Cart
[Home] [By Thread] [By Date] [Recent Entries]
You have a good point, Joshua, in that the cost of trying to make content work with multiple incompatible systems is quite high. For that reason, in intranet applications or reasonably constrained applications, we do not recommend other than IE nor will we contract for cross-browser compatible delivery. On an open public site, different rules apply yet solutions that say "best viewed with X" have been applied widely for some time. I'm glad to see the article that explains the reversal of the policy. It will be interesting to see how well other XML application languages (eg, SVG) fare with this problem. The VRML experience was illuminating with respect to the difficulty of keeping declarative language standards interoperable at rendering and behavioral fidelity: close wasn't good enough for rendering and even worse for behavior. The Highlander saga continues. len -----Original Message----- From: Joshua Allen [mailto:joshuaa@m...] A. If a site uses even moderate JavaScript and CSS, the site has to maintain different code for different browsers. Typical would be one set of routines for IE5, one for Netscape 4.x, and another for Netscape 6 and IE6 (since IE6 and Netscape 6 *finally* can share most of the same code).
|
