"B.K. DeLong" wrote:
> Well, I don't think "banning" is the correct word although we wish we could
> do that.
Do you know what people do with a site which doesn't render correctly
in 3 different browsers? *PLONK* in aeternitas, amen.
> The fact of the matter is that there are A LOT of people who still use 3.x
> and 4.x browsers. Those who can't "afford" to send them directly to the
I use 4.75, since 6.0 is a crawling abomination. I also use Opera 5.0b and
Konqueror. Even as beta, Opera roxx.
> upgrade page can create their own upgrade page integrated with their Web
> site and explain, in the context of their business and Web site, why it's
> important to make the upgrade. I'm thinking about proposing that for the
You forward me to an upgrade page, you lose me as a customer.
> new ZOT site since it's pretty much 100% XHTML 1.0 and CSS compliant...I
> had to use some JS sniffing to send NS users to an NS-only stylesheet and
> it still looks bad.
Nevermind how it looks, it has to 1) work 2) Work 3) WORK 4) now that it
works (in a pinch, without cookies and ECMAScript, of course), let's think
about the looks.
> Even simpler still, people can put a banner or button for the campaign on
> their Web site or even a text link that says "This site best viewed with a
> standards-compliant browser".
Um, which particular standard?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 27 2001 - 23:17:49 PDT