Do we want to let freenet give non-standardized results? I'm not generally opposed to supporting IE, since it seems to me like it's a step in the wrong direction. If it doesn't support the standards, let it punish itself. The downside is that it in the end only punishes freenet, which is bad.
This would be a nice thing to have as a plugin, distributed with the node, but I'm not sure of the status of the new plugin system bombe is/was working on. If this is going to be implemented in the node in the end, I suggest a new flag. use for instance "?text2html" as the end of an URL it's forwarded to. That way it's not _that_ much leaving the standard. // (the more or less idle) Dennis (cyberdo) On Tue, 5 Dec 2006, Dave Baker wrote: > On Tuesday 05 December 2006 01:58, toad wrote: >> It would be reasonably easy (a few hours' work) to support Internet >> Explorer reasonably safely. (By recognizing it, and transforming >> text/plain into <pre>'ed and HTML-encoded HTML). > > Although that doesn't make all the themes work in IE! That's one more thing to > consider, albeit comparitively minor. > >> Good idea or not? > > But yes, in principle, the idea of supporting IE safely is definately a good > thing. > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl >
