jdlessley wrote: aebrown wrote:
That's not an accurate conclusion.
I didn't come to that conclusion.
Since the text of the article doesn't state that those are the only two supported browsers, it seems clear that it is a conclusion that you are drawing, not a quote from the article. But let's not quibble over that. Let's look at the text that clearly supports the conclusion that IE9 is indeed supported for LDS.org tools.
Tom Johnson wrote:The LDS.org directory, calendar, and other tools have various incompatibilities with Internet Explorer 7 and 8.
Only IE7 and IE8 are mentioned, not IE9. If IE9 were not supported, this statement would have had a period right after "Internet Explorer".
Tom Johnson wrote:About 67 percent of clerk computers are still running Windows XP, which is not compatible with Internet Explorer 9. So if Internet Explorer 7 or 8 is the only browser on your clerk computer, you won't have the best experience with many of the LDS.org tools.
That statement clearly implies that IE9 is supported. Otherwise why mention that XP doesn't support IE9? Why single out IE7 and IE8 as the problematic browsers on a clerk computer? If IE9 were not supported, there would be no reason for this paragraph at all.
Tom Johnson wrote:To ensure the best browsing experience using the new tools on LDS.org, update to a newer supported browser such as Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox.
You claim that this quote implies that only Chrome and Firefox are supported. But it is simply a recommendation, not an exclusionary statement of support.
Tom Johnson wrote:The local unit application teams do hope to support older versions of Internet Explorer...
The above quote is from the 10th comment. If IE9 were not supported, Tom would never have written this. He would have left out the words "older versions of". Since he included those words, it is obvious that at least one newer version (i.e., IE9) is indeed supported.
I wish the article had been clearer on this point. On a critical issue of which browsers are supported, it's unfortunate that the language is ambiguous. Perhaps Tom will see this discussion and make some edits. But the totality of the text clearly shows that IE9 is supported.