Re: 3.2 or not 3.2 (was Re: Broadly Accessible (was Re: Table problem)

Jakob, I have to agree with you because of your accessibility issues ~now~.

However.

The statistics I see on public access (or "public service" if you prefer)
sites definitely show the late 4.X and 5.X browsers filtering down to the
bottom of the statistics, and the 3.X and early 4.X browsers dropping off
the list.

It clearly IS a judgement call in your case, and I think you made the
correct choice.

However.

As those 'newer version' browsers filter down to the point "we" can
reasonably say they have been replaced, "we" do need to plan (budget?) for
a site recoding to (in *my* opinion) XML because of it's extensibility, so
plan now to spend more money (time) later.

HTH,
Fuzzy
<Mike too>


At 03:16 PM 5/16/01 , Jakob D=F6lling wrote:
>Mike,
>
>in conclusion means that it's up to me to make the fatefull decision.
>Well, on the site I did change to CSS=20
>therefore it should be no bigger advancing to 4.01 spec later ;-) . OK,
>the dices are thrown....
>I think I stick HTML 3.2, for the command set of 3.2 will be part of the
>fourth generation browser and up.
>
>Jakob D=F6lling

______________________________________________________________
Captain F.M. O'Lary
webmaster(at)canopy.net
"Eat a live toad in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you for
the rest of the day."
------------------------------------------------------------------

HTML: hwg-basics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA