On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Brian Kelly wrote:
Brian,
> > On Thu, 23 Sep 1999, Sheila Thomas wrote:
> ...
> > > I don't believe any thought was given to non-Frames users. The design
> > > spec was for IE4 and up only (allowing Netscape 4 at a push).
> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> > What happened to a non browser-specific www? This type of
> > behaviour is short-sighted and does the "web cause" no good at all.
> >
> > --
> > Rick
>
> Within the web standards community there is a feeling emerging that
> many old 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.
Obviously it is not unreasonable (although perhaps a might shortsighted)
to design sites to the latest standards. What I was objecting to
(highlighted with the ^^^^) was the "Netscape 4 at a push". This suggests
to me that the proprietary features of a browser were being incorporated.
>
> Brian
>
> PS The WAI Web Content Accessibility Guidelines say that you should
> use technologies such as CSS.
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
--
Rick
_______________________________________________________________________
Rick Hobson Tel: +44-(0)118 931-6375
<[log in to unmask]> Fax: +44-(0)118 931-6331
Chemistry Dept.
_______________________________________________________________________
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|