On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I would like to make a case for moving more browsers into the grade C
category.
Yes please. As a project that must live the test of time I think we should
be focusing our energy on building for future browsers.
\o/ what terrific news to wake up to!
Derric I think we are in agreement on the way forward! You are not saying
anything I disagree with :)
On 6 Aug 2014 07:33, Erik Moeller e...@wikimedia.org wrote:
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Derric Atzrott
datzr...@alizeepathology.com wrote:
I would
I would like to make a case for moving more browsers into the grade C
category.
Yes please. As a project that must live the test of time I think we should
be focusing our energy on building for future browsers. Our main goal is to
provide people knowledge which can be done without
On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Krinkle krinklem...@gmail.com wrote:
Since Grade B never ended up being recognised in any way by the software,
I've kept that out. And the previously undocumented Grade C represents
browsers we are interested in supporting due to their traffic but only via
the
I would like to make a case for moving more browsers into the grade C
category.
Yes please. As a project that must live the test of time I think we should
be focusing our energy on building for future browsers. Our main goal is to
provide people knowledge which can be done without JavaScript.
On 26 Jul 2014, at 22:32, Steven Walling steven.wall...@gmail.com wrote:
This seems really reasonable.
Are we still agreed that Grade A means anything over 1% of readership? If
so, we should reconfirm what our browser share is really like, because last
time I checked, IE6 was less than 1%
