Which browsers support data URIs (RFC 2397) and since which version?
Data URI support status for the five major browsers:
Chrome, supported in all versions
Firefox, supported in all versions
Internet Explorer, supported since 8.0 (however, some restrictions apply)
Opera, supported since 7.2
Safari, supported in all versions
Additionally this trick can be used to detect data URI support.
It also appears to work on many mobile browsers now. This is the best list I've found.
Every browser on this Earth supports Data URI's except the __ . (You guessed it right - IE 6,7)
Related
I don't understand the difference between behavior and -ms-behavior. I thought behavior was already only for Microsoft's Internet Explorer, so why is there a vendor prefix version?
Does it make any sense to use both or just -ms-behavior?
Internet Explorer versions 5 and above support the behavior property.
Internet Explorer Version 8 supports the syntactically correct Vendor Specific Extension format of-ms-behavior.
The majority of the time you only need behavior, unless you want to totally force IE8 versions to run in standard mode. Then you should use ms-behavior. But adding both doesn't hurt you at all and it probably is a good practice anyways.
Windows Internet Explorer 8. The -ms-behavior attribute is an extension to CSS, and can be used as a synonym for behavior in IE8 Standards mode.
Check https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms530723(v=vs.85).aspx for more information
When i run HTML5 compatibility test in Android native browser then it see the IndexedDB support marked as "Prefixed", while in Chrome and other it is marked as "Yes".
I understand Chrome latest version has full support for IndexedDB but what does IndexedDB support as "Prefixed" means?
According to Mozilla page:
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/IndexedDB_API/Using_IndexedDB
"Because the specification is still evolving, current implementations of IndexedDB hide under browser prefixes. Browser vendors may have different implementations of the standard IndexedDB API until the specification has solidified. But once consensus is reached on the standard, the vendors implement it without the prefix tags. Actually some implementations have removed the prefix: Internet Explorer 10, Firefox 16, Chrome 24. When they use a prefix, Gecko-based browsers use the moz prefix, while WebKit-based browsers use the webkit prefix."
As per Josh's comment:
Use something like the following statement to ensure compatibility:
window.indexedDB = window.indexedDB || window.webkitIndexedDB;
The characters 'webkit' are the prefix. You might need to use them in Android, but you no longer need to use them in Chrome (a few years ago you did)
There are many polyfills out there to convert the contents of a Canvas to a Blob. Before deciding to go with one of those, wanted to know the support of native method canvas.toBlob() on various browsers. How stable is the method in different browsers?? Couldn't find it on http://caniuse.com
Note: I am not looking for server side solutions or client-side polyfill based solutions. Interested in knowing about the stability of toBlob() API.
Updated Feb 02, 2017: canvas.toBlob is supported in Chrome since 50 as well as in Opera (Blink).
At the moment of this writing the support for toBlob() is poor (major browsers only):
Firefox has support (as currently the only one)
Chrome has intended support but there is currently an unsolved issue with it.
Internet Explorer 10-11 support it using prefix, msToBlob() but returns only PNG
Safari has an issue with status "resolved/won't fix"
Opera (Blink) has no support (method not present on canvas element)
Opera (old) has no support (method not present on canvas element)
None support toBlobHD() at this time (as with most of the HD suffixed methods).
I checked on http://caniuse.com/ but can't find anything about compatibility for the vibration API.
Which browsers support it?
Update [2014-03-07]: The Vibration API is now supported by Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. I've also made this information available on on caniuse.com.
Based on this article:
The Vibration API is still primarily unsupported. Firefox 16+ is
currently the only browser with support for the API.
According to Mozilla Developer Network it is supported in Chrome with prefix webkit, in Firefox 11+ with prefix moz and in Firefox 16+ without any prefix.
But as you can check in this Issue in Chromium as of now it is not supperted in Chrome and they seem to be in no hurry as Priority is 2(Normal).
It is not supported in Android strock browser as of now.
Is there a documented list of desktop browsers and versions which support Ember.js apps? That is, if I say an app developed in Ember.js will support IE 9+, FF 11+, Chrome 17+, Safari 5+, will I be overreaching or underreaching? If support is fluid, what does it depend on?
When doing new releases we run tests across all platforms available on BrowserStack. We have a couple test failures on some of the older platforms, but in practice they all do work. The biggest concern if you support older versions of IE is performance. However, it should still work properly. It definitely supports all modern browsers and mobile platforms, though built in touch support is limited.
It has been announced that Ember 2.0 will support IE9+, and that the 1.13.x series will be the last version to support IE 8.
Browser Supportability For Ember 2.x
Base on the Github README, https://github.com/emberjs/ember.js/
The following browsers versions are supported.