IE6 to happen again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This would be true in a perfect world.A somewhat more realistic motto would be: support only browsers which have a built-in update mechanism.That would help prevent disasters like IE6 to happen again.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082820</id>
	<title>We ignore IE period.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265056380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Be ruthless, do not support any version of IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Be ruthless , do not support any version of IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Be ruthless, do not support any version of IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084090</id>
	<title>Boss is that you?</title>
	<author>SpoodyGoon</author>
	<datestamp>1265028420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Strainge only yesterday did my employer drop support for IE6, k33l0r are you my boss?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Strainge only yesterday did my employer drop support for IE6 , k33l0r are you my boss ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Strainge only yesterday did my employer drop support for IE6, k33l0r are you my boss?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083460</id>
	<title>Re:I'm posting this from IE6. HELP!</title>
	<author>Yvanhoe</author>
	<datestamp>1265020440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Make a list of the software that doesn't work properly with IE6. Try to evaluate the lost productivity. If hit by a virus that uses a flaw in IE6, count the time lost and put a $$$ figure on it. Then defend your case. Your employer is concerned chiefly about money. Make a case with monetary facts. <br> <br>
Also in some kind of companies (high tech startups) the argument "Google did X" is often very powerful. Tell them that now you are using a technology that someone like Google does not consider usable anymore.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Make a list of the software that does n't work properly with IE6 .
Try to evaluate the lost productivity .
If hit by a virus that uses a flaw in IE6 , count the time lost and put a $ $ $ figure on it .
Then defend your case .
Your employer is concerned chiefly about money .
Make a case with monetary facts .
Also in some kind of companies ( high tech startups ) the argument " Google did X " is often very powerful .
Tell them that now you are using a technology that someone like Google does not consider usable anymore .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Make a list of the software that doesn't work properly with IE6.
Try to evaluate the lost productivity.
If hit by a virus that uses a flaw in IE6, count the time lost and put a $$$ figure on it.
Then defend your case.
Your employer is concerned chiefly about money.
Make a case with monetary facts.
Also in some kind of companies (high tech startups) the argument "Google did X" is often very powerful.
Tell them that now you are using a technology that someone like Google does not consider usable anymore.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086408</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>that this is not und</author>
	<datestamp>1265043060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><em>Someone has to break the cycle. And you can bet your ass that it won't be the users. It's your job. It's mine. After all we're the experts for a reason.</em></p><p>Err, fuck you.  You're the data janitor.  Your job is to store and organize and present the information.  It's other people in the organization's job to create and use the information.  You're a flipping high tech file clerk.  Nobody cares that you're advocating the latest new Rolodex.  Nobody fricking cares that there's a cool new DayPlanner out.  We know, we know.  Your red stapler is really really cool.  And you're leading edge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Someone has to break the cycle .
And you can bet your ass that it wo n't be the users .
It 's your job .
It 's mine .
After all we 're the experts for a reason.Err , fuck you .
You 're the data janitor .
Your job is to store and organize and present the information .
It 's other people in the organization 's job to create and use the information .
You 're a flipping high tech file clerk .
Nobody cares that you 're advocating the latest new Rolodex .
Nobody fricking cares that there 's a cool new DayPlanner out .
We know , we know .
Your red stapler is really really cool .
And you 're leading edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Someone has to break the cycle.
And you can bet your ass that it won't be the users.
It's your job.
It's mine.
After all we're the experts for a reason.Err, fuck you.
You're the data janitor.
Your job is to store and organize and present the information.
It's other people in the organization's job to create and use the information.
You're a flipping high tech file clerk.
Nobody cares that you're advocating the latest new Rolodex.
Nobody fricking cares that there's a cool new DayPlanner out.
We know, we know.
Your red stapler is really really cool.
And you're leading edge.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085022</id>
	<title>Re:IE6 outdated.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265036820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I work for a passenger airline, and a big part of my job is making the migration from IE6 to IE8 happen smoothly.  It's going slow as molasses, to be honest.  With 50k+ workstations scattered all around the globe and many thousands of apps to test and remediate, the transition to IE8 isn't going to happen as fast as we, our suppliers and our customers want it to happen.</p><p>Honestly, I'd love nothing more than to be free of that craptastic piece of shit browser, but the reality of keeping the planes in the air gets in the way.  Plus, there's this annoying shortage of freely available money, so we can't just throw buckets of green at the problem like we used to.  We have to pay for remediation as the budget allows.</p><p>We've had a few vendors come to us and say "We're not going to support your browser anymore, we don't like coding for it".  Our usual response is "We're not going to support giving you any more money, we don't like paying you for it".  They grumble, whine and cry, but 9 times out of 10, they cave.  Being able to say that we're a major customer is a big thing to some vendors.  Some even point it out on their website.  Partner airlines are often required to buy a given product just because we use it and it's compatible with our way of doing things.  Losing us as a customer means they stand to lose all these other airlines as customers when we choose a replacement vendor.</p><p>We've had a (very) few purists walk away from the money.  As annoying as that is, I have to respect these few vendors that stick to their guns.  Then again, replacement vendors willing to prostitute themselves by doing IE6 'hacking' are cheap and plentiful.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I work for a passenger airline , and a big part of my job is making the migration from IE6 to IE8 happen smoothly .
It 's going slow as molasses , to be honest .
With 50k + workstations scattered all around the globe and many thousands of apps to test and remediate , the transition to IE8 is n't going to happen as fast as we , our suppliers and our customers want it to happen.Honestly , I 'd love nothing more than to be free of that craptastic piece of shit browser , but the reality of keeping the planes in the air gets in the way .
Plus , there 's this annoying shortage of freely available money , so we ca n't just throw buckets of green at the problem like we used to .
We have to pay for remediation as the budget allows.We 've had a few vendors come to us and say " We 're not going to support your browser anymore , we do n't like coding for it " .
Our usual response is " We 're not going to support giving you any more money , we do n't like paying you for it " .
They grumble , whine and cry , but 9 times out of 10 , they cave .
Being able to say that we 're a major customer is a big thing to some vendors .
Some even point it out on their website .
Partner airlines are often required to buy a given product just because we use it and it 's compatible with our way of doing things .
Losing us as a customer means they stand to lose all these other airlines as customers when we choose a replacement vendor.We 've had a ( very ) few purists walk away from the money .
As annoying as that is , I have to respect these few vendors that stick to their guns .
Then again , replacement vendors willing to prostitute themselves by doing IE6 'hacking ' are cheap and plentiful .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I work for a passenger airline, and a big part of my job is making the migration from IE6 to IE8 happen smoothly.
It's going slow as molasses, to be honest.
With 50k+ workstations scattered all around the globe and many thousands of apps to test and remediate, the transition to IE8 isn't going to happen as fast as we, our suppliers and our customers want it to happen.Honestly, I'd love nothing more than to be free of that craptastic piece of shit browser, but the reality of keeping the planes in the air gets in the way.
Plus, there's this annoying shortage of freely available money, so we can't just throw buckets of green at the problem like we used to.
We have to pay for remediation as the budget allows.We've had a few vendors come to us and say "We're not going to support your browser anymore, we don't like coding for it".
Our usual response is "We're not going to support giving you any more money, we don't like paying you for it".
They grumble, whine and cry, but 9 times out of 10, they cave.
Being able to say that we're a major customer is a big thing to some vendors.
Some even point it out on their website.
Partner airlines are often required to buy a given product just because we use it and it's compatible with our way of doing things.
Losing us as a customer means they stand to lose all these other airlines as customers when we choose a replacement vendor.We've had a (very) few purists walk away from the money.
As annoying as that is, I have to respect these few vendors that stick to their guns.
Then again, replacement vendors willing to prostitute themselves by doing IE6 'hacking' are cheap and plentiful.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084528</id>
	<title>Re:Hell no!</title>
	<author>microbox</author>
	<datestamp>1265033220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>Do you see the circular logic here?</i> <br>
<br>
Yes, and sysadmins take advantage of that -- handcuffing developers to make their life simpler.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Do you see the circular logic here ?
Yes , and sysadmins take advantage of that -- handcuffing developers to make their life simpler .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Do you see the circular logic here?
Yes, and sysadmins take advantage of that -- handcuffing developers to make their life simpler.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084514</id>
	<title>Web Stats</title>
	<author>sehryan</author>
	<datestamp>1265033100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The web stats of the sites you manage should be dictating your support of any browser, not just IE6. For instance, I work as the Lead Designer for a government agency, and - depending on the target audience of the site - IE6 ranges anywhere from 9 - 15\% of our users.</p><p>As such, I just don't feel that we can drop IE6 support from our websites yet. And I would encourage you not to rely on what Slashdot tells you, but instead look at your web stats and go from there.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The web stats of the sites you manage should be dictating your support of any browser , not just IE6 .
For instance , I work as the Lead Designer for a government agency , and - depending on the target audience of the site - IE6 ranges anywhere from 9 - 15 \ % of our users.As such , I just do n't feel that we can drop IE6 support from our websites yet .
And I would encourage you not to rely on what Slashdot tells you , but instead look at your web stats and go from there .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The web stats of the sites you manage should be dictating your support of any browser, not just IE6.
For instance, I work as the Lead Designer for a government agency, and - depending on the target audience of the site - IE6 ranges anywhere from 9 - 15\% of our users.As such, I just don't feel that we can drop IE6 support from our websites yet.
And I would encourage you not to rely on what Slashdot tells you, but instead look at your web stats and go from there.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082968</id>
	<title>Stop The Support ....</title>
	<author>kai\_hiwatari</author>
	<datestamp>1265057700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>IE 6 needs to die as soon as possible!</htmltext>
<tokenext>IE 6 needs to die as soon as possible !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>IE 6 needs to die as soon as possible!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088328</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>ajlisows</author>
	<datestamp>1265051280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I think if you are running Windows 2000, you are stuck on IE 6, right?</p><p>Just a thought.  I still see posts here ranting and raving about Windows 2000 being the be all end all of Windows software and how they'll never upgrade to XP, Vista, or Windows 7 because Windows 2000 is fine.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I think if you are running Windows 2000 , you are stuck on IE 6 , right ? Just a thought .
I still see posts here ranting and raving about Windows 2000 being the be all end all of Windows software and how they 'll never upgrade to XP , Vista , or Windows 7 because Windows 2000 is fine .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think if you are running Windows 2000, you are stuck on IE 6, right?Just a thought.
I still see posts here ranting and raving about Windows 2000 being the be all end all of Windows software and how they'll never upgrade to XP, Vista, or Windows 7 because Windows 2000 is fine.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086642</id>
	<title>Re:Why redirect them?</title>
	<author>matzahboy</author>
	<datestamp>1265043960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully.</p></div><p>But what is a standard? Is it what some organization like Acid3 decides? Or is it what most browsers support? The reason that IE6 didn't fall for lack of standards was because <b>it was the standards.</b> IE6, the dominant browser for quite a while, was the most standard browser in existence <i>because</i> it was the dominant browser.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Just design it to be standards compliant , and let the browsers that ca n't follow the standards fail , hopefully gracefully.But what is a standard ?
Is it what some organization like Acid3 decides ?
Or is it what most browsers support ?
The reason that IE6 did n't fall for lack of standards was because it was the standards .
IE6 , the dominant browser for quite a while , was the most standard browser in existence because it was the dominant browser .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just design it to be standards compliant, and let the browsers that can't follow the standards fail, hopefully gracefully.But what is a standard?
Is it what some organization like Acid3 decides?
Or is it what most browsers support?
The reason that IE6 didn't fall for lack of standards was because it was the standards.
IE6, the dominant browser for quite a while, was the most standard browser in existence because it was the dominant browser.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083026</id>
	<title>Code for standards.</title>
	<author>miffo.swe</author>
	<datestamp>1265014980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Let the users sort the rest out. Be very upfront with why things break in IE.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Let the users sort the rest out .
Be very upfront with why things break in IE .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Let the users sort the rest out.
Be very upfront with why things break in IE.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085296</id>
	<title>Re:Depends on who you cater to</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1265038080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Your path out of this is virtualization. Use a virtual OS with just IE6 installed for access to that one legacy application. If it's old enough to require IE6, then there won't be any performance issues. The IE6 OS image can be centrally administered, completely locked down and essentially be considered an application.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Your path out of this is virtualization .
Use a virtual OS with just IE6 installed for access to that one legacy application .
If it 's old enough to require IE6 , then there wo n't be any performance issues .
The IE6 OS image can be centrally administered , completely locked down and essentially be considered an application .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Your path out of this is virtualization.
Use a virtual OS with just IE6 installed for access to that one legacy application.
If it's old enough to require IE6, then there won't be any performance issues.
The IE6 OS image can be centrally administered, completely locked down and essentially be considered an application.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083436
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084746
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_78</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085574
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_83</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086642
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31098280
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_68</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083046
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_73</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083204
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085506
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_75</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082842
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083990
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085544
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083326
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_76</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084834
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_67</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31107478
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_70</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085360
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_66</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085806
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082986
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089064
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084888
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084050
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084308
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084740
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084532
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083460
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083004
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31110382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084650
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_89</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083742
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_92</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085850
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_65</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083114
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_88</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083920
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_79</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083390
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084528
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_82</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084120
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086160
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083730
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083790
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084094
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084676
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083108
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31094716
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087584
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088162
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084860
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_87</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083644
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_90</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083934
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_81</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084908
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083482
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_77</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088328
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084356
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083214
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_80</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084150
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_71</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086094
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084448
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082828
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086292
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084660
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083674
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086412
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083430
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085098
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_69</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083576
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_72</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087128
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086170
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_74</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083604
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083684
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082798
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085992
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086408
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085904
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_64</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084166
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085614
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083592
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085420
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089780
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085388
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085520
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084076
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_85</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085296
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083610
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083782
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086640
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_84</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083944
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_63</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31100720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_86</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083352
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082804
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082866
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084298
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_91</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31090300
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086264
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082952
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31092010
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085612
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083618
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084382
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_02_10_0056257_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082964
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084916
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084574
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083732
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083004
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31110382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083326
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086094
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083742
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084382
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083390
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085574
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083460
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084166
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085614
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083482
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083114
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083038
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084726
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083592
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085420
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082816
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083320
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083214
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082964
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083046
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084916
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082952
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082986
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084108
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088010
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082960
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082774
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082894
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088328
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089064
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084660
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084908
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086264
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082912
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083562
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085360
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084094
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084746
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084676
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085904
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083436
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085388
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084050
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083684
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31090300
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083430
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31100720
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083576
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086642
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083944
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083604
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083540
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085806
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085544
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31107478
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082830
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086412
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083934
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084120
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084860
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31088162
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084076
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31098280
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082950
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084150
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087128
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084834
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085098
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084356
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083674
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082842
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083990
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082826
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082798
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085992
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082822
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084888
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087352
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085022
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089684
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31094716
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086160
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082856
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083730
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084308
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083644
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083610
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085836
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082794
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084532
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084740
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083396
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085296
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085916
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084448
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084298
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085850
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083790
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082804
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086640
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082866
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082828
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086292
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082824
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31092010
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083920
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083108
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31089780
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083204
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085506
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084628
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_02_10_0056257.21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31082970
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31085612
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084650
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31084528
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086408
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31086170
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083618
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31083782
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_02_10_0056257.31087584
</commentlist>
</conversation>
