Re: New datatracker UI

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 4/18/2015 3:59 AM, t.p. wrote:
I find it worse than that.  Just over a year ago, Martin Rex said, about
an upgrade to a different IETF server,

"Using IE6 to test a web page is perfectly reasonable.

If it doesn't work in IE6, it uses more complex/esoteric features
than what is necessary and should be used in the first place.

I understand, and once upon a time that was very true, but I think by this point in browser history time, its closer to IE9 as a minimum for the windows world of end user support. That is why I go by for our intranet Web products (we supplied canned dynamic web pages) and I have to test all the browser out there. Its was a difficult job.

I think a good way to lay this out is to have some web-support level terms such as:

  Web 1.0   Pure HTML/CSS, no Javascript, no client side offloading.
  Web 2.0   with Javascript, Ajax, Client side offloading, etc.
  Web 3.0   with HTML5, "Web Sockets"

The trend is to offload mode of the client side work to the end-user devices. Well, trend has always been cyclic; centralized, decentralized, we are in a hybrid mode now, of centralization with smart offloaded fatter devices aka apps. Most of the top browsers support HTML5, but javascript should be a given. It would be nice (not as fancy) to keep Web 1.0 web site, but the IETF decision should be made if WEB 2.0 is the minimum device expectation for the IETF.

The server obviously fails the golden IETF rule "be conservative
in what you send out" (as HTML) and the server ought to be fixed"

Its hard to support all the browsers, especially all the devices. But its all possible of course. It is expensive. We made that move ourselves around 2006 from Web 1.0 to Web 2.0 before requiring Javascript where it was needed, otherwise it was optional. I expect within a year or so, more Web 3.0 technology to be used for our intranet package and expecting MOST of the interested end users (targeted customers) to be ready. Testing will tell us. :)

I have performed the test.  It fails, comprehensively.

Well, when simple Javascript-disabled testing is obviously missed, it says people working on it probably have all the latest gadgets, more current/modern hardware, speeds, etc, and they don't do full end-user testing and/or they presumed the interested end users will be ready for it as well with latest hardware and browsers, etc. Its just a matter of testing.

So the question is, does IETF want to continue with WEB 1.0 or at least WEB 2.0 for now? If WEB 1.0, then perhaps IE6 browsers should be included in the test suite. IE6 does have some major issues with Javascript so, I would expect a IE9 level of support.

--
HLS






[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]