please don't laugh if I mention TELNET options negotiation or SMTP capabilites exchange..
(I find browser strings fascinating. the sheer volume of 'I may behave like <x>' statements adds up to a mighty mishmash of things none of which directly relate to what I think web code developers wanted, although 'works in IE5' may indeed be "it") -G On Sun, Sep 15, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Yoav Nir <[email protected]> wrote: > It's not just a set of features. Sure, it all started with Netscape > supporting frames whereas Mosaic did not. So it would be nice if it just > advertised "Supports: frames". But then IE also supported frames, but if > the graphics designer made a web page so that it was nice and pretty and > aligned perfectly in Netscape, it looked all screwy in IE, because of > differences in spacing within and between frames. So it helped to be able > to serve different pages to different browsers. And then came active > content, with Java applets and ActiveX and embedded video and > javascript/vbscript, and things got worse. It's been getting better in the > last few years, but not that much better than you can make a single version > of your website. > > On Sep 15, 2013, at 4:59 AM, Randy Bush <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > < a fair bit off topic > > > > > forgetting ww2, isn't this the wrong way around? the browser should > > speak of which of a well-known feature set it supports, not what it's > > 'name' happens to be. > > > > randy > > > _______________________________________________ > perpass mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass >
_______________________________________________ perpass mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/perpass
