\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" wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Derric Atzrott
> wrote:
> >>> I would like to make a case for moving more brows
On Mon, Aug 4, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Derric Atzrott
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. Our main goal is t
>> 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 Jav
> 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 Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 2:25 AM, Krinkle 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 non-javascript mo
On 26 Jul 2014, at 22:32, Steven Walling 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% of total and thus eli
