4 ms·
Honestly, if you're recording terminal sessions, it's probably fine to not support Edge. I doubt any significant portion of your audience is going to be using i
by OskarS 8y ago
Honestly, if you're recording terminal sessions, it's probably fine to not support Edge. I doubt any significant portion of your audience is going to be using it, and even if they do, they're going to be perfectly understanding when you say "sorry, Edge doesn't support SVG animations, use a different browser".
Shitty of Microsoft, though. If they aren't going to support it, it's not going to be widely deployed. I expect better of the new and improved Microsoft.
- amelius 8y agoW3C should have a rule that a web browser which does not intend to support the standard may not call itself a "web browser".
- bufferoverflow 8y agoI'm pretty sure no browser supports 100% of SVG spec.
- fullstackchris 8y agoFacts like these always drives me crazy... these companies (namely Microsoft, but I guess Google/Mozilla as well a bit) have huge teams and resources, and can't build a browser that follows specs that have been hammered out only after years of work.
- kbenson 8y agoThere's a reason why some bodies ship a reference implementation with the standard. Sometimes what's specified is infeasible, or even impossible (if the spec contradicts itself) to implement.
- amelius 8y agoBut what if the other vendors do have an implementation?
- kbenson 8y agoThis is in the context of an upstream comment (softly) claiming that now browser has 100% SVG support. I think sometimes this is because the full spec is infeasible to implement, at least in a performant manner, and rather than implement a fully compliant but slow mess, they implement a partially compliant but usefully fast subset. Providing a reference implementation allows a standards body to learn early that what they are speccing is counterproductive in one manner or another, prior to releasing it and getting vendor feedback.
- amelius 8y agoOk, but it's not like Microsoft can't discuss with W3C any problems (in their view) in the standard. Anyway, I totally agree that there should be a reference implementation. Imho, preferably in a purely functional language, to keep it as clean as possible.
- kbenson 8y ago> Ok, but it's not like Microsoft can't discuss with W3C any problems (in their view) in the standard. Oh, I'm not defending Microsoft specifically, they're generally pretty horrible on this front. All the browser vendors have components in various states of compliance though, and some components seem to sit at a certain level for years.
- Rondom 8y agoOpera (Presto) supported 100% of the SVG standard, if I remember correctly.
- drb91 8y agoThat doesn’t mean they can’t be expected to support a meaningful subset. Honestly I don’t even know what they’re thinking here: they have no real alternative.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- leni536 8y agoThe least to say. SVG support is abysmal in many browsers. PDF support in browsers seems to be much more complete, even though it's much more complex.
- wilg 8y agoThose web browsers would probably also not support your new standard, and continue to call themselves web browsers.
- thecrazyone 8y agogood catch :)
- chrisseaton 8y ago> W3C should have a rule that a web browser which does not intend to support the standard may not call itself a "web browser" They've got no authority to do that. There is no trademark on 'web' that they could enforce.