Just posted a draft of this document at said location
(www.mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/upgrade_2.html, with a link from the
index page there). But please let's keep addressing the issues: what's
missing, what's wrong, what's weak, etc.
Thanks
-ian
Ian Oeschger wrote:
> Thanks all for the feedback over the weekend. I have most of it
> incorporated into a new version of the document, and I am checking with
> the authors/suppliers of the sniffing code about those comments.
>
> Among other things, I have removed my xemacs-generated mailto from the
> bottom, as Gervase suggested :^|, This document is really a smorgasborg
> of different notes we have lying around, especially Eric's standards stuff.
>
> I will post the updated version of this document in
> mozilla.org/docs/web-developer/, but please continue to offer
> suggestions and updates here if you see anything.
>
> -ian
>
> Zach Lipton wrote:
>
>> Once we have a final version of this page, email [EMAIL PROTECTED],
>> Eric at (I am not sure) and me at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Blake is the
>> owner of
>> the evangelism component and I am the qa contact. I was working on
>> getting
>> an evangelism site up and running and this will really help.
>>
>> Zach
>>
>> in article [EMAIL PROTECTED], Gervase Markham at
>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/17/00 4:50 PM:
>>
>>
>>>> Not only that, the code doesn't take into account the possibility that
>>>> there might be other standards-compliant browser with ECMAScript and
>>>> DOM
>>>> support in addition to those that identify themselves as "Netscape".
>>>
>>>
>>> Why not use the Netscape Ultimate Browser Sniffer? Testing for browsers
>>> using if (document.all) and if (document.layers) is Considered Harmful.
>>>
>>> Gerv
>>
