On Thu, Feb 20, 2003 at 09:27:22PM -0600, Gary Turner wrote: > It's not really a question of who sucks and who blows ;) Java Script, > Flash, frames, tables, and graphics are compliant technologies, so does > Lynx suck if it doesn't support them? Do you tell folks to eff off if > they choose to use Lynx? Lynx somewhat gracefully handles everything you mention but Javascript and Flash. The former could be improved in (e)l[iy]nks, though. > All web sites (except maybe 'look-at-me' sites) are meant to sell > something and/or provide information. It stands to reason that the web > site designer is charged with the responsibility of making sure that the > site can be viewed by the maximum number of people and does not break on > some browser(s). Isn't that why standards exist to begin with? > Telling your (potential) customers they're not welcome on your site is > not an option. I never suggested it was. What I did state, though, is that folks run a reasonably recent version of whatever browser they prefer and file bug reports against non-compliant rendering. IMO, this is the Right Way to handle the problem. -- .''`. Baloo <baloo@ursine.dyndns.org> : :' : proud Debian admin and user `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than to fix a system
Attachment:
pgpRPOYgDke7O.pgp
Description: PGP signature