On 2/19/2013 12:19 PM, Michael Schofield wrote:
> Hey world,
> I suppose I could start appending footnotes to my ranty emails.
> Johnathan is definitely right regarding jQuery while I was
> generalizing. Yes, jq1.8 will be supported - but, if you wanted to,
> you could still run a site using jq1.4.

Dude, you are still spreading FUD.  (Although I confused things more by 
talking about 1.8 when I didn't mean 1.8 -- I meant 1.9, which will 
support IE <9, and 2.0 which will not).

You COULD run a site on JQuery 1.4, but JQuery 1.4 is no longer 
supported, and does not have the features that recent JQueries do.

version numbers wrong before. It's 1.9 and 2.0 I am talking about, not 
1.8 and 1.9)  I put that in all caps because people seem to be 
frequently misunderstanding this, and you are spreading misinformation 
by making this comparison.

JQuery 1.9 will continue to be officially supported for the indefinite 
future, it has no End of Life. And it will be supported with _feature 
parity_ with 1.9.  If they add new features to 2.0, they will add it to 
1.9.  1.9 and 2.0 will be _simultaneous alternatives_.  With 1.9 
supporting IE <9, and 2.0 not.  It is even encouraged that if you want 
to support IE <9, you could deliver a JQ 1.9 to those IE, and a JQ 2.0 
to everyone else -- and all your actual app code built on JQ should work 
on either, the commitment is to make them identically compatible.

This has not happened with Jquery before is why it's confusing people. 
It is NOT NOT NOT comparable to "you could still run a site using jquery 

First of all, let’s be very clear: The jQuery team does “worry about” IE 
6/7/8, with jQuery 1.9. We’ve created a legacy-free jQuery 2.0 in order 
to address the many situations where older versions of IE aren’t needed. 
Some glorious day in the future, jQuery 2.0 will be the only version 
you’ll need; until then we’ll continue to maintain jQuery 1.9.

  The jQuery team is moving
> beyond LT IE9 because losing the bloat is certainly more performant,
> especially as the web scurries further away from high-speed
> connections. Even now, many of us are supporting old IE by pulling in
> additional stylesheets or scripts. The practice doesn't change if on
> detection you choose to load jq1.8 instead of 2+.  As the web moves
> forward, the experience for old browser users will increasingly suck
> - polyfills bust performance budget.
> Google Apps / Play pulled support for IE8 on November 15. Link to
> Techcrunch below. It's not fatal, but it's the same premise - IE8
> users will get the "you should consider upgrading" message. It's the
> beginning of the trend, but it's definitely a trend.  I just
> browserstacked my dusty G+ profile and there is a polite message. I
> didn't see it on Calendar or Gmail. It more in-your-face on Play.
> It's there and it's not.  It works, it's gradual, but it's goading.
> John's right, too, when he makes the point that the decision has a
> lot to do with the difficulty / expense to support. The question to
> me is if a library website is built by taxes and tuition, is there a
> point where the redundant work for backward compatibility becomes a
> disservice?
> Michael //
>  -----Original Message----- From: Jonathan Rochkind
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 11:57 AM
> To: Code for Libraries Cc: Michael Schofield Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB]
> A Responsibility to Encourage Better Browsers ( ? )
> On 2/19/2013 10:22 AM, Michael Schofield wrote:
>> Now that Google, jQuery, and others will soon drop support for IE8
>> - its time to politely join-in and make luddite patrons aware.
>> IMHO, anyway.
> I would like a cite for this. I think you are mis-informed. It is a
> misconception that JQuery is dropping support for IE8 anytime soon.
> And I'm not sure what you mean about 'Google' dropping support for
> IE8.
> [The mis-conception comes from the fact that JQuery 1.9 will not
> support IE <9, HOWEVER, JQuery 1.8 will be supported indefinitely as
> feature-complete-compatible with JQuery 1.9, and supporting IE <9.
> JQuery 1.9 is just an alternate smaller JQuery without IE 8 support,
> yeah, but JQuery 1.8 has no EOL and will be supported indefinitey
> feature-complete with 1.9].
> Anyway, I think it's clear that the web developer with our level of
> resources can not afford to support every browser that may possibly
> exist.
> We have to decide on our list of browsers we will actually spend time
> ensuring work with our code.  (You can also, like JQuery-mobile, have
> a list that's supported as 'first class', and another list that is
> supported with graceful degredation -- and then others which you
> don't look at at all, and may fail miserably/unusably).
> That decision is generally based on a combination of popularity of
> browsers among your users as well as difficulty (expense) to
> support.
> If you can politically get away with no longer supporting IE8 even
> though it's popular among your users, I guess that could be legit. It
> depends on your 'business needs', right?
> Once you've decided to stop supporting a browser, especially one that
> may be popular anyway, a secondary question is whether to let it just
> silently potentially fail (you generally aren't spending time
> analyzing whether it will in fact fail, work as intended, or degrade
> gracefully -- that's part of the point), or actually sniff user
> agents and give the user some sort of warning that your site may not
> work with your browser.
> If you are going to give a warning, I'd recommend it be a relatively
> unobtrusive warning that still lets them proceed to use your site
> anyway if they want to ignore your warning, rather than one that
> locks them out.