Re: is javascript considered good wacg 2.0 practice?

what an interesting and limited concept.
how valuable standards that do not Foster choice and flexibility, 
working within the reality of many if not most of those for whom they are 
written?

the end user is likely going to decide if something is modern based on if 
it works for them.  There are people, even companies still using ms word 
from 2003 for example.
If I can as I have this afternoon visit without issue major news sites, New York 
times, la times, USA today, wall street journal etc...using lynx, then it 
is Modern enough for me.
I see you have left e-links and links off your list of non-modern browsers, 
the other two I referenced.  lynx the cat as I shared now has an option that 
can work at least with some script buttons etc.
However if the standards are not 100% uniformly adopted and applied, than 
your definition is largely rooted in your opinion which is perfectly fine. 
I am not using your computer, and you are not using any of mine....which 
equals choice.
Projecting that opinion where may be where the danger lies.  I prefer 
choice over informing anyone living a circumstance that I is not my own 
that they are using backward anything.
  Karen


On Sat, 15 Dec 2012, Ramón Corominas wrote:

> A better definition of "modern browser" would be:
>
> "A browser that supports the latest versions of the available, 
> well-established technologies and standards".
>
> Therefore, if Lynx has JavaScript support and if it supports its 
> well-established accessibility features, then Lynx is a modern browser, 
> independently of its release date.
>
> If Lynx has no JavaScript support, or if it has no support for JS 
> accessibility features that exist for years, then it is not a modern browser, 
> even if it was released yesterday.
>
> Using the transportation analogy: a horse born today is not a modern vehicle; 
> a 15-year old car (probably) is.
>
> Regards,
> Ramón.
>
>
> Karen and Lynx:
>
>>  every day several times a day I visit.
>>  mail.google.com
>>  using the latest edition of Lynx the cat something like September this
>>  year.
>
>