On Feb 29, 2004, at 07:20, Jimmy Wales wrote:
Lars Aronsson wrote:
Hunter Peress wrote:
Theres 3 main cases where someone has an old browser: 3)They are in the third world.
The only reason a country is in the third world is because they are completely clueless. Why waste time on that?
Or is there something wrong with this kind of argument? Perhaps it is the other way around: The only reason some websites fail to support old browsers is because the maintainers are completely clueless.
If I understand Lars remarks here, I agree with him. Contempt towards people with older browsers is completely inconsistent with our mission. There are of course limits to what we can do, but even so...
FWIW, our actual practice has been to try to avoid *outright breaking* older browsers, although we don't go to great lengths to accommodate their every quirk.
So, Netscape 4.x no longer crashes when visiting http://en.wikipedia.org/, but it doesn't look as pretty as we might like.
Browsers that break edits over 32k aren't blocked from editing, but we do have a warning on long pages.
Browsers that break non-ASCII characters during editing aren't blocked from editing, they just annoy us greatly. :)
-- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)