Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

First things first: This article presents a lovely sentiment — although any argument against CSS preprocessors is a losing one — and is a timely reminder to focus on the things that matter.

However…

When was this published? There’s no date anywhere on the page or even in its source code, but he mentions supporting "IE6 and below". This is actually no longer possible if “HTTPS” is a requirement, as the best version of SSL supported by IE6 is SSL v.3 which suffers from a fatal vulnerability and supporting it on your servers puts your users at risk.

There’s also no need to support IE6. Now that XP is this-time-we-mean-it officially dead and unsupported, you can't even run a fully patched OS with IE6 on it.

Edit: Via another page on the author's site, I was able to find a publication date of 1 October 2014 for this article. (This just barely gets Mr. Silver off the hook, as the final-nail-in-IE6's-coffin SSLv3 bug POODLE was announced a mere 2 weeks later. That is, if we ignore the "and below" remark. No one has tested their site in IE5.5 in damn near a decade now.) Please, authors: Include the full date with your written works. (Leaving off the year is a shamefully common anti-pattern, as it's the most important part!)



This makes me wonder if there is a SEO bump/penalty associated with article dates.


Doubtful – i think it's mostly oversight, but I’d be curious to hear from those perpetrating the trend!




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: