RE: LINUX Workstations

>> The idea is that a properly designed browser simply disregards
>> content it can't deal with, and a properly designed page anticipates
> this,
>> and provides as complete content, and as close to the intended user
>> experience, as the browser permits.
>
> Which is exactly what I do.  So how did I become the anti-Christ's
> acolyte?  All I said was that IE handles events better than Mozilla, and
> suddenly it's the Crusades all over again.

Dear Mr. Pluta:

Somehow, in the heat of the argument, I think more than one of us (myself,
certainly) got a little mixed up with who was saying what. Somehow I got
you confused with the fellow (whose name I won't repeat) who runs
"explicit checks on the user's browser and version" (to whom I freely
admit privately sending a response that ought to curdle an egg in its
shell).

Incidentally, if you want to see an example of standard HTML used in a
non-standard way for a non-standard purpose, take a look at my "organ
jokes" page,
    http://www.hb.quik.com/jamesl/OrgJokes.html
It's a form with a bunch of drop-down listboxes, but no "submit" button.
It replaced an earlier "riddle page" concept in which I used "invisible
dead-end links" to hide the answers (but they turned out to only be
invisible in Netscape, and probably only in a specific release of it. This
"dead-end form" concept, on the other hand, works in anything that handles
forms (and degrades fairly gracefully on the few browsers I could find
that don't).

--
JHHL