Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages

Chris Maden (crism@ora.com)
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:08:29 -0400


Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:08:29 -0400
Message-Id: <199708282108.RAA26995@geode.ora.com>
From: Chris Maden <crism@ora.com>
To: www-html@w3.org
In-reply-to: <9708282049.AA17086@dfw.dfw.net> (ccarroll@dfw.net)
Subject: Re: Logo for user-friendly/browser-friendly/scalable pages

> But I think there's a problem with the Any Browser Initiative as
> well.  Specifically, with the word "Any."  What about browsers that
> don't support current HTML standards?  If I write a browser which
> doesn't support <h1>, and I get 3 people to use it, does that mean
> that people who support the Any Browser Initiative have to go back
> and remove all <h1>'s from their pages?  Yes, it's absurd.  But if
> they don't, then it's not really an Any Browser Initiative, is it?

The Any Browser Initiative's goal is to have all Web pages
*functional* in all browsers.  Otherwise, yes, you'd have to stick
with pure vanilla HTML 2.0.

Not supporting <h1>s is a somewhat extreme example - but let's say you
didn't support <em>.  If you follow recommended practice of ignoring
unknown and unsupported tags, then Web pages that use <em> will
degrade gracefully in your browser.

Ignoring paragraph-level tags, like <h*>, is a problem.  This is why
<center> is such a bad idea.

Gracefully degrading Web pages are the object - not minimal HTML.

-Chris
-- 
<!NOTATION SGML.Geek PUBLIC "-//Anonymous//NOTATION SGML Geek//EN">
<!ENTITY crism PUBLIC "-//O'Reilly//NONSGML Christopher R. Maden//EN"
"<URL>http://www.oreilly.com/ <TEL>+1.617.499.7487 <FAX>+1.617.661.1116
<USMAIL>90 Sherman Street, Cambridge, MA 02140 USA" NDATA SGML.Geek>