Re: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back?
How old was this book? Check the publication date and add 1 year (cause it can take that long for a book to get edited etc before it goes into publication) and then consider what browsers were arounf when the book was written. That may help understand why it's so behind the times. The web is rapidly evolving, which make treeware pretty bad at keeping up. L. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Rick Faircloth wrote: > I think you're perspective is correct, Christian. > > I don't even test in browsers that are two generations removed from the > current release. Clients just have to update their browsers. > > However, if a client insists on supporting IE 5 with IE 7 out, yes, it > will cost them extra. > > Rick > >> -Original Message- >> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >> On Behalf Of Christian Montoya >> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:59 PM >> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >> Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back? >> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Brett Patterson >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I was just reading from a book that talked about some code that would >> not >> > work in Internet Explorer 3.0, but would in Internet Explorer 4.0 and >> later, >> > and Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later. This brought up a question that >> I >> > could not find direct and consistent answers while searching the >> > Internet...so, how far back would it be acceptable to design for, >> when it >> > comes to backwards browser compatibility? I have been told from some >> sites, >> > that Internet Explorer 5.0/later and Netscape Navigator 4.0/later, as >> well >> > as Firefox 1.5/later and Opera 6.0/later. Is this correct? >> >> Yahoo! has a good chart for browser support here: >> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/ >> >> This is not so much which browsers they support, but more which they >> test against and *guarantee* support for. So a Yahoo! site mike also >> work with IE 5.0, but they won't lose sleep if it doesn't. >> >> I think it's safe to say that if your client wants to guarantee >> support for an older browser not in this chart, then you should charge >> extra. >> >> -- >> -- >> Christian Montoya >> mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net >> >> >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >> *** >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.278 / Virus Database: 270.11.12/1998 - Release Date: >> 03/14/09 06:54:00 > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back?
How old was this book? Check the publication date and add 1 year (cause it can take that long for a book to get edited etc before it goes into publication) and then consider what browsers were arounf when the book was written. That may help understand why it's so behind the times. The web is rapidly evolving, which make treeware pretty bad at keeping up. L. On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Rick Faircloth wrote: > I think you're perspective is correct, Christian. > > I don't even test in browsers that are two generations removed from the > current release. Clients just have to update their browsers. > > However, if a client insists on supporting IE 5 with IE 7 out, yes, it > will cost them extra. > > Rick > >> -Original Message- >> From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] >> On Behalf Of Christian Montoya >> Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:59 PM >> To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org >> Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back? >> >> On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Brett Patterson >> wrote: >> > Hi all, >> > >> > I was just reading from a book that talked about some code that would >> not >> > work in Internet Explorer 3.0, but would in Internet Explorer 4.0 and >> later, >> > and Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later. This brought up a question that >> I >> > could not find direct and consistent answers while searching the >> > Internet...so, how far back would it be acceptable to design for, >> when it >> > comes to backwards browser compatibility? I have been told from some >> sites, >> > that Internet Explorer 5.0/later and Netscape Navigator 4.0/later, as >> well >> > as Firefox 1.5/later and Opera 6.0/later. Is this correct? >> >> Yahoo! has a good chart for browser support here: >> http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/ >> >> This is not so much which browsers they support, but more which they >> test against and *guarantee* support for. So a Yahoo! site mike also >> work with IE 5.0, but they won't lose sleep if it doesn't. >> >> I think it's safe to say that if your client wants to guarantee >> support for an older browser not in this chart, then you should charge >> extra. >> >> -- >> -- >> Christian Montoya >> mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net >> >> >> *** >> List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm >> Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm >> Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org >> *** >> >> >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com >> Version: 8.5.278 / Virus Database: 270.11.12/1998 - Release Date: >> 03/14/09 06:54:00 > > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
RE: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back?
I think you're perspective is correct, Christian. I don't even test in browsers that are two generations removed from the current release. Clients just have to update their browsers. However, if a client insists on supporting IE 5 with IE 7 out, yes, it will cost them extra. Rick > -Original Message- > From: li...@webstandardsgroup.org [mailto:li...@webstandardsgroup.org] > On Behalf Of Christian Montoya > Sent: Saturday, March 14, 2009 4:59 PM > To: wsg@webstandardsgroup.org > Subject: Re: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back? > > On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Brett Patterson > wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > I was just reading from a book that talked about some code that would > not > > work in Internet Explorer 3.0, but would in Internet Explorer 4.0 and > later, > > and Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later. This brought up a question that > I > > could not find direct and consistent answers while searching the > > Internet...so, how far back would it be acceptable to design for, > when it > > comes to backwards browser compatibility? I have been told from some > sites, > > that Internet Explorer 5.0/later and Netscape Navigator 4.0/later, as > well > > as Firefox 1.5/later and Opera 6.0/later. Is this correct? > > Yahoo! has a good chart for browser support here: > http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/ > > This is not so much which browsers they support, but more which they > test against and *guarantee* support for. So a Yahoo! site mike also > work with IE 5.0, but they won't lose sleep if it doesn't. > > I think it's safe to say that if your client wants to guarantee > support for an older browser not in this chart, then you should charge > extra. > > -- > -- > Christian Montoya > mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net > > > *** > List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm > Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm > Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org > *** > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 8.5.278 / Virus Database: 270.11.12/1998 - Release Date: > 03/14/09 06:54:00 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Testing in IE7 both Win XP and Vista
Hi there Peter, From what I see, it is safe to test on just the one. Running Vista and XP side by side on two PC's Peter Mount wrote: Hello Is it necessary to test web sites in IE7 on both Win XP and Vista? Or is it good enough to just test in IE7 on Vista? I'm just worried about IE7 rendering differently on Win XP compared to Vista. Thanks -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2001 - Release Date: 03/14/09 06:54:00 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***begin:vcard fn:Schalk Neethling n:Neethling;Schalk org:Overt Strategy Consulting adr:Florauna;;Berg ave 642;Pretoria;Gauteng;0182;South Africa email;internet:sch...@overtstrategyconsulting.com title:President tel;work:+27125468436 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.overtstrategyconsulting.com version:2.1 end:vcard
Re: [WSG] Testing in IE7 both Win XP and Vista
Hi there Peter, From what I see, it is safe to test on just the one. Running Vista side by side on two PC's Peter Mount wrote: Hello Is it necessary to test web sites in IE7 on both Win XP and Vista? Or is it good enough to just test in IE7 on Vista? I'm just worried about IE7 rendering differently on Win XP compared to Vista. Thanks -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org *** No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.237 / Virus Database: 270.11.13/2001 - Release Date: 03/14/09 06:54:00 *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***begin:vcard fn:Schalk Neethling n:Neethling;Schalk org:Overt Strategy Consulting adr:Florauna;;Berg ave 642;Pretoria;Gauteng;0182;South Africa email;internet:sch...@overtstrategyconsulting.com title:President tel;work:+27125468436 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:http://www.overtstrategyconsulting.com version:2.1 end:vcard
[WSG] Testing in IE7 both Win XP and Vista
Hello Is it necessary to test web sites in IE7 on both Win XP and Vista? Or is it good enough to just test in IE7 on Vista? I'm just worried about IE7 rendering differently on Win XP compared to Vista. Thanks -- Peter Mount Web Development for Business Mobile: 0411 276602 i...@petermount.com http://www.petermount.com *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
Re: [WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back?
On Sat, Mar 14, 2009 at 3:19 PM, Brett Patterson wrote: > Hi all, > > I was just reading from a book that talked about some code that would not > work in Internet Explorer 3.0, but would in Internet Explorer 4.0 and later, > and Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later. This brought up a question that I > could not find direct and consistent answers while searching the > Internet...so, how far back would it be acceptable to design for, when it > comes to backwards browser compatibility? I have been told from some sites, > that Internet Explorer 5.0/later and Netscape Navigator 4.0/later, as well > as Firefox 1.5/later and Opera 6.0/later. Is this correct? Yahoo! has a good chart for browser support here: http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs/ This is not so much which browsers they support, but more which they test against and *guarantee* support for. So a Yahoo! site mike also work with IE 5.0, but they won't lose sleep if it doesn't. I think it's safe to say that if your client wants to guarantee support for an older browser not in this chart, then you should charge extra. -- -- Christian Montoya mappdev.com :: christianmontoya.net *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
[WSG] Browser Backwards Compatibility -- How far back?
Hi all, I was just reading from a book that talked about some code that would not work in Internet Explorer 3.0, but would in Internet Explorer 4.0 and later, and Netscape Navigator 3.0 and later. This brought up a question that I could not find direct and consistent answers while searching the Internet...so, how far back would it be acceptable to design for, when it comes to backwards browser compatibility? I have been told from some sites, that Internet Explorer 5.0/later and Netscape Navigator 4.0/later, as well as Firefox 1.5/later and Opera 6.0/later. Is this correct? -- Brett P. *** List Guidelines: http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm Unsubscribe: http://webstandardsgroup.org/join/unsubscribe.cfm Help: memberh...@webstandardsgroup.org ***
