[amiga386]

I'm running Firefox right now. It doesn't work. I use Firefox ESR version. Many people do. Many people have also not installed updates released a mere 10 days ago.

Be honest and admit that full, reliable support for this feature among all the main browsers is not going to be there until at least next year.

[master-lincoln]

What? It is there already in Firefox latest version. Do you mean it will take that long until the majority of users have it?

If you decide to not update or use a version that is updated less often, that is not the fault of the people working on the software.

Be honest and admit that you are knowingly using a Firefox version that gets major updates only every 52 weeks and still complain about not getting a released feature.

[amiga386]

I'm not complaining. What I'm trying to highlight is, as it says on the caniuse.com page, this feature has "Limited availability across major browsers", and that is to be expected and accepted.

If you're thinking of promoting use of this non-standard feature, consider how many people it _doesn't_ work for, rather than thinking "oh and yes even Firefox (asoftendaysagoandonlythedesktopmainlinereleasenottheesrormobileversion) so I'll rush out and proseletyze this amazing feature that clearly everyone can use"

[master-lincoln]

Is there an alternative? Do users with browser that don't have support have a worse experience when these links are used? I thought no...

[amiga386]

As an alternative, all browsers the traditional scrolling to named element using a URL fragment, e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/URI#Syntax goes to the "Syntax" section of the page. While the reason of text fragments it to allow for similar linking where there isn't an element with an id, most pages with non-changing text tend also to have non-changing layout and element ids.

If you generate links that include and depend on #:~:text= to make sense, accept that it will confuse users whose browsers do not support it. They will be linked to the top of the document and no text will be highlighted. Consider not only linking, but also quoting what you wanted to be highlighted, e.g.

    John says <a href="https://example.com/#:~:text=I%20dislike%20this">he dislikes it</a>:
    <blockquote cite="https://example.com/">
       Down with this sort of thing. <em>I dislike this</em> and can't abide it.
    </blockquote>

[JimDabell]

> If you decide to not update

Browser support isn’t about what version you personally decide to run, it’s about what version your users are running. What Firefox ESR supports is the relevant factor here.

> Be honest and admit

Can you make your point without accusing people of dishonesty?

[master-lincoln]

> Can you make your point without accusing people of dishonesty?

I was just returning the favor to amiga386 to make them see this is not a normal form of communication. They lead with

> Be honest and admit that full, reliable support for this feature among all the main browsers is not going to be there until at least next year.

When I think they meant to say support for most users isn't there until next year. Because all major browsers have support already now in the current version.

[JimDabell]

> When I think they meant to say support for most users isn't there until next year.

They did say that though:

> full, reliable support

“Reliable” in the context of browser support means widely supported in the browser versions people actually use – i.e. web developers can rely upon it being there. Something that is only available in a browser version released last week is not “reliable” in the sense of browser support.

[poincaredisk]

But Firefox supports it. Firefox developers can't do anything else to improve the support. There's no reason to suspect this feature is not implemented in a reliable way.

The onus is now on users that use Firefox. You're right that many Firefox users don't run the newest version, and you can't in general rely on a Firefox user having a browser new enough to support this feature.

Maybe this is a pedantic distinction, but it feels weird to say "Firefox doesn't support X" to mean "Old version of firefox, that some people use, doesn't support X"

[JimDabell]

> There's no reason to suspect this feature is not implemented in a reliable way.

As I said in my earlier reply, that is not what “reliable” is referring to in the context of browser support. “Reliable” means “We can rely upon our users having it available in their browser”.

This feature does not have reliable support and will not have reliable support until common browser support matrices – of which Firefox ESR is a part – includes support.

OP was correct to say that browser support is unreliable and that Firefox ESR is the thing causing this and will continue to be until next year.

Are you a web developer? “Reliable browser support” is a very well-understood term of art.