I agree with Chris and Derric here; at least in the "western world", a large percentage of IE7 users have not upgraded for "Enterprise" reasons. Many of these enterprises use proprietary software that is written for IE7, and upgrading to the IE9 versions can be cost-prohibitive. Often by waiting another couple of years, the cost of the upgrade will drop to the level that is acceptable to the organization (or alternately they can make a better business case because support drops for the older versions or other critical changes are being held back). My own employer is in this situation, and until they figured out how to add Firefox accessibility to the VPN, I had to keep IE7 on one of my home computers for those occasions when I work off-site. Risker

On 14 June 2012 20:49, Tyler <programmer651(a)comcast.net> wrote: I recommend you learn a thing or two about HTML's history, and how XHTML 1.0 and 1.1 (as well as 2.0) was a mistake. XHTML was an attempt to make sure to use strict XML for the HTML, which would create easier parsing. Unfortunately, no one actually did what was required; *serve* as XML, which meant the browsers would still quirk parse it. Now, of course, if you serve as XML, the browsers will parse it as XML and then break if there is a syntax error. But XML also does not support most HTML entities, so there is a problem right there. But the parsing is likely to be faster. HTML5 was create in protest against the slow progress to a new HTML standard, and as XHTML wasn't going anywhere fast, people gave it the shrug it so richly deserved. For that reason, XHTML5 exists, which is just like HTML5, but is required to be parsed as XML. Also, your email seems to indicate that Microsoft created HTML5, they were perhaps the _last_ ones to get onboard the 'HTML5 train'. Much of HTML5 was supposed to go past the usual long-winded and slow process of standards that is W3C. And IE6 sucked when it was released.