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

Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

From: Tina Marie Holmboe <tina@elfi.elfi.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Dec 2001 00:34:05 +0100
Message-ID: <20011228003405.B10981@elfi.elfi.org>
To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Thu, Dec 27, 2001 at 10:48:20PM +0000, Vadim Plessky wrote:

> I don't know wether you are familiar with browser's design internals.

  I could be said to be somewhat familiar with such concepts, yes ...



> I think it can be treated as some kind of reference design for HTML4 - "HTML4 
> implemented in CSS". In fact, I look at this from time to time when I want to 
> understand some CSS constructions or their treatment by different browsers 
> better.

  I'm afraid I can't agree there. HTML 4 does not *have* a 'design', it
  doesn't "look" like anything in particular, but is a language for
  structure.

  HTML 4 is, however, rendered in different ways in different browsers, and
  that rendering can be influence (suggested) by CSS. This said, CSS is
  not in any way fundamental to HTML, nor a natural part of browser 
  design.

  CSS is a way to *render* content differently than the default way a
  browser presents it -- and nothing else.



> If MS adopts SVG and bundles some (even broken or incomplete) plugin with MS 
> IE - than SVG can attract web developers. Otherwise I doubt SVG will get 
> acceptance.

  They allready do. The Adobe SVG viewer is bundled with MS IE 6, and
  since SVG plugins are now also available for Mozilla there is no real
  reason to not use it.



> |     The bottom line: a 'minimum requirements' browser shouldn't break
> |     content.
> |
> Content is usually broken by Web Developer, not by Browser! :-)

  Indeed - and what I said above.


-- 
 - Tina Holmboe
Received on Thursday, 27 December 2001 18:34:07 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 19 July 2011 18:13:59 GMT