I think that gaining consensus in developers' mindset goes through forcing updates like Chrome and Firefox do; don't care if it's monthly, quarterly or yearly, but users shouldn't even realize that an update was pushed to their machine. This model has shown that it works for browsers, and not only that, it has also proven to be the best model. Is there any actual actionable plan on this?
Adding new features in IE15 is fine and good, but won't buy a dime in developer consensus, when we still waste time supporting 5-years-old IE browsers at any given time.
However, there are still a lot of users on IE8 and below, which did not have auto updating. As people gradually migrate away from these legacy versions and get onto the evergreen track, then the situation should improve until IE's overall upgrade rates match those of Firefox and Chrome.
If so, aside from enterprise, there's (sadly)a significant fraction of home users that turn off automatic Windows updates because they regard them as a hassle.
I don't like citing numbers without a source, but I couldn't find one in 5 minutes Googling. If somebody has a link that shows fairly recent daily IE usage share, we can double check my recall.
I would also like to add that one technical solution for the "IE in enterprise" problem would be allowing parallel IE version installations. IE already allows to go into old version emulation mode, but it's not 100% faithful (I don't know the details).
If it was 100% faithful, sysadmin could simply update IE to the latest version for normal browsing (or even let it auto-update, since I'm sure no sysadmin believe that he/she can QA IE better than MS for general Internet usage), and forcing compatibility (through GPO) for Intranet sites that are broken in newer version.
But since it's not 100% faithful, the technical solution would be allowing to install an auto-updating IE in parallel to IE8, and then configure a policy to automatically switch to IE8 for Intranet sites (Chrome Enterprise does a similar thing; you can configure a GPO so that the user is automatically brought to IE when he/she browses to specific websites, e.g.: Intranet).
I wouldnt make that distinction. While its probably true that some corporate users are still stuck on XP. Most non techy people I know (which is almost everyone) just buy a new laptop open it up and start using IE. They will probably never upgrade unless the computer tells them or does it automatically.
This has a direct reflect on Safari adoption. NetMarketShare gives these numbers for OSX adoption (which is the same of Safari version adoption):
So roughly half of OSX users are already using the last Safari version (which was released only 7 months ago), which is absolutely different from the situation you have with IE version adoption.
What would be the situation of IE version adoption, were Win7 a free upgrade for all WinXP/Vista users? I think we can agree that free operating system upgrade does have a measurable impact.
Nonetheless, I agree with the general point that Safari now sits in the middle between IE and Firefox/Chrome, and that's why I have not mentioned it in my original post.
However, Windows XP was released in 2001, replaced (Vista) in 2007, reached end of mainstream support in 2009, and users have been warned it's going away for many, many years.
OSX Mountain Lion was released in 2012, replaced just a few months ago -- but now doesn't seem to be that much better off in terms of receiving updates to its bundled browser than Windows XP is.
I realize they've come a long way, but it's tough to shake off 10+ years of negative experiences and associations.
I've just started reading up on ObjectRTC but I believe it plans to offer an API to replace SDP too and Microsoft has moved to it since it's similar to their CU-RTC-Web proposal. All in all, it looks like this will delay the adoption of WebRTC everywhere but will be for the best in terms of API and developer experience in the end.
That's not what I normally conclude when I think "text-based."
Here is a more detailed rationale for this API:
I think a lot of browser developers (Safari/IE) are baulking at implementing google's WebRTC. I would hope they would at least offer getUserMedia even if they don't implement the full WebRTC.
If you've looked into WebRTC you'll see it is horrendously over-engineered. I was hoping to grab the AEC code, but gave up on that idea after looking into it in more detail.
1. When people are within the same firewall, they want to be able to communicate directly without routing anything but connection set-up through any servers; and
2. when people are members of the same corporation or mobile ISP, but are behind different firewalls, they want to be able to communicate by routing through the corporation/ISP's shared pool of TURN servers, instead of your service's hosted TURN servers.
In our product, our customers generally want the session recorded, which doesn't seem possible with WebRTC. Also we need to provide group video, which peer-to-peer isn't very useful for (in terms of efficiency).
That's not to say that WebRTC isn't useful in other use-cases (such as your product). However getUserMedia is more generic because it can be used in web conferencing products like ours. That is why I say that if browser developers don't want to implement the full WebRTC, they should at least implement getUserMedia.
Personally, I do hope they implement the full stack, though, because WebRTC--or ObjectRTC--is useful on its own, too (this is why I was saying they were orthogonal.) WebRTC using pure Data Channels is wonderful for enabling things like BitTorrent-like data sharing and realtime LAN gaming, whether or not there's any videoconferencing going on.
Huge gaps and bugs remain in Microsofts WebGL implementation which make it nearly impossible to use except for specific select usecases that Microsoft optimized for.
It took google and mozilla about 4 years to get a good WebGL implementation (and they're still not done). It'll take Microsoft years to come to bring their implementation on par with the rest of the WebGL world.
If there are specific use cases that you're interested in support for, please let us know what they are so that we can prioritise the order of our implementation.
Another measure that's also very useful is to run the webgl performance regression test suite every day to see if performance got worse or better with the changes.
Unfortunately there isn't a comprehensive GLSL syntax test suite, but GLSL has been much of a sore point in IE where some syntax that's valid GLSL would work except in IE (such as uniforms separated by a comma).
I've submitted some tickets to IE (and added more conformance tests to cover them) for some of the gaps (gl.SAMPLES, gl.STENCIL_BITS, gl.SUBPIXEL_BITS).
A thing that's also a sore point is IEs lack of support for very common extensions such as OES_texture_float_linear, WEBGL_compressed_texture_s3tc, WEBGL_depth_texture, OES_standard_derivatives, OES_vertex_array_object, ANGLE_instanced_arrays, OES_element_index_uint, WEBGL_lose_context. You can get an overview of the state of support on http://webglstats.com/
A note on floating point texture extensions. If you implement one extension (for instance OES_texture_float) you should really implement the companion extensions as well for texture_float_linear and color_buffer_float. Only the triplet of extensions provides comprehensive overview of support.
Personally I'd like to see these run in IE of course: http://codeflow.org/entries/2013/feb/15/soft-shadow-mapping/ http://codeflow.org/entries/2013/feb/04/high-performance-js-... http://codeflow.org/webgl/deferred-irradiance-volumes/www/ http://codeflow.org/webgl/trails/www/ http://codeflow.org/webgl/barycentric-wireframe/www/ http://codeflow.org/webgl/ssao/
I think the demos above are fairly good usecases for gaps that you might have, because they exercise a lot of functionality, they're not bound to some specific framework (like three.js) but they are WebGL conformant.
One additional suggestion: Perhaps you could also include a rationale on why a specific feature is not planned to be implemented: e.g. WebRTC. (Though I can anticipate this might not be feasible to do for strategic / management reasons.)
Also found chrome dashboard easier to use than IE dashboard but that's understandable as this is new effort.
And, if anyone from IE team is here, how about some consistency with developer tools with other browsers as well. The web developer UI in IE 11 is so different that I struggle to found simple things - maybe I am not good in recognizing new icons :)
The best I can think of is googling for release notes for current beta/aurora  for "coming soon" but it lacks long term things.
Edit: forgot this one: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/Firefox/Releases
(I work for IE)
 These are listed with a status of "Prefixed" on modern.ie/status.
Anyway, I think most of those aren't part of the w3c standards (yet). But I think it's good to see them publicly state their roadmap.
That said, despite Google's leadership in this area, Chrome's support of "new browser features" is often sloppy. They ship some features in quite broken states, and don't get around to fixing them until a lot later. The Chromium issue tracker has over 56,000 open issues. Google are going for quantity over quality when it comes to new features.
My Stack Overflow question on the topic is at:
All other browsers support web audio. Why isn't MS following along?
I am actually very surprised they don't yet have HSTS implemented. IE is so much behind these security standard IMO. I don't know why they would push Web Crypto into 11+ when they don't even have CSP or HSTS implemented yet.
Given the standard, they should have HSTS, then CSP, then Web Crypto and then subresource integrity (which will probably take another year or two to stabilize a final draft for v1).
Is this list even up-to-date?
The Opus audio codec, which was co-developed by Microsoft subsidiary Skype, would be useful both for WebRTC, and the alternative Microsoft favours, ObjectRTC.
VP8 and Opus both get mentioned in passing in the ObjectRTC spec that I found, but I don't know if they have the same status as in WebRTC (mandatory for Opus, optional for VP8)
Shows future versions of Firefox and Chrome but not yet IE.
Please add a change log so we can quickly know when features get added/rejected/shipped/...
Also I found that sorting by status was broken (a block of IE10+ features in the middle of IE11+ ones).