<slightly ot> Actually … I had firefox 17 months ago. And I'm up to release 20 now.
Mozilla pushes their pre-beta (dubbed "aurora" - generally 2 releases forward) at [0] , and their nightly build (funnily enough, dubbed "nightly" - generally 4 releases forward) at [1]. They're less stable, but aurora is generally feature complete an can be used for testing. Matthew Bowker http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Matthewrbowker [0] https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/aurora/ [1] http://nightly.mozilla.org/ On Nov 21, 2012, at 3:56 PM, Platonides <[email protected]> wrote: > On 21/11/12 18:33, James Forrester wrote: >> On 20 November 2012 23:54, Martijn Hoekstra 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. > > Funnily, Firefox 17 was released yesterday. So the latest Firefox is in > fact not shown in [[VisualEditor/2012-13_Q2_forward-look]] and I doubt > anyone on this thread had it installed when it started. > > Which serves as a counterexample for the Brion statement of "nobody > should be running Chrome 22". Which was released two months ago. > > I think that in addition to the some rule for the rapid release > versions, like "plus all its versions released in the last year" would > be needed. > > Does it seem too much? Well, a year ago we were at Firefox 9. But > Firefox 10 is itself an Extended Support Release. > Does this mean much more work? It depends. For common browsers, we could > develop for the "new" and "old" versions. If it works for both, it is > likely to work in all the releases inbetween, too. > If the feature only works for some version (eg. suppose ContentEditable > had been added on FF 12 [if was in fact FF 3]), it could be documented, > and the feature supported just from that one onwards. > > We must support old browsers, to the point where a browser designed in > the HTML4 days should provide an _acceptable_ experience. Yes, you > wouldn't have fancy HTML5 video or . But that shouldn't mean that you > couldn't rollback a certain vandalism with malformed wiktext because it > completely broke your editor. > > > We should have such a great-vision goal in mind. Then for «hard» > features such as Visual Editor, we may need to be satisfied with much > less, of course. > > The bad thing I see with saying "volunteers can add VE support for > $SMALLBROWSER if they wish" is that only a few will be able to > understand the code, much less to fix it. > > > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
