 |
 |
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. _______________________________________________________________________ %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%