Posted by Randy Webb on 05/29/06 19:03

Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/28/2006 9:54 AM in
news:comp.lang.javascript:

> On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:
>
>> Alan J. Flavell said the following on 5/28/2006 6:48 AM:
>>> On Sun, 28 May 2006, Randy Webb wrote:
>>>
>>>> Who still supports outdated antiquated software other than IE6?
>>> Many older browser/versions are still quite capable of browsing
>>> the content of decently-made web pages, even if they don't produce
>>> the cosmetic results which modern browsers could achieve.
>> Plain text has that effect...
>
> Congratulations, you've just produced yet another slight variation on
> the HTML Straw Man Arguments, that have been refuted repeatedly over
> the years. Do *try* to get up to speed before arguing, please.

Please try to read and comprehend what I write before you make
accusations Alan. It wasn't a Straw Man Argument (based on the
definition on your own pages). It was irony and nothing more. I guessed
you missed that though.

>> Let me ask you this though, do you still support Netscape 4?
>
> I've still got a copy installed, and I would fire it up if someone
> complained about the results on an otherwise non-challenging page.
> Haven't *needed* to do that for quite some time.

Do you keep NN2/3 and IE3/4 around for testing as well? The same
argument could be made for keeping them around for the same reason. But
there is no need to.

People who choose to stay in the dark deserve to stump there toe on the
furniture.

> I hide my stylesheet from it, so it doesn't get a chance to mess up
> the CSS. If I was "supporting" it, I could feed it a custom
> stylesheet to improve its cosmetics, but I don't - its users still get
> the content (text, images, and other media) as intended, i.e using its
> default styling. Is that "support", or isn't it? You decide.

I read and replied to this in comp.lang.javascript where it is not that
simple and "support" of NN4 is a long way from simply hiding a script or
CSS from it.

<snip>

> So you had enough wit to complain about a cross-posted article, but
> not enough to set narrowed followups? I guess that figures.

I complained? You amaze me. Since my replies were based on a post seen
in comp.lang.javascript and my point is very valid there, I left the
cross-post. I am setting the followup back to comp.lang.javascript and
if you want to discuss the implications of support Netscape 4 with
regards to scripting then you are welcome to post in clj for that reason.

--
Randy
comp.lang.javascript FAQ - http://jibbering.com/faq & newsgroup weekly
Javascript Best Practices - http://www.JavascriptToolbox.com/bestpractices/

[Back to original message]