- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 10:04:08 +0100
Jim Ley wrote: >> Personally, I'm beginning to think we shouldn't worry about IE. We >>could just tell everyone running IE with Javascript disabled that if >>they want to use Web Apps 1.0, they either need JS turned on or they >>need to get a standards compliant browser. > Your audience for WF-2 is not IE users, it's web form authors, they're > the people you have to provide something new, they demand IE > compatibility, indeed most couldn't care about anything other than IE. Matthew was talking specifically about the Web Applications spec, not about Web Forms 2. > This is the main reason why WF2 is so unlikely to get even as much > use as XHTML1.1 (correctly used, not just cargo cult "it's better") > the degradation on the most important UA is frankly crap. I think there are already about as many publically available WF2 pages as there are XHTML1.1 pages (excluding those delivered as text/html, which might as well just be HTML4). Regards, Malcolm
Received on Sunday, 4 July 2004 02:04:08 UTC