Maybe I'm misunderstanding you but I think it is a terrible idea to have multiple content streams. This can and often does lead to multiple headaches...
Personally I favour having one content stream, but possibly multiple style/display streams. These could be assigned via server controls, or by careful creation of designs or by user action.
I certainly do not favour many of the still widely used code forks and detections around, but there are ways to work around deficiencies of some older (and newer) platforms without shutting some things off from one or more users.

Personally I'm looking forward to the day when I can serve the content in xml, and then style it with css, or svg or flash, (or whatever) depending on the user preference. And this would only be possible if everything understands the rules that everything else works under... standardsy stuff


Ben Boyle wrote:

I would have thought the best way to target a browser (be it IE5 or other)
was content negotiation. Detect the browser and serve content in the
appropriate format. Does anyone else get the feeling this technique is
rarely used whilst cruder methods proliferate?

IMHO, web servers can do a lot more than just serve files and should be
exploited for all they are worth - and that's plenty. I feel this
cornerstone of the web is oft overlooked, much to the detriment of the
online experience when cruder technologies are called on to compensate.

Maybe it's just too difficult for developers to get access to webserver
configuration, or too tedious to produce content in multiple formats? Gotta
weight that against the time and effort we've all invested in workarounds
and hacks though ... The right tool for the job. One can't solve every
problem with a hammer.


The discussion list for

The discussion list for

Reply via email to