Rick Green wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2001, Ben Rosenberg wrote:
* StarTux (matthew@psychohorse.com) [010608 10:47]: ->Ben and others, -> ->I am getting some response on my site www.penguinfriendly.org you are ->correct about a lot of web designers, also remember some do not have time ->to check every browser, so they stick with the main one and throw in ->Netscape just because... ->
Yes..it's true they don't have time to check out every browser, but my point is that why should they have to? They should just design it to a spec such as W3C or however they please and if the site doesn't work for the person viewing it with thing such as Konq..then it doesn't work, but if it does..GREAT. They should not query the browser for version and the deny what they don't know.
I seem to recall that the big 'selling' feature of the WWW, and the internet for that matter, is interoperability based on standards. If the W3C publishes a standard for HTML x.x encoding, they should also publish a syntax checker for that standard, and a reference implementation of a renderer. (amaya?) IMHO, the browser-type header should be removed from the standard,, and replaced with a browser-capabilities string that refers ONLY to the version, and optional features of the standard spec itself. Maybe this will promote greater interoperability, and reduce the tendency towards browser-chauvinism that we seem to be experiencing.
http://validator.w3.org/ There you go, and yes most sites fail. Matt