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: <3.0.6.32.20071124174733.0123e108@mail.iswest.com>
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
>pockets.

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

>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
<http://www.rossde.com/>.  

Don't ask "Why is there road rage?"  Instead, ask 
"Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such 
Thing as Fast Enough?" 
<http://www.rossde.com/roadrage.html>
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 01:47:51 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 27 April 2009 13:54:56 GMT