- From: Patrick H. Lauke <redux@splintered.co.uk>
- Date: Mon, 27 Aug 2007 12:32:04 +0100
- To: public-html <public-html@w3.org>
Olivier GENDRIN wrote: > On 8/27/07, Marghanita da Cruz <marghanita@ramin.com.au> wrote: >> However, as an owner of a website that went live in January 1997, I don't >> understand the point about cut-off dates. >> >> Personnally, I just ignore a website that tells me to download/upgrade something >> to view their site. > > I understand, but such argument, push to it's extrem, will lead us to > say : "we can't implement it, it won't work in mosaïc 1.0". > > In other word, how far should go the "3. Degrade Gracefully" design > principle ? Browser older than 10 years could perhaps be ignored. At work, I've adopted a policy very similar to the Yahoo graded browser support listing...maybe that can help inform the approach in this case? http://developer.yahoo.com/yui/articles/gbs P -- Patrick H. Lauke ______________________________________________________________ re·dux (adj.): brought back; returned. used postpositively [latin : re-, re- + dux, leader; see duke.] www.splintered.co.uk | www.photographia.co.uk http://redux.deviantart.com ______________________________________________________________ Co-lead, Web Standards Project (WaSP) Accessibility Task Force http://webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________ Take it to the streets ... join the WaSP Street Team http://streetteam.webstandards.org/ ______________________________________________________________
Received on Monday, 27 August 2007 11:32:31 UTC