Changes between Initial Version and Version 1 of Ticket #6821, comment 14


Ignore:
Timestamp:
07/31/2018 07:32:05 PM (2 years ago)
Author:
sebastian
Comment:

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed
Modified
  • Ticket #6821, comment 14

    initial v1  
    11If there is any benefit in dropping support for Chrome 49, we can request the usage data, and look into it. But for this release, we might be moving forward faster if we just fix the incompatibility. 
    22 
    3 Also if it's just for using the `u` flag in regular expressions, the examples where we apparently just started to use it don't seem to make a strong case. As far as I can tell, how the `u` flag is used in `snippet.js` and `common.js`, it is redudnant, i.e. those regular expressions are equivalanet to the same regular expression without the `u` flag since they neither use unicode-escapes nor the `.` character. In `test/browser/elemHideEmulation.js` we are specifically test support of regular expressions with `u` flag with `-abp-contains()`. We can either just remove this test, or skip it if the `u` flag isn't supported. 
     3Also if it's just for using the `u` flag in regular expressions, the examples where we apparently just started to use it don't seem to make a strong case. As far as I can tell, how the `u` flag is used in `snippet.js` and `common.js`, it is redudnant, i.e. those regular expressions are equivalanet to the same regular expression without the `u` flag since they neither use unicode-escapes nor the `.` character. In `test/browser/elemHideEmulation.js` we specifically test support of regular expressions with `u` flag with `-abp-contains()`. We can either just remove this test, or skip it if the `u` flag isn't supported.