huh, I have to reply to myself to thread here? 

George, actually, I've done webdev &amp; I know how awful IE has been to support in the past &amp; how much better ie9 &amp; 10 are. I know webdevs have a reflex of pain when they hear IE; but when I test my code for IE9 &amp; Firefox, it kind of just works now. I'm not fond of caniuse &amp; html5test as data points; I'd prefer folks either use the W3C test suite for HTML5 coverage, not something that aligns to a specific browser vendor's agenda or just come out &amp; say that your test is for how well other browsers match your favourite ;-)

If they didn't test it at all, we're assuming the ms- prefixes came from a library? in which case, pick one that minifies the code better, perhaps. 

EH - I didn't say I didn't pay attention; I said it makes me unlikely to choose to cover them once I have paid attention. 

Microsoft has to pay for the sins of the past. But if you don't reward someone for improving their behaviour, what incentive is there to ever improve? If a stunt-driven product dropped the stunts &amp; turned into a good product, I'd be interested in covering them. I think of it as evidence-based coverage, rather than simply attention based.