9 Sep
2014
9 Sep
'14
4:58 p.m.
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:
On 9 Sep 2014 at 16:16:42, Thomas Mortagne
(thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com(mailto:thomas.mortagne@xwiki.com)) wrote:
--
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
On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 4:13 PM, Thomas Mortagne
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… ;)
Thanks
-Vincent
_______________________________________________
devs mailing list
devs(a)xwiki.org
http://lists.xwiki.org/mailman/listinfo/devs On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:55 PM,
vincent(a)massol.net wrote:
And again that's the rule MS plan to apply, they just delayed the
application of this rule. See the blog post I mentioned.
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@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.