New Website Design

Matthew Burgess matthew at linuxfromscratch.org
Sun Dec 12 02:23:23 PST 2004


Jeroen Coumans wrote:
> Jeremy Huntwork said the following on 12-12-2004 02:19:
> 
>> Randy McMurchy wrote:
>>
>>> That logo and "best viewed using" is considered very bad form
>>> in web development. However, do whatever you like. :-)
>>>
>> Ok, I'd never heard that.
>>
>>> Do you really think anyone would change browsers because of that
>>> logo and statement?  :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> You're right, it probably wouldn't change a thing.  I can take it off, 
>> I didn't realize it was 'bad form'. It really isn't a big deal to me.  
>> More than anything else, I needed something to put in the footer for now.
> 
> 
> It reminds me of the old days when, during the Browser Wars, MS and NS 
> supporters would put such a footer in their website. Standards people 
> noted that you shouldn't code for a browser but for a standard, so your 
> code will be valid for past and future browsers.

Well, in our defense, all our pages are valid XHTML.  As Jeremy said, 
that logo went in there mainly just to put *something* in the footer.

As for coding for "past and future browsers" I'm inclined to disagree 
somewhat.  We should code to the standards - if the user's browser 
doesn't render it properly that's their problem, not ours.  Standards 
are there for a reason which is to put everyone (web authors and browser 
developers) on the same playing field.  The fact that they aren't 
implemented properly everywhere shouldn't stop us doing what we're doing 
IMO.

Of course, we should make it as painless as possible - i.e. don't serve 
pages out with an <?xml...?> tag at the top, as that breaks IE.  Other 
than that, I'm happy to throw my hands up in the air if someone says the 
pages don't render properly in their current form.  By and large it'll 
be very minor breakage (like Konqueror misaligning the top navigation 
bar), which won't affect usage of the site.

Cheers,

Matt.



More information about the website mailing list