We started this conversation months ago and never came to a resolution. There are too many mobile browsers to include in a single compatibility table (although the current set, which I just took based on what MDN had, clearly isn't perfect).

There are a few competing things here:
* Not wanting to overwhelm readers with way too many columns
* Not wanting to overwhelm _editors_ with way too many columns--it makes the job look impossible and can be de-motivating
* Implementation-wise, it's very hard to set up the compatibility tables in ways with a variable number of columns.

Figuring out how we handle mobile compatibility tables is a good topic for the hackathon.

(In reply to comment #1)
> We started this conversation months ago and never came to a resolution. There
> are too many mobile browsers to include in a single compatibility table
> (although the current set, which I just took based on what MDN had, clearly
> isn't perfect).
> 
> There are a few competing things here:
> * Not wanting to overwhelm readers with way too many columns
> * Not wanting to overwhelm _editors_ with way too many columns--it makes the
> job look impossible and can be de-motivating
> * Implementation-wise, it's very hard to set up the compatibility tables in
> ways with a variable number of columns.
> 
> Figuring out how we handle mobile compatibility tables is a good topic for the
> hackathon.

I appreciate these points of view, but in Opera Mini's case, it will look strange not having support info for it listed, as it is a major browser. Not in the US where everyone has a smartphone and Wifi, but in places like Russia/CIS, Africa, Eastern Europe, and Asia.

I have as a topic for discussion for the hackathon to come up with a list of mobile browsers to have in our compat table.

I agree that the current list is just flat out silly.

*** This bug has been marked as a duplicate of bug 19180 ***