W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > November 2007

Re: Proposal of @ua

From: David E. Ross <david@rossde.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:33 -0800
Message-Id: <>
To: www-style@w3.org

At 05:28 PM 11/24/07 -0800, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net> wrote
in part:
>They should be suing the makers of the audio browsers that can't  
>handle HTML that's been standard for years. The only reason a DIV  
>with scrolling overflow is considered accessible but a similarly  
>sized frame or iframe isn't is because the software for reading Web
>pages to the blind sucks so terribly. But I guess Target has deeper

Audio browsers generally work quite well if the HTML passes the W3C
validation test and if the content remains meaningful when CSS is

>Astounding. Ironically, in order not to ignore them, we will
>probably  have to detect their specialized browsers on the 
>server and give them special pages.

No.  Just give them HTML that complies with the W3C specification
without any browser-specific or platform-specific markup.  

Sniffing (the basic purpose of the @ua proposal) is to allow for
HTML and CSS that dos not comply with the W3C specifications.  Stay
within the specifications, and you don't need @ua or any other form
of sniffing.  

David E. Ross

Don't ask "Why is there road rage?"  Instead, ask 
"Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such 
Thing as Fast Enough?" 
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 01:47:51 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 2 May 2016 14:27:31 UTC