Re: @media and browsers conditional statments

Joshua Cranmer wrote:

> I also think you're being too optimistic of people to assume that people 
> are looking up the specs. Most probably feel that the language is too 

I think you are understating!

> "legalistic" and prefer to get watered-down versions form tutorials 
> churned out by publishing houses, or similar media. I can see how it 
> would happen too:

Most people don't want to understand what CSS means; all they want is a 
cookbook recipe to do the thing they want to do.  Many won't even read 
the glossy books, but will simply plagiarize (commonly called cut and 
paste coding).

Those people are very unlikely to review the use of a browser test for 
anything except the market leader, if they maintain the page at all.

Many pages are contracted out once with no maintenance contract.

David Woolley
Emails are not formal business letters, whatever businesses may want.
RFC1855 says there should be an address here, but, in a world of spam,
that is no longer good advice, as archive address hiding may not work.

Received on Sunday, 10 August 2008 08:09:07 UTC