On 05 Jun 2011 at 16:23, Geoff Shang <ge...@quitelikely.com> wrote: 

> On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
>>> I don't.  I just don't want them to lock out my browser just because they 
>>> don't
>>> support it.  Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can still be 
>>> read,
>>> which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
>> They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
>> reflect badly on them and possibly you.
> Rubbish.  All they need to do is what everyone else does and say "This
> site may not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet
> Explorer or firefox" (or whatever they support).  Then if I choose to use
> it, it's on my own head, which is fine by me.
>> If you really want a half arsed user experience then set your browser
>> string ;) Would that not work for you?
> It probably would.  But this tangent began with the principle of "Use IE
> or Firefox" and how we hated sites that said that.  It's the principle of
> the thing.

Yes. You might (just) be able to justify something really old [1], but Safari 
5.0.5? I find that to be a damn cheek. I expect sites to be standards-based.

[1] Don't ask me what that means. I've not kept up with what new stuff is 
around now that wasn't, ten years ago.

Cheers  --  Tim

PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php

Reply via email to