W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2000

Re: UI WD (compliant browser)

From: Walter Ian Kaye <walter@natural-innovations.com>
Date: Mon, 21 Feb 2000 01:24:43 -0800
Message-Id: <v0422080ab4d6b2399463@[63.193.119.97]>
To: www-style@w3.org
At 11:48p -0800 02/20/00, Tantek Çelik didst inscribe upon an 
electronic papyrus:
>Matthew Brealey wrote:
>  > Far from
>  > being user-friendly, this behaviour is actually very dangerous. The number
>  > of users who say 'But it works in Explorer' is incredible.
>
>And a few years ago the quote was "But it works in Netscape"
>
>And a few years before that - "But it works in Mosaic"
>
>Which came first?  Liberally written pages or liberally accepting user agents?
>
>And once the liberally written pages proliferated, does anyone aiming to
>provide a browser which supports that content have any choice but to accept
>and attempt to do something with sloppy content?
>
>There is not much that can be done about either the pages or the browsers out
>there.  There is quite a bit that can be done about the pages and browsers
>being written today.  I prefer to focus on the latter.

As for the browsers being written today, the obvious (to me) solution 
is to have user preferences for strictness level. iCab has this 
(although iCab refuses to run on my machine, even though its specs 
say it should run;).
If I had a say, I'd make the MOST strict level be the default, and if 
a user doesn't like it, s/he can change the settings. That gives 
everyone what they want, which I would think would make it a 
no-brainer.


-boo
  who really wishes browsers would STOP "enabling" NCRs 128-159. Sheesh.
  Windows-1252 is *not* ANSI, it is *not* Latin1, and it is *not* HTML.
Received on Monday, 21 February 2000 04:25:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:04 GMT