9 Sep
2014
9 Sep
'14
6:09 p.m.
As a kind of joke, IE6 was supported during a very long time by many
people, not only because it was used by many people, but also ... because
it was not supported by Microsoft !
This makes sense (in a way) : if Microsoft doesn't fix any issue in the
most used browser, then you're left with implementing ugly workarounds
everywhere to support it yourself ... Unless you don't care at all about
providing a software that "works" for most users, but this is a bit weird
approach.
2014-09-09 16:58 GMT+02:00 Jean SIMARD <jean.simard(a)xwiki.com>om>:
I'm also +1 to support only versions that MS
officially supports.
By the way, if we drop support for old IE versions, it will mainly be a
problem
for new adopters of XWiki? We can guess that those who are not updating
their
browser will not update their XWiki instance too.
On Tue, Sep 09, 2014 at 04:29:39PM +0200, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
[snip]
If you mean, we should do the same as we do for FF and Chrome, then sure, once we
can confirm that the big majority of Windows users are using
the latest IE, then we can decide this too. I have some doubts though since
large companies have always been very conservative in upgrading their
browser versions because they develop apps for a given version and
upgrading usually costs a lot. It could work I guess but it may take some
time for mentalities to evolve and it depends on how good MS is in not
breaking backward compatibility… ;)
On 9 Sep 2014 at 16:16:42, Thomas Mortagne (thomas.mortagne(a)xwiki.com
(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Thomas Mortagne
> wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On 9 Sep 2014 at 15:49:06, Thomas Mortagne (
thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:41 PM, vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> > On 9 Sep 2014 at 15:23:35, Eduard Moraru (enygma2002(a)gmail.com
(mailto:enygma2002@gmail.com)) wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> +1 for Thomas' logic. If its own maker dropped support for
it,
there is no
> >>> >> logic in us supporting
it. "simple and easy to defend”.
> >>> >
> >>> > -1 because:
> >>> >
> >>> > A) it’s very difficult to know which support you’re talking
about (see below for examples of the 4 dates for IE6.0.x)
> >>> > B) it has never worked
like this and never will… It all depends
on our use base and what they are
using...
> >>> > C) Based on your rule we
should still support IE6 SP3 since it’s
still supported by MS on Windows Server
2003! (see below)
> >>>
> >>> You should reread what I suggested: "only the most current version
of
> >>> Internet Explorer available for
a supported operating system”.
> >>
> >> I was replying to Edy’s comment:
> >> "If its own maker dropped support for it, there is no logic in us
supporting it. "simple and easy to defend”."
> >>
> >> I think there has been some confusion about your proposal then
because there are 2 different things:
> >> - not supporting a IE version that
MS doesn’t support
> >> - only supporting the latest IE version
> >>
> >>> So
> >>> based on what's on
> >>> http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/lifecycle.
> >>>
> >>> So no we would not have to support IE6, we would actually drop IE8
and 9.
>
> And IE10 I guess since the most recent is IE11.
Again you did not really carefully read what I said, I never talked
about the latest IE, I talked about the lastest IE in supported
systems. The last IE in Windows Vista is IE10.
And again that's the rule MS plan to apply, they just delayed the
application of this rule. See the blog post I mentioned.
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs
--
Jean Simard
jean.simard(a)xwiki.com
Research engineer at XWiki SAS
http://www.xwiki.com
Committer on the XWiki.org project
http://www.xwiki.org
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs