3 out of 4 candidate website do not support winxp. Wonder if this finally means that winxp compatibility is no longer worth the extra trouble from a business perspective.
I read that line as the opposite, that only Marco Rubio's site requires SNI support to access (hence the red checkmark on his, and the green Xs on the others, suggesting that requiring SNI is bad). Although I admit that line confused me at first.
The footnote is also suggestive that this is the correct interpretation.
You are 100% right. That suddenly make me dislike this list quite a lot, as it suggest that it is a technical achievement to not use SNI. I have seen several times how SNI has been the primary reason for not supporting https, as winxp support was seen as more important.
I can't agree more. With IPv4 space so diminished, avoiding SNI to support legacy clients at this point almost seems insane. Suggesting SNI, if required, is somehow bad just illustrates IMO that the list was constructed to make a political point.
What do you mean by "support winxp"? Websites are pretty OS agnostic. Do you mean they aren't compatible with IE6? Can't really test it currently, but I can't imagine these sites would work in the latest Firefox on Win8, but not on the latest Firefox on XP.
The footnote is also suggestive that this is the correct interpretation.