On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:43 AM, Baruch Burstein <bmburst...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 3:23 PM, Richard Hipp <d...@sqlite.org> wrote: >> >> >> On Tue, Dec 23, 2014 at 8:15 AM, Baruch Burstein <bmburst...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Thu, Dec 18, 2014 at 1:22 AM, Baruch Burstein <bmburst...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> I just pushed a rough try at doing this filtering client-side >>>> as-you-type. Needs polish, but works. It does only a simple text match, but >>>> it would be trivial to change this to case-insensitive and/or regex >>>> matching by changing which JS built-in function is used for matching. >>>> >>> >>> I just discovered that the JS I used is not supported in IE<=9. What is >>> the policy on supporting older browsers? >>> >> >> We have always sought to support all mainstream browses: Firefox, >> Chrome, IE, Safari, and Opera. >> > > OK. How far back? Is IE>=8 good enough, since IE7 is no longer officially > supported? > > The other thing to consider is what goes wrong with older browsers. Does it still do something reasonable, or it the display completely trashed? What if the user deliberately disables JS? Do you still get a reasonable screen? What if the user visits the page using lynx? Ideally, JS should only be required for advanced and optional features. Everything should work for non-JS capable browsers. So, for example, if you visit the /timeline page with JS disabled, you don't get the graphical timeline (which is drawn using JS) but everything else on the timeline works. -- D. Richard Hipp d...@sqlite.org
_______________________________________________ fossil-users mailing list fossil-users@lists.fossil-scm.org http://lists.fossil-scm.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/fossil-users
