On 06/02/11 at 03:56pm, shawn wilson wrote: > On Jun 2, 2011 3:35 PM, "Nuno Magalhães" <nunomagalhaes@eu.ipp.pt> wrote: > > > > If their excuse was lack of standards' compliance maybe it'd kinda > > make sense. If. There's something called graceful degradation and it > > does "force" people to buy newer hardware. How green of Google Inc. > > Reminds me to start migrating away from their products and start > > treating them as Microsoft's. Guess i'll learn exim et al :) > > </rant> > > > > Politics aside, I actually wish more companies would do this. I've told > people for about a year now that I'll make web sites work for ie9 and > everything else or it'll just be tested for a certain version of ie. Not > supporting ff3.5 is a bit radical imo but I can understand. > > However, its probably because (IIRC) firefox is going to stop supporting it > and force upgrades as much as possible. IIRC, they're tired of writing > security patches for 3.5 when they've changed their code base do much. Whether mozilla stops supporting firefox 3.5 or not should have no bearing on whether a given website should work in it. Perhaps gmail desktop alerts shouldn't work, and you would be advised to upgrade if you wanted them, but gmail as a whole should continue working. ...as should all other google 'apps'... Hell, I can use gmail in ie5. Why not ff3.5? -- Liam
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature