cox and accessibility

[Carl Parrish]

Personally I'd like to think that mozilla is close to 100% standard
compliance. (if you know of something that doesn't work the way the
standards say they should Please do tell). Opera is getting closer and
closer (for a while they were more standard compliant than we were.)
I've never used Konq but I hear they are striving for standard
compliance. And then they are all the browsers coming out using the
mozilla engine (AOL, IBM, Skipstone, Netscape, K-Meleon, Q.BATi, Galeon,
etc...) M$ seems to be the only ones getting further and further away
from the standards. I don't see what's so hard about asking web
developers to design to the standards I haven't seen anything yet that
M$ does with its propertiry tags that can't be done a standards way. And
while they are getting further away from the standards I'd say that IE
6.0 is about 70% standards compliant. (though I'll admit that other 30%
does bug me at times). So for the most part if you design your site to
the standard *everyone* can see your site isn't that a *good* thing?

Carl P. 

On Thu, 2002-03-14 at 17:34, Dr. Ghastly wrote:
> Quite frankly I don't see why they have to cater to the linux community. It
> would be NICE yes, but not something required by law. Or are you going to
> complain about every web site that doesn't support your browser and only
> supports IE and Netscape? If so, then by all means go right ahead..
> 
> Also, can I see some source code proof showing they intentionally, through
> thier cgi, jscript, whatever, throw you an error for not using IE or NS? Or
> is it that, because the HTML standard is BEYOND messed up between ALL
> browsers, that it's really hard and cumbersome to program for all types?
> >From what i've seen of the HTML standards, and how each browser implements
> them, no browser is any where near perfect.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "der.hans" <PLUGd@LuftHans.com>
> To: <plug-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us>
> Sent: Thursday, March 14, 2002 5:29 PM
> Subject: RE: cox and accessibility
> 
> 
> > Am 14. Mar, 2002 schwätzte Craig White so:
> >
> > > I think that you are giving them some undeserved credit...they probably
> > > only checked it with the big 2 browsers. If you've created web sites,
> >
> > This isn't checking the web site. They're intentionally throwing an error
> if
> > you're not using one of those two browsers.
> >
> > > the larger branches of govt have all laid off of the cable companies -
> > > leaving them to negotiate their exclusive contracts with the
> > > municipalities which of course, have little technical savvy to deal with
> > > them.
> >
> > Hrumph. That sucks. I'm still going to keep researching it.
> >
> > > there is a netscape and a mozilla available for linux - you might want
> > > to have one of them ready for desparate times...I do.
> >
> > Not always an option. It also doesn't address the problem. I was able to
> > work around it, but I want it fixed.
> >
> > ciao,
> >
> > der.hans
> > --
> > #  http://home.pages.de/~lufthans/   http://www.DevelopOnline.com/
> > # We now return you to your regularly scheduled paranoia...
> >
> > ________________________________________________
> > See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't
> post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> >
> > PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> > http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> >
> 
> ________________________________________________
> See http://PLUG.phoenix.az.us/navigator-mail.shtml if your mail doesn't post to the list quickly and you use Netscape to write mail.
> 
> PLUG-discuss mailing list  -  PLUG-discuss@lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss