[thelist] Netscape... why?

[Erik Mattheis]

At 9:11 PM -0400 6/7/02, aardvark wrote:
>  > From: Erik Mattheis <gozz at gozz.com>
>>
>>  >  > ~ document.write different <link> tags based on
>>  >  > navigator.userAgent,
>>  >>  use standard css for a <link> higher on the page, and just let NN
>  > >>  4.x with JS disabled barf on it --
>
>it also means you're taking an all-or-nothing approach,

No ... the <link> to a stylesheet with the non-funky stuff in the
page takes care of all the non-funky stuff.

>which can be
>completely avoided with either server-side browser detection (which
>is only a step above client-side, IMO),

Many steps below IMO!!!: a page intended for a certain browser can be
served by a proxy server to a browser for which it was not intended.
BAD!

>  or, essentially capability
>testing by using @import...

See previous post ... can't _always_ rely on that working.

>i consider creating a valid page and then writing HTML into it via JS
>a hack (moreso if you're writing in invalid HTML)...
>
>that's mostly a personal preference, but it also eases maintenance
>and compatibility...

Well, I'm of the opinion that it's still more important to make HTML
that a browser thinks as "valid" than the W3C thinks is "valid" ...
it is curious that WWW can mean World Wide Web and Wish it Would Work
and Wild Wild West.

Also to me: something that depends on a browser flaw - not
understanding @import for example is more accurately a "hack" .

Yes, it is harder to maintain, but so are almost all high-performance
things ... web-related and otherwise.

>my response to that response is that turning off JS doesn't penalize
>me at all... it penalizes some sites that don't let me use their nav
>(but i just go elsewhere),

The site penalizes itself!

>  it prevents the hassle of banner windows,

OK, point taken ... FYI these cookies alleviate the majority of the
headache: http://technoerotica.net/mylog/optouts.html

>it speeds up my system,

Damn!

>  and for IE/win, it prevents many security
>issues...

Microsoft penalizes everyone!

>IOW, it doesn't handicap me, it empowers me...  and sites that treat
>my browser like a red-headed stepchild get summarily bozo-filtered...
>don't believe me?  look at all the stuff i've bought online -- it all
>came from sites that work without JS enabled...

I'm not suggesting requiring JS to access the core features of a site
... just that I think it's acceptable to require JS for "value-added"
features, such as a presentation exactly as you intend.

>  > And really, there are things that you _have_ to serve different stuff
>>  ... either with JS or a cookie as you suggest in your fine article. --
>
>which one?  my latest?

Yeah, http://evolt.org/article/Style_Switcher_in_ASP/17/28241/

>yes, cookies are needed to save custom styles, but no client-side
>script... i wrote the article because i see so many people struggle
>unnecessarily with JS style switchers, and they are useless to me
>without JS...
>
>i don't see how cookies matter here, though, especially since my
>article is a tutorial for something that requires cookies by its very
>nature...

I wasn't saying the pot is calling the kettle black, rather that it's
completely acceptable to offer "extras" to a subset of your site's
visitors.

>kinda like my article on detecting screen stats and window
>sizes...
>
>CSS, however, should not require JS to be enabled... there's no good
>reason those two should be inextricably linked,

Agreed ... both in regard to NN 4.x and for things you can do without
JS or the risk of a proxy server screwing the site up. But again,
there are some things that if you want to do them, you have no choice
than to rely on JS. Really! Trust me!

--

__________________________________________
- Erik Mattheis

(612) 377 2272
http://goZz.com/

Through June 15
9am - 3pm M-F:
(952) 838 7698

__________________________________________