I know what you mean. It goes against my suggested language addition.
I must say that a single line is very different to a complete rewrite that
requires addition rewriting of all browser dependant switches in the api.
It is still my view that if something requires no additional work to implement
(doesn't require existing code to be rewritten) then it should be looked into.
Pascal wrote:
> hmm.. I could step in here, and get back on some of my earlier mails...
>
> .. but I won't :)
>
> Pascal Bestebroer ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
> Software ontwikkelaar
> Oberon Informatiesystemen b.v.
> http://www.oibv.com
> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Namens Michael Pemberton
> Verzonden: dinsdag 13 maart 2001 7:19
> Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Onderwerp: Re: [Dynapi-Dev] [ dynapi-Patches-407882 ] Browser.js Recommended
> Upgrade
>
> I'm afraid I have to agree with Doug here.
> The reason for detecting the various browsers is for COMPATIBILITY. It is
> not intended to be used as a giant test to see which variant of a spoofed
> AOL browser they are using.
> If you can find an example of the API working on a specific platform that
> requires a few browser specific fixes, send em on in. THEN, and ONLY THEN
> is there any point in detecting the browser. Otherwise we are just simply
> wasting our time detecting which non-compliant browser they are using and
> they won't be able to see your page anyway.
>
> _______________________________________________
> Dynapi-Dev mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
--
Michael Pemberton
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
ICQ: 12107010
_______________________________________________
Dynapi-Dev mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/dynapi-dev
