Is the pace of HTML change hotting up

[MikeGale]

I've seen evidence in the last few days of the pace hotting up.

1) Firefox now goes to 5 when 4 was seemingly released yesterday. Support for the 3 month old 4 has been removed. Corporate administrators uttered a howl of rage. (It can take months to get approval for a new version, so some are steamed up and embarrassed.) I imagine that Mozilla did this deliberately and are happy to lose corporate users. (Chrome goes a different route, updates without asking you. Not sure what corporate take is on that, though maybe the low uptake means it's not really used in that setting anyway.)

2) IE10 preview 2 is now out. The approach here is quite different. (Using the beta's of other browsers is probably similar.) A very interesting feature is that with IE10 they are promising a 10 year support life (like with an OS). This promises some stability (in future) which will appeal to some. Depending on release schedule for IE 11 and beyond it also holds out the possibility of multiple IE versions in our landscape.

I have no time pencilled in to to take IE10 for a test drive, too busy. (It has some nice computational features which appeal.) If anybody else takes it for a spin I'd appreciate feedback on your observations.

[Albert Wiersch]

1) Firefox now goes to 5 when 4 was seemingly released yesterday. Support for the 3 month old 4 has been removed. Corporate administrators uttered a howl of rage. (It can take months to get approval for a new version, so some are steamed up and embarrassed.) I imagine that Mozilla did this deliberately and are happy to lose corporate users. (Chrome goes a different route, updates without asking you. Not sure what corporate take is on that, though maybe the low uptake means it's not really used in that setting anyway.)

Yep, Firefox 4 was amazingly short-lived. Firefox 5 seems faster and smoother to me, unfortunately I've experienced some freezes with 5.0. The upgrade process from 4.0 was very well done I'd say... very easy and problem-free. I like that it looks the same too.

I had read articles about Mozilla's plans. I think they are on some new "quick release cycle" to get new versions out faster, but why would they be happy to lose corporate users?

2) IE10 preview 2 is now out. The approach here is quite different. (Using the beta's of other browsers is probably similar.) A very interesting feature is that with IE10 they are promising a 10 year support life (like with an OS). This promises some stability (in future) which will appeal to some. Depending on release schedule for IE 11 and beyond it also holds out the possibility of multiple IE versions in our landscape.

I would think IE10 is going to come with Windows 8 (last I heard Windows 8 will be coming out next year in 2012), maybe that is part of the reason they are also promising a 10 year support life. That does sound like it would be appealing to some.

I have no time pencilled in to to take IE10 for a test drive, too busy. (It has some nice computational features which appeal.) If anybody else takes it for a spin I'd appreciate feedback on your observations.

Me too! I am thinking I should start a "quick release cycle" for CSE HTML Validator v11.

Things definitely seem to be moving faster now after a seeming "lull" the past few years. It seems harder to keep up.

[Lou]

Yep, Firefox 4 was amazingly short-lived. Firefox 5 seems faster and smoother to me, unfortunately I've experienced some freezes with 5.0. The upgrade process from 4.0 was very well done I'd say... very easy and problem-free. I like that it looks the same too.

Sorry to hear you have been getting a freezes with 5.0 too. I just assumed I was having my own memory issues.

I also like the static look. Not that I'm a traditionalist, but I do get tired of needing to relearning where everything is. One advantage of a stable GUI is I can think about what I want to do not have to think about the tool.

[Albert Wiersch]

Sorry to hear you have been getting a freezes with 5.0 too. I just assumed I was having my own memory issues.

Sorry to hear you are too, but this may mean lots of people are and they'll get it fixed.

I also like the static look. Not that I'm a traditionalist, but I do get tired of needing to relearning where everything is. One advantage of a stable GUI is I can think about what I want to do not have to think about the tool.

Same here. I don't like GUI changes that are seemingly mainly or primarily just for the sake of change.

[MikeGale]

On the corporate issue:

New browser versions are often subject to thorough checking before a company will adopt them internally. (Makes a lot of sense!) This version was called 5 instead of 4.x, that automatically triggers a set of checks. If your checks take 3 months, I suspect you're unlikely to come back to that browser again. (The fact that it looks the same supports the idea of a minor version number!)

I hope Mozilla was aware of this! (There were warnings but I'm sure many weren't aware of them!)

There is an everpresent temptation to do this sort of thing. For example .NET 3 and 3.5 should probably have been named .NET 2.5 and 2.7 or something similar. I read it as an indication that some suspect decision makers have too much power and are able to over-rule the practical, truthful folk.

Agreed the install was easy.

IE 10 (current previews) runs on Windows 7 (and presumably one or two others). I wouldn't be surprised if release does the same.

Market pentration would then be heavily influenced by how many people upgrade. If important web properties have powerful applications based on the new features (at launch) the conversion could be pretty fast, though a slower burn is more likely in my view.