|
>> 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
As an Amazon Associate we earn from qualifying purchases.
This mailing list archive is Copyright 1997-2025 by midrange.com and David Gibbs as a compilation work. Use of the archive is restricted to research of a business or technical nature. Any other uses are prohibited. Full details are available on our policy page. If you have questions about this, please contact [javascript protected email address].
Operating expenses for this site are earned using the Amazon Associate program and Google Adsense.