W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

From: Access Systems <accessys@smart.net>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 20:45:31 -0500 (EST)
To: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
cc: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, sethmr@bellatlantic.net, w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.21.0112252042350.2737-100000@smarty.smart.net>
On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, David Poehlman wrote:

> it's not considered a virtue.  It has been discovered that since lynx is
> a static browser that java script does not fit into it.

I guess it depends on what is desired, nothing wrong with a static

  I have used Lynx for many years and each versions gets better and it
really seperates the wheat from the chaff on the internet.  When I visit a
site in Mozila for some reason it is mind boggling the signal to noise
ratio....and just plain bloody slow to load, especially on a dial up modem
such as my laptop


> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
> To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>; "Vadim Plessky"
> <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
> Cc: <sethmr@bellatlantic.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
> Sent: Monday, December 24, 2001 9:17 PM
> Subject: Minimal Browser Capabilities
> At 8:49 PM -0500 12/24/01, Access Systems wrote:
> >On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Vadim Plessky wrote:
> >  > Of course, you need to have JavaScript enabled to get this code
> working :-)
> >  > // but you can't do any on-page browser detection without
> >JavaScript, anyway.
> >But Javascript is not normally on in Lynx.  (in fact I don't know how
> to
> >enable it in Lynx or if it is even possible)
> Lynx doesn't do JavaScript.  This should be considered a serious
> shortcoming
> in Lynx, but instead it seems to be viewed as a virtue.  I'd really like
> to see text browser that did JavaScript and CSS.
> Anyway, the answer there would be a <noscript> fallback intended for
> browsers which don't do JavaScript or which don't have JavaScript
> enabled.
> >I say it again, there should be no assumption what so ever that there
> is
> >any user side support for anything.
> Surely you don't mean "for _anything_".  Do you assume client-side
> support for HTML 2.0?  What about HTML 3.2?  What about HTML 4.01
> Transitional?  What about HTML 4.01 Strict?  What about CSS level
> 1?  What about CSS level 2?  What about ECMAScript?  What about
> DOM?
> See, we need to assume some level of basic support.  Okay, so some
> browsers won't measure up to it -- but some browsers (such as Lynx)
> have not been reprogrammed in 5 years.  More recent browsers do
> indeed have some degree of all of the above, so the answer simply
> is to ask what is the reasonable level of support to expect, and
> is it fair game to expect someone to be using a reasonable browser
> when accessing your site?
> --Kynn
> --
> Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>                 http://kynn.com
> Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain            http://idyllmtn.com
> Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire          http://kynn.com/resume
> January Web Accessibility eCourse           http://kynn.com/+d201

   ASCII Ribbon Campaign                        accessBob                       
    NO HTML/PDF/RTF in e-mail                   accessys@smartnospam.net       
    NO MSWord docs in e-mail                    Access Systems, engineers       
    NO attachments in e-mail,  *LINUX powered*   access is a civil right 
THIS message and any attachements are CONFIDENTIAL and may be
privledged.  They are intended ONLY for the individual or entity named
above. If you are not the intended recipient, Please notify the sender as
soon as possible. Please DO NOT READ, COPY, USE, or DISCLOSE this
communication to others and DELETE it from your computer systems.  Thanks
Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2001 20:24:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC