[thelist] WebReview responds to WaSP browser death march

[Andrew Forsberg]

>  >It's either that or fork your code so that some get tables, others
>>get divs. I'm not complaining about the extra work of forking a site
>>-- but it is a right nuisance to maintain on anything larger than a
>>very small site.
>
>But on larger sites, the content and presentation should be kept
>separate anyway (think: templates...), so it's less of an issue than
>you'd think.

Yes and no -- last time I checked templates still had to be processed 
by the server, and the code those templates spit out is based on 
decisions similar to these by someone / something.

>  >So is it as clear cut as WaSP's 'screw the old browsers', Aardvark's
>>'my sites look the same on all browsers', or golive's 'screw the
>>standards'? I'd really like to hear how others approach this
>>(arguably fundamental) problem.
>
>For commercial clients, the core is "the site has to be usable (not
>necessarily look identical, but be at least recognisable) for pretty
>much all users in the target audience".

Well that doesn't even attempt to figure in standards 
recommendations, or WaSP's current protest. Sure that's exactly what 
I imagine most every massive site cares about solely: but my point is 
WaSP's argument says you cannot do that and support standards; 
Aardvark's argument was similar to 'if you can code well this is a 
non-issue'; and GoLive's 'screw the standards' sounds a lot like your 
'core' for commercial clients.
-- 
Andrew Forsberg
http://www.thepander.co.nz