Alright, I changed the patch to be defaults + IE >= 10, see https://browsersl.ist/?q=defaults%2C+Explorer+%3E%3D+10

This should be the safest approach since without a .browserslistrc file the defaults are used.

Can we get a review about this? The solution I went with is as close as it gets to the current master.

IE9 does not work due to requestAnimationFrame, although the content is fine. Maybe I should add IE9 too?

This is the diff with IE9 added vs the current patch (which is defaults + IE>=10): https://gist.github.com/XhmikosR/0ffdac274b042e3e89f2c8c45d0943dd/revisions

BTW if we decide to sort of support IE9, we should tweak the scroll to top script to not use requestAnimationFrame if it's not available. Everything else works AFAICT.

/ping @nodejs/website

I think this is fine and can be revisited later if it turns out to be too restrictive.

Is this used by any other tools besides the .use(autoprefixer()) line?

Currently no AFAICT, but it can be used by other tools.

So, how about IE 9?

Not sure if it matters much if this setup will be eventually replaced with https://github.com/nodejs/nodejs.dev/. Whatever browsers it's working with today is probably OK

Well, IE9 isn't currently specified in master. But apart from the JS error due to requestAnimationFrame, which we could work around, the display is good enough on IE9 AFAICT.

@XhmikosR I think we can move forward with this as is right now and in a follow up PR get a solution to fix IE9 and update the support table. Thoughts?

SGTM. I'll leave #2464 open for discussion