On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 9:33 AM, James Forrester <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. >
I think this sounds like a great compromise (perhaps even with m = 2 ?) Leslie > 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 -- Leslie Carr Wikimedia Foundation AS 14907, 43821 http://as14907.peeringdb.com/ _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
