| > That didn't happen with IE6 Yes it did...but anyway, the detail is irrelevant; it's the point you're refusing to acknowledge: A developer, building a product, is obsessed with growth metrics, OR, a slave to the pedantic demands of a client they're working for. Either way, those demands require that a site be available to as many people as justifiably possible. The questions you have to ask are: 1) Is the the $ value of a customer using IE6 worth the time taken to make the site work in it? (No, almost certainly not) 2) In IE8? (Hopefully not, but you know, there are still a lot of these guys, and it's almost always a demand in the .gov space...) 3) In Safari? Yes. There are tonnes of these guys, especially on mobile where they don't have a choice, and no matter what fancy javascript 0-day API you're in love with, you can work around it without any significant effort. The point: Is safari holding things back? Yes. Is it OK? Not really. It sucks. Can you ignore safari and pretend it doesn't exist, and lose those customers? No. No you can't. We're webdevs, sucking it up is what we're good at. We've had years of practice. Suck it up. The path forward, I think we'll find in the long run is going to be less native apis, more WebAssembly-style low level polyfills to implement new 'universal' features that run on all js runtimes. |
Actually we can, and where I work we do. Never has anyone complained about it. SO everything is just fine. So I don't need to "Suck it up".