[thelist] Site redirect check : old browser

aardvark roselli at earthlink.net
Tue Jun 5 00:26:30 CDT 2001

man, you have about 2 too many >s in your reply quotes...

> From: "Mark Cheng" <mark.cheng at ranger.com.au>
> Oops - I've commented out the comment.  Would you please be kind
> enough to try it again?  Did you manually navigate to the nobrows page
> or did the site jump you there?

the site dumped me at the nobrows page, after flashing the home 


did it again, flashed the home page, then kicked me over...

JS error, Line 12:
syntax error
--> (crapping out on the >)

JS error, Line 24:
init is not defined

JS error, Line 34:
identifier is a reserved word
try{ //IE ...

after reloading it the 3rd time, i stay at the home page...

> >>>- there is no link to proceed anyway...
> there is on the non complying browser page.

no there wasn't...were you using a document.write?

> >>>- "These standards are designed to ensure that the web surfing
> >>>experience is consistent across all browsers, and computer types." 
> >>>well, then why won't it work in NN3?
> NN3 is not standards compliant.

well, that's a matter of perspective... it will render compliant HTML 
2.0 and 3.2 pages quite nicely... what you mean is that it's not 
HTML 4.01 compliant, which makes sense, since it was released 
well before HTML 4.01... *however*, your wording says 'consistent 
across all browsers," which is my point... i read that far and said, 
"well, then, why can't i see it?  clearly this is wrong, or they are 

> Thanks for the comment.  I agree - we need to clean up the wording a
> bit so we don't offend the user with the wording. However, we give a
> moose's nut about compliance with standards so if the user gets
> offended by our compliance - tough.

hmmm... i care about compliance... you seen my home page?  
http://roselli.org/adrian... it's completely CSS 1.0 and HTML 4.01 
compliant, and complies to WAI guidelines... in fact, so does 
evolt.org... and have you seen how they appear in NN3?  they work 
quite nicely, thank you...

don't confuse standards with coding beyond what browsers can 
handle... you can still code compliant pages that degrade well... 
what you are doing is coding to compliance beyond concern for 
older browsers, which makes me wonder if you are doing it just 
because you can, or if you are doing it because it's easier than 
degrading nicely...

ironically, as you get older in the browser chain, you're less likely 
to get the JS support you'll need to redirect the users...

oh, yeah, you might wanna read this, too:

Inside the evolt.org Rebuild: The HTML and CSS

it details the rebuild of evolt.org to be standards-compliant, without 
leaving any browsers in the cold...  check out the screen-caps...

More information about the thelist mailing list