Re: Forums

On Jan 9, 2012, at 2:07 PM, Marat Tanalin | tanalin.com <mtanalin@yandex.ru> wrote:

> 10.01.2012, 01:59, "Matthew Wilcox" <elvendil@gmail.com>:
>>>  I think this is backwards;  if someone sends styled text, such that the style conveys something useful (else why bother?) those reading in plain text lose something.  That's the only one of the four cases with semantic loss.
>>> 
>>>  You are at liberty to style up my messages as much as you likeĦ­ :-)
>> 
>> I think that's backwards. Because someone can optionally choose to strip mark-up (and therefore semantics) the entire group should be forced not to be able to add such semantics in the first place? Force everything to the lowest possible common denominator?
> 
> Indeed, it sounds like having to limit sites to IE6 features just because still there are some few people that use it.

It's worse than that. Outlook uses the HTML rendering engine from Word 97, that MS describes as being a subset of what IE6 can do. I think it's more like IE4. 

Imagine if a majority of Web users were browsing the Web on that, with BLOCKQUOTE having more CSS support than DIV, where you couldn't even add padding to a DIV. Would it be a reason for us all to design for the Mosaic browser only, just as equally bad rendering in Outlook (or some other unspecified terrible email client) is one of three reasons David Singer gives for wanting us to stick to text-only and ASCII art on our list? I'd say no; it would be a reason to avoid the Web, not to embrace ASCII Web pages, and CSS3 would still just be a pipe dream.

Received on Tuesday, 10 January 2012 05:19:52 UTC