Thread:CzechOut/@comment-31294034-20171006182017/@comment-188432-20171006193700

Hey :) Thanks for your questions. :)

Most of your post is talking about one script which was approved some hours ago. The script changes were okayed within the normal time frame for JavaScript review. Moreover, because I asked for a few minor changes, the developer was able to see other errors, and the approved code was better as a result.

I'm not really seeing it as a precedent-setting case. It's just one that had some code that made me raise an eyebrow—but also one that could be easily solved by a single, additional line.

As for your last paragraph, which concerns your own code, I was not in any way attempting to make as broad a ruling as you're suggesting. The point was merely that your code was known to screw up the rendering of pages in IE 11. That's a no-no, because the ToU doesn't allow you to "obstruct the proper functioning and view of advertisements, and/or user interface and functionality".

Nobody is saying that you have to "consider, test and account for [newly-supported] browsers" every time you write a script. All that happened here is that the script was already known to not work on IE 11. So I couldn't approve it with a known flaw.

Hope that helps!