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

Chris Maden (
Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:08:29 -0400

Date: Thu, 28 Aug 1997 17:08:29 -0400
Message-Id: <>
From: Chris Maden <>
In-reply-to: <> (
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.

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