|
|
Posted by John Dunlop on 10/26/06 14:23
Gérard Talbot:
> How about telling visitors using buggy, old, non-web-standards-compliant
> browsers
You wouldn't even need browser sniffing to do that.
> that they may consider switching if they want his webpage code
> to render as expected (layout, formating, functionality)?
I'm not sure what distinction you're drawing between layout and
formatting, but functionality isn't rendered. The HTML *document* is
rendered, rendered according to the *user-agent*.
Who is to say what counts as 'rendered as expected'? Expected by who?
If someone takes it upon themselves to prescribe and proscribe
different renderings, who granted them the authority to do so?
The interworking specifications do not restrict the rendering of HTML
documents, but actually allow for different renderings.
'We do not recommend that authors limit their creativity, only that
they consider alternate renderings in their design.' (HTML4.01: 2.4.2)
http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/intro/intro.html#h-2.4.2
'Providing access to content ... includes enabling users to configure
and control its rendering' (User Agent Accessibility Guidelines 1.0)
http://www.w3.org/TR/WAI-USERAGENT/guidelines.html#gl-user-control-styles
> What's so wrong with such invitation?
Nothing is wrong, nothing is right; "wrong" is reductionistic.
Telling users that 'they may consider switching' browsers because of X,
Y, or Z would distract them from the real content - the reason they're
there - in much the same way as any mention of the mechanics would do.
Trouble making your pages backwards-compatible?
--
Jock
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|