Paul,
"Support" doesn't mean (at least to me) the project needs to introduce
an oppressive amount of manual QA.
"Support" means a distinction on what the response is going to be when a
problem is reported, with a higher commitment on the part of uPortal
developers on addressing issues raised against supported browsers and
much less commitment to do heroics for unsupported browsers.
There's a section on each of those pages that attempts to answer the
question of what it means for uPortal to "support" certain browsers.
Perhaps that can be made clearer?
Andrew
Paul Gazda wrote:
I like the principal of having officially supported browsers, but wonder
about the implementation details. Doesn't supporting only the latest single
non-beta version of the YUI listed browsers imply that every release of the
uPortal framework or official channels and portlets needs to be tested
against 18 combinations of browsers and OSs as listed at YUI? And every time
a new release of one of the 5 listed browsers comes out, all of the
framework, channels and portlets need to be re-tested against the new
browser release? Perhaps I'm mis-interpreting what "support" means, but if
not, I am wondering how continuing support for changing browser and OS
releases would be assured.
Paul Gazda
Senior Web Developer
Information Technology Services
Northern Arizona University
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(928) 523-6844
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Andrew Petro
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2008 11:39 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [uportal-dev] uPortal policy on supported web browsers
uPortal developers,
I'd like to see the project adopt a policy about what web browsers
uPortal supports. Fortunately, the Yahoo YUI folks have an A-grade
browser policy that I think[1] tracks very well with what uPortal
support ought to be. Making the policy that of supporting YUI-graded
A-grade browsers has some very nice properties in that they keep the
list up to date and so uPortal will have a go-to, commonly respected,
external criteria rather than dithering internally about which browsers
to support.
I've drafted a policy statement in the uPortal manuals:
uP3 manual: http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/x/LYKi
uP2 manual: http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/x/LIKi
I'd like for one of two things to happen:
1) A flurry of +1s and "huzzahs" sufficient to adopt this browser
support policy, so that we have one, making the project more marketable
and setting a path.
2) responses leading to discussion that brings us to an even better
policy statement, for which we can then have (1).
Thanks,
Andrew
[1]: Thanks are due to Colin Clark, the rest of uPortal steering
committee, and Gary Thompson in helping me to become informed enough to
think about this.
--
Join your friends and colleagues at JA-SIG 2008 - "Higher Education Solutions: The
Community Source Way!"
April 27th - 30th, 2008 in St. Paul, Minnesota USA
Featuring CAS, DSpace, Fedora, Fluid, Internet2, Kuali, Sakai, uPortal, and
more!
Information/Registration at:
http://www.ja-sig.org/conferences/08spring/index.html
You are currently subscribed to [email protected] as: [EMAIL
PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe, change settings or access archives, see
http://www.ja-sig.org/wiki/display/JSG/uportal-dev
