W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html@w3.org > August 2007

RE: [HDP] Other comments from RI

From: Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 13:59:26 +0100
To: "'Olivier GENDRIN'" <olivier.gendrin@gmail.com>
Cc: "'public-html'" <public-html@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009c01c7e64e$99d7e910$6401a8c0@rishida>

Thanks Olivier for finding ways to suggest an approach that I was struggling
to put into words.

Personally, my inclination when using a date cut-off would be to say just
versions in force up to 5 years ago.  Remember that the Web itself has only
been around for a little over 10 years, and I think it is reasonable to
expect people to upgrade their technology within a 5 year period.  

RI

============
Richard Ishida
Internationalization Lead
W3C (World Wide Web Consortium)
 
http://www.w3.org/People/Ishida/
http://www.w3.org/International/
http://people.w3.org/rishida/blog/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ishida/
 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Olivier GENDRIN [mailto:olivier.gendrin@gmail.com] 
> Sent: 24 August 2007 13:05
> To: Richard Ishida
> Cc: public-html
> Subject: Re: [HDP] Other comments from RI
> 
> On 8/23/07, Richard Ishida <ishida@w3.org> wrote:
> > > 3. Degrade Gracefully
> > In fact, in the statement "new features should work 
> reasonably well in older user agents that do not support the 
> functionality" what constitutes an 'older browser'?
> 
> Perhaps we can define an older browser as a browser that is older than
> 5 years and jounger than 10. And ignore browser older than 10 years.
> Or rely on versions (older browser : version n-2, with n 
> being the most young stable version).
> 
> --
> Olivier G.
> http://www.lespacedunmatin.info/blog/
> 
Received on Friday, 24 August 2007 12:57:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 29 September 2014 09:38:48 UTC