Peter Firminger wrote:
I totally disagree. IE (with it's problems) is the dominant browser and it's
absolutely your problem (the web developer) to make sure the site you build
for a client works on the most likely user-agent.
Didn't nay not to make the site work in IE. What I'm suggesting is letting them know that in order to make it 100% functional in IE, that extra work is needed. You're going to due it anyway, why no let client know about it? Again, I'm not suggesting to increase the bill--using standards will often lower the bill--just letting them know that if it wasn't required to support IE 100% (not an option these days) they'd be saving some money.
As far as non-IE extras, they should be exactly that--extra. A site need to have a 100% lever of functionality and a 100% look in IE, but in a compliant browser, maybe the look could be 110%? Users would only know they were missing something if they saw the site in a compliant browser. These are features which would otherwise not be included because IE can't handle it, so adding them for free only improves the site without any cost involved (beyond a few extra bytes).
*****************************************************
The discussion list for http://webstandardsgroup.org/
See http://webstandardsgroup.org/mail/guidelines.cfm
for some hints on posting to the list & getting help
*****************************************************
