Re: [Hampshire] Website Compatibility

On Thu, 27 Mar 2008 23:36:47 +0000
"Graham Bleach" <graham@???> wrote:

> I don't disagree with what I believe to be your main point: that
> everyone should strive for cross-browser compatibility, but I reject
> the implication that anyone who doesn't manage to achieve perfect
> cross-browser support is some kind of idiot. Anyone who has tried to
> even make a simple site display correctly across the big three
> browsers knows otherwise.

My website is very simple, designed to conform to xhtml/css standards
and passes the validation tests (or did last time I checked). It works
OK in opera and iceweasel and I couldn't care less if IE users have
problems.

I didn't test it in IE mainly cos I didn't have access to a windows
box for testing it on when I wrote the code. I presume it is OK as no
one has complained. Even though I now have a virtual windows box I
haven't attempted to run IE on it for any reason, let alone to see
what my site looks like.

As for Graham's comment "Web browsers are a particularly
unforgiving platform to develop complex, usable applications" I am
old fashioned enough to think that web browsers are not the best
place for running applications.

But then I also think web browsers are not the best place for email,
chat, news feeds etc etc. that browser designers are constantly
adding making them more and more bloated and slow. Opera now has
widgets for some unknown reason - I suppose to compete with
iceweasel plugins.
</rant>

--
John Lewis
Debian (Sid) & the GeneWeb genealogical data server