David Crossley wrote:
DC> For a long time we tried to render okay in really old browsers, so we
DC> kept using the tables-based skin as default and on the forrest website.
DC> Then we decided to move on and use CSS. If there is some stuff that we
DC> can do to assist older browsers, then we should do that.
Great, so I'll create a new bug issue as soon as I have to screen shot to
show the problem.
Johannes Schaefer wrote:
JS> We simply accepted this as an IE bug since it isn't
JS> critical (for us).
I probably would if it didn't make the text unreadable.
>> Q2: Is there a list of what is expected from a Forrest enabled browser
>> or a list of browsers and versions that will render the default skins
>> properly?
DC> We do need to provide a list of expectations. I wouldn't want to try
DC> to maintain a browser compliance table though. Perhaps we can make
DC> a list of requirements and point to browser tests at other site.
Great idea. I suggest creating a document with a tabular matrix showing
skin1 skin2 skin3
requirement1 state state
requirement2
requirement3
with requirements showing something like EcmaScript, CSS1, Java, table
support etc. and one of four states in the middle.
The states should be
must have - site will be unreadable without
should have - site will be hard to use without
optional - site will look nicer with it
not used - makes no difference
Each requirement could be a link to a test-page for this requirement
or better - a forrest testpage.
I offer to write this if people send me the requirement for 'their' or
a public skin (perhaps as a response to this posting?).
--
Ferdinand Soethe
