Support can mean either depending on the context. Most of this is uncontroversial, but I found it useful to think through and sum up.
From a platform perspective to support a browser means that the user experience is considered acceptable, tested against, and we're committed to keeping it that way (which may mean moving a browser or mediawiki feature from one Grade to another). Don't forget that there's a lot more to our platform than javascript execution! Supporting users of browsers we provide a javascript-less experience still requires a lot of things to work; such as: * Content delivery. (Can't require HTTP features that don't work, e.g. some sites require every user to be in a session with an ID and for new visitors they respond with an empty page that sets session cookies based and refreshes to display the real page, we couldn't do that if we want to support browsers without cookies or with cookies disabled.) * Enough styles for the page to be usable. (Let's say background-image were new in CSS3, then we couldn't exclusively have a design with white text on a background image without a fallback colour to ensure the text is readable without that image.) * HTML implementation. (Say a supported browser doesn't allow relative urls in a <form> action attribute, we'd have to make it an absolute url.) * Character encoding. (If certain unicode literals aren't interpreted properly, we may have to explicitly encode them.) * We'd commit to doing our best to keep their stuff secure (e.g. while we may patch against a browser-specific CSRF exploit for an unsupported browser out of the goodness of our hearts, we pretty much have to if it affects a supported browser). All these areas and more do in fact have problems we account for, but I think we've been at it long enough that we've got these bases covered in MediaWiki and in our web servers and caching proxies. However as we keep introducing new backend code and iterate our infrastructure, we need to ensure we don't miss anything. -- Timo On 27 Jul 2014, at 18:42, Jon Robson <jdlrob...@gmail.com> wrote: > A few quick notes: > > * we should be killing jQuery ui. not upgrading it :) > * progressive enhancement != supporting IE6. We should be doing this > anywhere. Personally I would be fine with giving IE6,7, even 8 and maybe 9 > no JavaScript whatsoever and supporting them simply from simply a css > perspective. People can edit and read without JavaScript. > * I think we should be careful when we say support. Does support meaning > any new features we write in JavaScript have to work on these platforms or > does in mean they need to be usable? I'd say the latter. It sounds like the > discussion is around supporting JS.. > On 24 Jul 2014 13:49, "Sumana Harihareswara" <suma...@wikimedia.org> wrote: > >> Replying with a subject line. :) Good luck Thomas. >> >> Sumana Harihareswara >> Senior Technical Writer >> Wikimedia Foundation >> >> >> On Thu, Jul 24, 2014 at 4:24 PM, Thomas Mulhall < >> thomasmulhall...@yahoo.com> >> wrote: >> >>> Hi should we upgrade jquery ui to version 1.10.4. even though we recently >>> upgraded to version 1.9.2 we could upgrade to 1.10.4 in Mediawiki 1.25. >> The >>> main difference is it removes internet explorer 6 support which as long >> as >>> internet explorer 6 users can edit and view the page it wont matter to >>> them. here is the changelog jqueryui.com/changelog/1.10.0/ >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Wikitech-l mailing list >>> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >>> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikitech-l mailing list >> Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l > _______________________________________________ > Wikitech-l mailing list > Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
