In response to "C.K.Work" <[log in to unmask]> on 24th September:
> > Brian Kelly said ..
> >
> > > Within the web standards community there is a feeling emerging that many o
ld browsers are broken and that web sites should be
> > > developed based on current existing standards (HTML 4.0, CSS 2.0, ECMAScript, etc).
> > >
> > > So one could argue that it is legitimate (even desirable) to design a web site based on such standards. An informal way of
> > > describing this could be "Designed for version 4 browsers". The danger with this terminology is that it could be used to describe a
> > > web site which uses proprietary features supported by such browsers. However this does not have to be the case.
> >
> Maybe legitimate - I'm not sure about desirable! I'm not certain on the
> best policy here. To a certain extent, saying old browsers are "broken"
> is like saying my B&W telly is broken - OK, I won't see colour, but it
> works fine within its limitations. Surely we should allow for lower
> capabilities - esp. since upgrading to the latest browser may well mean
> an individual having to upgrade their machine.
A problem we have discovered is that some of our potential website
users work in companies where it is company policy to stick with an
old browser (even version 2) and staff do not have the right to
install new versions, even free ones, on company computers.
--
Sheila Thomas [log in to unmask]
http://www.twi.co.uk
http://joinit.grantapark.com
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|