Peter Machell wrote: > On 10/10/2006, at 10:30 PM, Horst Herb wrote: > >> Those who want plagueware compatibility will have to pay for this >> feature. > > Yep, programming for Firefox + IE = development cost x 2. Programming > for Firefox + other (fairly) standards compliant browsers = development > costs + a very small fraction, and should be done.
Fair enough. You (collectively) are not alone in this attitude - there are zillions of health care Web sites which only work with IE, so by restricting access to Firefox and Mozilla, you're no worse than they are, and at least you are insisting on a better browser. We're doing public health Web apps which lots of disparate users need to be able to use first go, so we don't have the luxury of being able to specify a particular browser - but we approach that issue by keeping the amount of Javascript small, and making sure everything is still usable if Javascript is disabled. But a recent browser (i.e. less than 3 years old) is still needed due to use of CSS. People running Mosaic or Netscape v1.0 still need to upgrade. Doing "Web 2.0", "AJAXian" Web sites like Horst's appt system AND retaining cross-browser compatibility does indeed require enormous resources - Google no doubt spent many millions on Javascript programmers to get Google Mail to work as well as it does on just about every modern browser. > MSIE has stifled web development for six years now and does not deserve > a second chance. Stick it to them, Peter! Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
