You build it to standards and make allowances for non-standard browsers or bugs in browsers.
Highly recommend not using the "user-agent" string though to identify functionality or issues as overall browser issues. This will break in your code when the browser is fixed/revised. Even browsers like Internet Explorer have become significantly more standards compliant as they are revised. There were a fairly large number of sites that broke when IE 7 came out as they were designed against IE'isms or using user-agent to handle IE'isms.
The idea is to identify the functionality that has the issue and then test for that functionality in the user's browser. When that functionality works improperly, the code forks to handle the exception. Sooner or later, the code will no longer be executed as the browser's improve... but at no point will your logic break your page operation based upon a browser improvement if it is handled like this. Sites like www.army.mil took this approach and the IE 7 upgrade was a non-event. Other sites and apps, some mission critical, flopped like dead fish on IE 7.
V/R, Wm.
On Jun 11, 2009, at 4:20 PM, skyman375 wrote: Right, which gets back to the discussion of, do you build a site to be standards compliant, or to meet the peculiarities of the predominant browser used to access it?
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 14:42, Dave Schroeder <email@hidden> wrote:
All the Acid3 compliance in the world oesn't do a heck of a lot of good if a particular web site in question of choice is still broken with Safari.
- Dave
On Jun 11, 2009, at 1:30 PM, skyman375 wrote:
Safari 4 is 100/100 Acid test compliant; IE, FF, etc. not so much.
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Fed-talk mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden
|