- From: David Poehlman <poehlman1@home.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 10:19:45 -0500
- To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net>, "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: "Vadim Plessky" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>, <sethmr@bellatlantic.net>, <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
unfortunately or fortunately, there are many reasons why lynx is pivotal and we are lucky if it is the one chosen as minimal. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Kynn Bartlett" <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com> To: "Access Systems" <accessys@smart.net> Cc: "Vadim Plessky" <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>; <sethmr@bellatlantic.net>; <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org> Sent: Tuesday, December 25, 2001 9:50 PM Subject: Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities At 4:28 PM -0500 12/25/01, Access Systems wrote: >it does do HTML 4.01 I believe, pretty sure it won't do Javascript. not >sure about the others. By "do HTML 4.01" do you mean "it fully supports everything in the HTML 4.01 specification" or do you mean "if you give it HTML 4.01, it can render it in some worthwhile manner?" The two are not the same. E.g. -- and I don't know this (but I'll download a version of Lynx 2.8.4 now and test) -- what exactly does it do with longdesc attributes? >I guess that is a matter of opinion, it is pretty good at what it does and >while I have a later version of netscape, I so rarely run it because I so >like what LYNX does so much better. especially it is "Clean and Fast" I'm not stating a popularity contest of browsers here -- I like Lynx myself -- but I feel that the limited capabilities of Lynx make it a poor baseline for accessibility. It is too limited of a browser to make it the minimal browser; it doesn't meet the basic requirements of a 21st century web access software system. --Kynn -- Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com> http://kynn.com Chief Technologist, Idyll Mountain http://idyllmtn.com Web Accessibility Expert-for-hire http://kynn.com/resume January Web Accessibility eCourse http://kynn.com/+d201
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 10:19:33 UTC