Harish Narayanan said on Wed, Jun 09, 2004 at 06:29:28PM -0400,:
Probably they meant, "has been tested using" where they said
We lawyers have a saying to the effect that we cannot go about breaking open peoples' heads to find that what they intend. We need to gather intentions from words acts and deeds.
for". Because I don't run my monitor on 800x600, have java, or use IE, but I can get around the site quite comfortably.
My mail has nothing to do with resolution. It has every thing to do with following sensible standards.
And I use larger fonts here, so that I can read from a distance of three feet from the monitor. At that size this page, and almost every page hosted by nic, looks ugly.
And javascript removes control from my hands. I want only one window open at a time; and have twenty or thirty tabs open in Mozilla firefox at a time. It is irritating when a page opens in a new window. I have disabled permission for pages to open new windows.
This is where I have a problem. W3C standards compliance does not necessarily imply ease of use, accessibility or anything like that.
W3C standards is not merely HTML 4.01. It goes much beyond that. W3C has standards for CSS. CSS prescribes standards for visual and aural styles.
can find plenty of well formed markup, fully standards compliant websites that are absolutely horrendous to use.
That is a human error. For example, look at the fsf.org.in pages. They are W3C html compliant. But use tables to control layout. That is deprecated by the W3C. W3C recommends that people use stylesheets to control layout, and suggests that tables be used to display data. FSF's pages pass the html 4.01 `strict' dtd when run through W3C's HTMLtidy; but, the trouble comes when people with disabilities try to use them.
are equally competent groups that work outside the realm of the W3C [ http://whatwg.org/ ] involved in coming up with standards themselves
Thanks for this info. I need to look into that organisation.
that work at a (hopefully higher) different pace than the W3C and
But would this lead to multiplicity of standards?
in tune with rate of evolution of browser technology. There is no real point to any of this, except, compliance with W3C doesn't automatically make it "good" and lack of compliance doesn't make it "bad".
Of course. Ads for specific proprietary technology are totally unacceptable. It's just, for what it's worth, some slightly offset css positioning (when not viewed in IE) and the evil ad apart, this site is quite clean and navigable.
My _main_ issue is that the NIC's pages carry a message which either deliberately or unwittingly misleading; and the layman will think that other browsers are not supported.
With footers like this, when you try _selling_ non-M$ software; the first question you will face is `whether it will display foo.gov.in or bar.nic.in pages, because NIC says that their pages are optimised for eyeeee browsers'.
Got the point?