- From: Charles McCathieNevile <charlesn@sunrise.srl.rmit.edu.au>
- Date: Wed, 5 Aug 1998 11:14:33 +1000 (EST)
- To: Brian Kelly <lisbk@ukoln.ac.uk>
- cc: w3c-wai-gl@w3.org
The GL group is aware of the problems raised by legacy browsers and their widespread use. It would rate as one of the continually hot topics. You raise one of the really difficult (for me) problems: When a major manufacturer produces a broken product, do we recommend the solution that solves their problem for them, at the eexpense of 'the good solution', and therefore to the detriment of anyone who implements the standard properly, or do we recommend that people use the standard if it is the most sensible solution, at the expense of the people who use a broken product? The approach that I try to take is to use systems which degrade gracefully. Perhaps the solution for Netscape users is to add a sniffer to get around that particular browser. Unfortunately, in the real world people will simply say ??? Why not just stick tot tables - more people use Netscape than screen readers. Then we are back where we started, unless we are prepared to use legislative sticks to force people to do it right. So there is a problem, and we're looking for the solution(s) There is another approach. If we produced a list of the things which HTML does not provide, we would saay do not attempt to create pixel-level layouts - they are not supported. Again, people say 'oh, but they're supported by most browsers, and those browsers are free...' Charles McCathieNevile RMIT University Melbourne Australia
Received on Tuesday, 4 August 1998 21:37:10 UTC