So Chrome and IE11 should be our target, although for me test in IE11 is almost impossible since I'm on a Mac. but seems the right to do, and we can forget IE8,9&10
I only hope IE11 could be as much as possible to standards nowadays... 2018-02-25 11:26 GMT+01:00 Harbs <[email protected]>: > Some data points: > > One of my client’s recently reported browser usage from a sampling of > close to 70,000 users. (IE 11 is the only version of IE that’s supported.) > > Chrome was the #1 browser at 53.5%. > IE 11 was #2 at 24% > 3, 4, and 5 were Safari, Firefox and Edge respectively. > > With those kinds of percentages, I don’t think we should be dropping IE 11 > support. I’m not sure about IE 10 or IE 9. > > Harbs > > > On Feb 25, 2018, at 10:56 AM, Piotr Zarzycki <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I've been working as a web developer many many years ago. You can't even > > imagine what kind of hacks we had to do in order to dispay something > > sophisticated in IE. > > My colleague who took from time to time some freelance job when Client > > wanted to be compatible with IE8 or whatever next version - always > trippled > > the price because it was a nightmare. :) > > > > I've been working for a Client (large corporation with thousends of > > thousends clients) 6 months ago who had big app in Flex. Where the time > has > > come to move forward from Flex to modern web browser technology - There > > were absolutely no talk about supporting anything like IE. :) > > > > IE - in whatever version for me -1 (Binding). :) > > > > Thanks, > > Piotr > > > > On Sun, Feb 25, 2018, 09:31 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > >> Hi, > >> > >> my opinion about fallback compatibility is that I expect people creating > >> Royale Apps in 2018 and beyond with actual browsers and systems, not > with > >> old ones. > >> If a client has IE8 support, then normaly will have Edge, Chrome and > >> Firefox as well, or if target Android devices, they will be in at least > in > >> Android 4 or 5. So it seems to me a hard task if we should take into > >> account older systems that nowadays has very low user base, and even a > >> nightmare since we should have to focus in test compatibility while we > >> don't have people to do so. So that's not doable by us. > >> > >> So for me the plan should be to focus in the actual systems widely used > and > >> when we get a state near 1.0 (not talking about the number itself, but > the > >> feeling that we can make a Royale App with certain easeness and have > almost > >> all the functionality we need), maybe it would be ok to look at what > system > >> versions are most used and make a plan to stick with them as long as we > >> can, or at least taking care of how to evolve royale without breaking > >> things for that systems since we'll have users and Royale Apps out there > >> that needs to have that support. > >> > >> > >> > >> 2018-02-25 9:02 GMT+01:00 Carlos Rovira <[email protected]>: > >> > >>> Hi Harbs, > >>> > >>> if ObjectMap is a Dictionary, why don't you rename it to that? I think > it > >>> will make more easy for new comers to get it > >>> > >>> Thanks > >>> > >>> 2018-02-24 21:59 GMT+01:00 Gabe Harbs <[email protected]>: > >>> > >>>> There is a ObjectMap class which uses WeakMap or Map and falls back to > >>>> regular objects on platforms whether that is not supported. > >>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap < > >>>> http://royale.apache.org/asdoc/#!org.apache.royale.utils/ObjectMap> > >>>> > >>>> It should be a decent replacement for Dictionary (including weak > >>>> references). The only caveat is you need to use get() and set() > instead > >> of > >>>> bracket access. > >>>> > >>>> I just added documentation and cleaned it up a bit. > >>>> > >>>> What’s interesting about that class is I needed to do some weird > things > >>>> with the methods to reassign them. They are not showing up in the > ASDoc > >>>> very well… > >>>> > >>>> There might be a better way to declare the method (variable) proxies. > >> Not > >>>> sure… > >>>> > >>>> HTH, > >>>> Harbs > >>>> > >>>>> On Feb 24, 2018, at 9:10 PM, Greg Dove <[email protected]> wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> That might make porting some legacy Flex code a > >>>>> lot easier, for example because (iiuc) I think that means Dictionary > >>>> with > >>>>> weak keys could be supported. [3] (and I know Harbs did something > >>>> related > >>>>> to this in the past, maybe some sort of polyfill, can't recall > >> exactly) > >>>> > >>>> > >>> > >>> > >>> -- > >>> Carlos Rovira > >>> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> Carlos Rovira > >> http://about.me/carlosrovira > >> > > -- Carlos Rovira http://about.me/carlosrovira
