- From: David E. Ross <david@rossde.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 Nov 2007 17:47:33 -0800
- To: www-style@w3.org
At 05:28 PM 11/24/07 -0800, Brad Kemper <brkemper@comcast.net> wrote in part: > >They should be suing the makers of the audio browsers that can't >handle HTML that's been standard for years. The only reason a DIV >with scrolling overflow is considered accessible but a similarly >sized frame or iframe isn't is because the software for reading Web >pages to the blind sucks so terribly. But I guess Target has deeper >pockets. Audio browsers generally work quite well if the HTML passes the W3C validation test and if the content remains meaningful when CSS is suppressed. >Astounding. Ironically, in order not to ignore them, we will >probably have to detect their specialized browsers on the >server and give them special pages. No. Just give them HTML that complies with the W3C specification without any browser-specific or platform-specific markup. Sniffing (the basic purpose of the @ua proposal) is to allow for HTML and CSS that dos not comply with the W3C specifications. Stay within the specifications, and you don't need @ua or any other form of sniffing. David E. Ross <http://www.rossde.com/>. Don't ask "Why is there road rage?" Instead, ask "Why NOT Road Rage?" or "Why Is There No Such Thing as Fast Enough?" <http://www.rossde.com/roadrage.html>
Received on Sunday, 25 November 2007 01:47:51 UTC