> Oi! I'm not playing advocate here (and it looked > OK in Lynx from where I was standing, btw) - now that > the thread is getting going, I'd like a couple > of answers to a couple of (normally rhetorical) > questions. what version of lynx are you using? my version displays: "IN SIX MONTHS, a year, or two years at most, all websites will be designedwith standards that separate style from content. (Or they will be built withFlash 7.) We can watch our skills grow obsolete, or start learning standards-based techniques now." > I just figured it was an interesting take. If > MS can dump all support for Win95, and Apple can > tell the 68k users to get lost, at what point > do we decide to pull the plug on IE4 and NN4? the difference is that each of those companies owned and controlled the respective technologies. we as web dev's don't control what software what people are using.. > The main reason I don't think that reference > to evolt.org is relevant here is this: people > did the work on making that site work with > 'relic' browsers. In a commercial context, that > would involve a client dedicating billable hours > to the job. These days, that almost certainly > involves an ROI in negative numbers. we didnt design out site to work with any particular browser, especially relic ones :) the site looks its best in a css/html4.0 compliant browser. the point is that it at least still *works* in anything else.. i can't quote the exact figure, but the 7 or 8 of us that redid the evolt site realy didnt spend a signifgant amount of time with this issue.. > WSP are arguing that v4 browsers should be thrown > into the 'relic' category. > > FWIW, I don't think that Moz is old enough or > robust enough to support that argument yet. You should give .8 a try.. very very fast now.. .djc.