- From: Brian V Bonini <b-bonini@cox.net>
- Date: 31 Mar 2004 10:13:51 -0500
- To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn@idyllmtn.com>
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
On Tue, 2004-03-30 at 18:10, Kynn Bartlett wrote: > On Mar 30, 2004, at 2:45 PM, Brian V Bonini wrote: > > The whole idea seems to legitimize and condone the broken and > > non-compliant state most browsers currently find themselves in. > > > > I would think the preferable, yet probably less likely resolve, is for > > the browser manufacturers make a better effort toward recommendation > > compliancy. > > I'm sorry, you're right. Obviously designers such as Dave Shea > should stop using CSS, and should go back to presentational HTML, > or simply serving up HTML sans styles, until such time as the browser > manufacturers reach compliancy. > > Thank goodness we have such simple solutions! I hadn't realized that > Shea is just some lunatic who doesn't live in the REAL world, where > we can simply say "oh, it's broken browsers, and that's bad" and > happily go on our way. > > Go on our way and...um, declare that CSS is completely unusable for > anything approaching serious design, so we can't do a damn thing with > it until the browsers get fixed. > > Bravo, Brian! Great solution. At least we're not legitimizing > anything, cuz that would be BAD. This was necessary? I don't understand the nature of your facetious reply however if you found something about my original statement offensive I apologize. Last I checked this was a discussion list and varying opinions were part of the process. I don't believe I was disrespectful toward you original post at all. If that's not the case then by all means please indicate how so. In the 'REAL world' there are *solutions* for UA specific rules. I was just questioning if acknowledging the broken state of most browsers in this manner was ethically the correct approach. Mostly to simply offer some contrast to the original post. You'll notice I said, "would think the preferable, yet probably less likely resolve", which pretty clearly indicates I actually believe your suggestion IS necessary and the probability of 100% browser compliancy is quite low. In any case, I'm not sure what has driven you toward such a heinous response. -- Brian GnuPG -> KeyID: 0x04A4F0DC | Key Server: pgp.mit.edu ====================================================================== gpg --keyserver pgp.mit.edu --recv-keys 04A4F0DC Key Info: http://gfx-design.com/keys Linux Registered User #339825 at http://counter.li.org
Received on Wednesday, 31 March 2004 10:16:48 UTC