v4: Rip out IE compatibility mode meta tags

[mdo]

Fixes #21476.

Updates the docs, examples, and JS tests to remove the relevant <meta> tag. Also updates our docs to remove mention of some irrelevant IE8-9 business. This info will still be there in v3's docs, so we can update it later to link to things as needed.

[IamManchanda]

super awesome @mdo sir
& @bardiharborow mate !!

[Quy]

introduction.md needs to be updated.

[IamManchanda]

Exactly @Quy .... i didn't notice.
That page was the ticket (starter template) infact so i am surprised that is not commited ?

cc /@mdo @bardiharborow
Would humbly request you to plz commit that also .... cheers 👍

[Starsam80]

I've been wondering this for a while now (and this probably isn't the place to talk about it, I just got reminded of it because of the change adding the note about v3), but v3 status is "no more features, only critical bug fixes and documentation improvements", but every v3 issue and pull request I've seen has been closed. Just how critical are we talking here? Why not merge #21341 which seems like a fairly big problem to some people? And why not merge pull requests like #21065 that just add a documentation improvement?

[mdo]

@Starsam80 I'm labelling all those issues as they get closed. Anything I can come back to when v4 is released, I'll come back to. Otherwise, just talking about mental load and balancing work, life, and OSS, I can only focus on one major code version at a time. Trying to do both was no good for anyone for far too long. 😞

[Quy]

...and this Forcing Internet Explorer to use its latest rendering mode (read more) ;)

[IamManchanda]

@Starsam80 sorry but please support mark & team on this .... dont worry we all will get back to v3 rather sooner than later .... at this time v4 should be the focus ... These coming months, we should work hard for this v4 release first and then think about anything else like v3.

[mdo]

@IamManchanda Thanks, but I appreciate @Starsam80 pushing back on that stuff. I did make some copy changes there and he's right that it's not all that accurate in how we're "maintaining" v3.

[IamManchanda]

Yup won't fix is the not the right choice , even i agree .... @mdo @Starsam80

Would be better to reopen those important issues or something like a temporary lock can also be a better choice for some of these issues but surely not most !!

[Starsam80]

Or maybe a new label to show that they will be reviewed later. Maybe something like punted?

[IamManchanda]

Yup 👍 @Starsam80 .... but i guess reviewed later is also a good choice of the label..... rest on mark to decide

[Studio384]

Why are these tags being removed? IE10 and IE11 still need those to make sure that they are using their respective latest rendering engine, no?

[Studio384]

Not sure, but shouldn't it say "IE9 and down is not"?

[patrickhlauke]

IE10 and IE11 still need those to make sure that they are using their respective latest rendering engine, no?

no. HTML5 doctype has the exact same effect, without needing vendor-specific meta elements

[Herst]

Sorry for bumping this old PR but the following statement is not entirely correct and I can't let it stand:

no. HTML5 doctype has the exact same effect, without needing vendor-specific meta elements

This only applies to pages which aren't in the "Intranet" zone, see https://www.leapinggorilla.com/Blog/Read/1016/ie-ate-my-css---disabling-compatability-mode

What is true though is that the other reason for setting the meta tag in the past, the UI option to switch a page to compatibility mode is hidden per default (at least in IE11).