- From: Joe Clark <joeclark@contenu.nu>
- Date: Wed, 26 Dec 2001 18:01:09 -0500
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>, WAI-IG <w3c-wai-ig@w3.org>
>So it's decent at being an HTML-only browser -- for something put >together by unpaid people. Which isn't really high praise even from >Lynx's supposed defenders -- although once again I'm not _attacking_ >Lynx, so let's not all rush to die on our swords. Someone's exaggerating. Lynx is merely less bad than was suggested. It's actually pretty good. >I'm simply saying what Lynx does and doesn't do. Lynx doesn't have >good support for HTML 4.01 standards -- it does okay with HTML 3.2. Actually, Lynx fails to support the HTML 4/XHTML components that the graphical browsers tend to fail to support-- unfortunately, it seems to to be mostly the accessibility stuff. Other components, like id on anything. >Am I bashing on your favorite web access app? No, I don't think so, but you do seem to be flying off that handle. It is pretty common for Web developers to run multiple browsers-- even manifestly broken ones like Netscape 4. It's just that Lynx isn't even as bad as Netscape 4. Another arrow in the quiver, you might say. And you can*not* beat it for mailing Web pages to yourself (or anyone else) in stunningly readable text-only format. The really annoying thing is that competing text-only browsers, like W3M or whatever it's called, do certain things Lynx has never managed (like true table display) while flubbing a whole lot else. I wish someone would invent a *really* good text-only browser. I suppose that would require someone to pay actual developers to do it. -- Joe Clark | joeclark@joeclark.org | <http://joeclark.org/access/> Accessibility articles, resources, and critiques
Received on Wednesday, 26 December 2001 18:03:14 UTC