On 20 November 2012 23:54, Martijn Hoekstra <[email protected]> wrote: > I think a best of both worlds would be preferable. I haven't seen the > stats, but I'd assume market share of IE 10 will be quite low. Still it > would be silly to not strive to support it.
Well, until this month IE 10 wasn't released (just a developer version; I wasn't counting these). Thus the "current and immediately-previous versions" for IE would have been 9 and 8. Supporting browsers before they're released is a nice-to-have and, as you say, sensible to get ahead of the work, but it's not as crucial as fixing "live" versions for millions of people. > How about any browser released > in the last n months whose browser family has more then x % market share > plus any individual browser version with more then m % market share for > some sensible figures n, x and m? Interesting idea. Perhaps x = 5, m = 1 and n = 12; with these numbers we'd get pretty much what I suggested, plus IE 7 and Opera 12. The cost of supporting these (especially IE 7) would be heroic in some areas, however - but that's what the "local policies" for different features are for, after all. J. -- James D. Forrester Product Manager, VisualEditor Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. [email protected] | @jdforrester _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
