Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

  I don't really feel comfortable with the basis for this debate, to be
  honest. In my view, we should attempt to set a baseline not for what a
  minimal *browser* should support - there have been far too many religious
  wars over the last 10 years - but rather what should happen when a browser
  *doesn't* support things.

  To me it is anathema that content should be wrapped in techniques which 
  does not 'degrade gracefully' - the WWW is the first and ONLY source of
  information that can be made available to both 'high end' and 'low end'
  users.

  Subsequently I believe we should concentrate more on the demands for
  the packaging of content than on the capabilities of browsers or other
  user-agents.

  As an example, I can mention that I use Mozilla 0.9.6 daily, and with it
  comes the Flash 4 plugin. This would suggest, to many, the 'minimum'
  requirements for a 'modern' web browser - however: I have Flash turned
  *off*, since I use my browser to read online newspapers, many of which
  have huge Flash ads in the *middle of articles*. For me, then, a modern
  browser *without* Flash capability is the BETTER browser as it helps me
  achieve what I set out to do: read the article.

  I claim that the 'minimum requirement' of a browser is what the user
  needs or want it to be. It is the minimum requirement of content
  producers to wrap their content in such a way as to meet their audience
  on *their* playing field. [1]

  Setting minimum requirements for what browsers MUST be able to do is
  like setting a minimum requirement for what strength glasses you need
  to 'surf' the WWW, IMnsHO.



 [1]
  I would appreciate that noone now started on a rant involving such
  phrases as "grey background!" or "text only!" as I am not, nor have I
  ever been, against graphics or any other content-enhancing elements.

  I *am*, however, against content-prohibiting elements or use of them.
 
-- 
 - Tina Holmboe