Update Browser Support

[Nevraeka]

• With Microsoft deprecating updates for IE9 & IE10 should we support IE10+ or IE11 only?
• Also should we should mobile browser support here as well?

[Nevraeka]

cc @robdodson @csuwildcat

[robdodson]

I'm not sure what the color codes mean but I think everything that is currently red for custom elements / shadow dom should be set to yellow since everyone is either actively working on those and some folks have already shipped them in preview.

I think HTML Imports should be the only red squares.

Mobile browser support would be cool to include. Might make the table kinda long though?

[Nevraeka]

@robdodson I agree on the mobile browsers. I was thinking we could either make the images smaller and have 2 rows or just say we support the latest mobile versions of these as well as the desktop versions

As for yellow on Shadow DOM - are we sure about active development in all browsers or has it been scheduled but work has not started yet ?

[robdodson]

In Safari I'm pretty sure they're actively prototyping Custom Elements (there's a ticket...somewhere) and Shadow DOM v1 just shipped in Safari Technology Preview.

As for Edge... @csuwildcat any updates on that?

[Nevraeka]

What about IE(9-10) support? Is that still necessary? We absolutely need 11 but I wonder if the polyfills has evolved recently. I would think so but IDK

[csuwildcat]

@robdodson it is in the queue, but behind Service Worker development - they're just a bit backed up at the moment.

[robdodson]

@Nevraeka I don't think there's any plan to work on IE9-10 support in either webcomponentsjs or polymer.

[csuwildcat]

@robdodson IE9-10 combine for almost 10% of global market share, from my quick look - which seems rather significant. Web Components JS doesn't offer support for browsers that low, but we added a couple small API polyfills to our distribution that enable it, and we haven't had issues (with Custom Elements, not Shadow DOM)

[robdodson]

oh sorry, not saying it's not an important sector, I just don't think anyone (on our end at least) has the availability to work on supporting it.

we added a couple small API polyfills to our distribution that enable it, and we haven't had issues (with Custom Elements, not Shadow DOM)

Related to x-tag?

[csuwildcat]

@robdodson yeah, we get IE9-10 support for the non-Shadow DOM specs just by including a DOMTokenList polyfill

[robdodson]

@csuwildcat would you want to vend those custom element polyfills on webcomponents.org with instructions on how to use them?

[Nevraeka]

👍 to

@csuwildcat would you want to vend those custom element polyfills on webcomponents.org with instructions on how to use them?

good call @robdodson . I want to update the resources page asap anyway and thats a great place for these

[Nevraeka]

From a Shadow DOM perspective @treshugart (SkateJS) & @EisenbergEffect (Aurelia) both have polyfills for named-slots for Shadow DOM v1 . It might make sense to work together toward a common project on these polyfills. Thoughts @csuwildcat or @robdodson ?

[csuwildcat]

I suppose the first step would be to setup a shared set of tests that each
implementation can run against the same criteria. @robdodson, is there a
current set of tests that are easy to run against other polyfill
implementations?

On Fri, May 27, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Erik Isaksen notifications@github.com
wrote:

From a Shadow DOM perspective @treyshugart (SkateJS) & @EisenbergEffect
https://github.com/eisenbergeffect (Aurelia) both have polyfills for
named-slots for Shadow DOM v1 . It might make sense to work together toward
a common project on these polyfills. Thoughts @csuwildcat
https://github.com/csuwildcat or @robdodson
https://github.com/robdodson ?

—
You are receiving this because you were mentioned.
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
#329 (comment),
or mute the thread
https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe/AAICypWvELUhw4RObes7vIPZ14yV2w3-ks5qFziQgaJpZM4IZdBR
.