Browser Support

[PullJosh]

What browsers should we support? If we support Chrome, Firefox, Opera, Safari, and IE9, is that enough? Do we need to support versions of IE lower than 9? (I would hope that anyone making webpages wouldn't be using IE...)

[matthewr6]

IE 10 or 11+

[PullJosh]

11+

[quat1024]

We should start by supporting the easiest browsers (so probably Chrome and FF) & branch out from there after we're done.

[matthewr6]

I once encountered a CSS bug that worked on Chrome and IE 11 but not Firefox, so...
xD

[PullJosh]

lolwut

[BookOwl]

I would say focus on chrome, firefox, and IE 10+

[TheInitializer]

I say focus on Firefox, Chrome, and Opera 15+ (based on Chromium), then branch out to Safari, IE11 and MS Edge, then if we feel like it go to IE9 and 10.

[PullJosh]

For now, I'll make things work on Chrome, Firefox, Opera 15+, IE 10+, and Safari (newest version).

Mobile (responsiveness) shouldn't really be important for this project.

[matthewr6]

If we make things work for Chrome and IE, things should work in general, I think

[PullJosh]

Yeah.

[TheInitializer]

yeah, if it works on chrome it usually works on firefox too.

[PullJosh]

Except when you're applying an ios-style shake effect to text inputs using jquery when users do something wrong.

... Personal experience.

[amishshah]

Just ditch IE support altogether. Don't worry about IE, it's time to let it die.

[an-OK-squirrel]

Yes

[an-OK-squirrel]

We don't want the people learning html to deal with support themselves

[matthewr6]

Still think at least IE 11+. Then at least it'll make them learn to stop using IE :P
Even so, as long as we build it, it should work unless we use some browser-specific stuff (which we shouldn't anyways...)

[alyssarosenzweig]

The only browser worth supporting is netcat.

Or, if you're feeling slightly less masochistic, maybe support lynx.

But seriously, I agree with @hydrabolt

[PullJosh]

Unfortunately, netcat doesn't appear to support flexbox, so that won't be an option. :(

[matthewr6]

Did you read what I said?
As long we don't use any super esoteric browser features, we'll be good

[alyssarosenzweig]

@Firedrake969 That's not a given really; CSS3 animation isn't really "esoteric".

[PullJosh]

It's just vendor prefixes and things - should we include microsoft filters and stuff?

[matthewr6]

So IE 11 or up doesn't support CSS animations?

[matthewr6]

Just do a mix in that auto prefixes for you

[PullJosh]

Okay, cool!

How about browser support for the code exported by Elemental?

[matthewr6]

Don't care - it's theirs, let them do what they want

[PullJosh]

But in terms of auto-prefixing and things.

Also, should we let them know what browsers their sites will work in?

[PullJosh]

(ex. If they make a gradient, should it be auto-prefixed? If so, which browsers?)

[matthewr6]

All prefixes?

[PullJosh]

And what about in terms of telling them if they're using experimental/unsupported features?

[matthewr6]

We should probably just leave those out.

[matthewr6]

Ok, added a mixin for vendor prefixes