Tell users that IE 8 and 9 are outdated

[QWp6t]

I think this is a good idea, so here's a PR.

To be clear, this isn't dropping support for IE 8 and 9. This is simply informing users that their older browsers are outdated. This will hopefully promote an increased rate of browser upgrades so that we can eventually drop support once usage falls below whatever threshold we've established.

[JohnnyWalkerDigital]

Hurrah. Wonderful stuff. IE10 is definitely a stack load more modern than IE9, but just to play Devil's Advocate: Why is a user not told that IE10 is "Outdated"?

Consider all of the OS's that Microsoft still have listed under "Mainstream Support":

Windows 7 came with IE9 and is upgradable to IE11.
Windows 8 came with IE10 and is upgradable to IE11.
Windows 8.1 came with IE11.
Windows 10 comes with Edge.

Just wondering. Thanks.

[QWp6t]

IE 10 doesn't support conditional comments. So even if we wanted to tell users it's outdated, we couldn't, not without doing some UA sniffing with ECMAScript.

[JohnnyWalkerDigital]

Ah. That would be a very good reason indeed!

[QWp6t]

@alrra 👀

[QWp6t]

@alrra 👀

[alrra]

@alrra 👀

🐹

@QWp6t Can you also:

• update the docs (see: html.md)
• update the commit message to include a little bit more information about why this change was made, while also including some official links
• squash the commits into a single one

Thanks!

Note: This should be merge as part of v6.0.0, and it solves some of the points from #1524.

[alrra]

Previous part of the discussion: #1748.

[JohnnyWalkerDigital]

Is this going to be merged?

[paulirish]

It'd prefer if this used "lte IE 9" so it's clear that IE10 users are not caught.
I'm sure many devs forget that ie10 dropped support for CC.

[QWp6t]

@paulirish I went ahead and implemented lte IE 9, pulled upstream changes so that there wouldn't be merge conflicts with the changelog, and then rebased.

[QWp6t]

Closing in favor of #1892.

[roblarsen]

@QWp6t Are you voting in favor of no "browsehappy" at all, then?

[QWp6t]

Yeah, exactly. And for bumping up jQuery version and dropping html5-shiv. I'm in favor of completely dropping support for IE 8 and 9. 👍

[JohnnyWalkerDigital]

@QWp6t Would love to hear your reasoning 👍

Also, if there's a push to drop IE8 and 9, should we consider dropping X-UA-Compatible? IE10 would be the only browser left that uses it, and it has similar levels of popularity as IE8 and 9 (it's actually the least popular of the three). No version of Windows that supports IE10 doesn't support IE11.

See also: http://stackoverflow.com/a/26348511/199700

[roblarsen]

After chewing on it, I'm going to reopen this and pull it into #1892 since IE9 will still be supported and this isn't all that much code.

[roblarsen]

@QWp6t Hey, as I mentioned above, I think keeping the browsehappy block makes sense. I do want to upgrade it to the lte 9 you had here. With this branch deleted I can't pull your work in. If you'd like the credit, feel free to open another PR based off of the latest master. If you don't care, I can recreate your work easily enough, but I like to make sure folks get credit.

[QWp6t]

Oh, I had deleted it because you closed this PR, so I assumed that meant you were going a different direction. My bad. I restored the branch. Does that work for you? Or do you need a new PR?

I also gave you commit access to the branch, if that helps at all.

[roblarsen]

@QWp6t sorry about the confusion. I just took a look at the PR as it's currently configured and it's a little messy. I think it would be cleaner to just get the changes anew.

[QWp6t]

@roblarsen I rebased (again, lol). It should be good now. If not, then feel free to just close; it's such a minor change that I'm not too concerned about getting credit for it. lol

[roblarsen]

Thanks!

[QWp6t]

Yay! 🎉

[JohnnyWalkerDigital]

Hmm.