Kevin Berkheiser wrote:
> And many of us think it should be 7.0 because of all the layout bug
> fixes. Now I guess you have to sniff out the minor version to figure
> out if your page can be properly displayed.
I'm a bit more militant. I'm the creator of the semi infamous "On minimum system
requirements" thread almost a year ago (maybe 9 months), which got me 47 direct
emails from people calling me many nasty words. I don't go out of my way to
break old browsers, but I also don't go out of my way to make sites perfect for
every bug ridden version of browsers either. Anything less than IE4 I ignore and
make no special accommodations for. Same thing for NS3 and below. I don't code
for early NS4.x browsers, aiming for 4.5 and above users, and IE 4 and above
(although I make no great strides to make sure IE4.0 renders correctly). In my
view, get with the program (no pun intended). It's 2001. Internet years come 4
to the real year. That means if you're using NS4.0x then you're more than a
decade in the past. Same with IE4. MS doesn't even support Win95 anymore, so I
think 4.x browser support is charitable. If a user is using a shitty browser
(and yes, NS 6 is a shitty browser for a commercial release) then they HAVE to
know it. There's no way you can browse and accidentally avoid ALL reports that
your browser sucks. When NS6.5 hits, then I'll code for it. I already ignore
some bugs that show up in Mozilla because I know they'll be fixed when 1.0 is
born.
The only good reason for sniffing is to tell a user their browser is shitty.
Proprietary tags SUCK. If it's coded to reasonable standards, and a browser
can't view it right, then it ain't the code's fault.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
