On Jun 5, 2011, at 12:23 PM, Richard Riley wrote:
Geoff Shang <geoff@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
On Sun, 5 Jun 2011, Richard Riley wrote:
I don't. I just don't want them to lock out my browser just
because they don't
support it. Many pages which don't work optimally under Lynx can
still be read,
which is all I'm wanting to do anyway.
They need to or there can be unintentional side affects that will
reflect badly on them and possibly you.
Rubbish. All they need to do is what everyone else does and say
"This site may
not work well on your browser, we recommend using Internet Explorer
or firefox"
(or whatever they support). Then if I choose to use it, it's on my
own head,
which is fine by me.
Not rubbish at all. They owe you nothing.
Not everyone is you.
If they allowed incompatible browsers that caused havoc then before
you
know it the great unwashed would be demanding more and better
support or
complaining about lack of functionality. Doing what they do they
make it
very clear from day one.
Dont like it? The APIs are open. Write your own interfaces to their
authentication and graph API and target the parts that wont result in
your accuont being banned for chucking access tokens around and
breaking
their security model.
Simple solution : use an uptodate capable browser if you want to use
these technologies. I really dont see why people whine.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
uptodate capable browsers *do* include safari, chrome, and opera. if
you choose to ignore these, you are just bigotted. i used safari
because it happens to work well with voiceover. most of your
javascript whizzy features do not. You know those nifty accordian and
tabbed areas that you can do easily in jquery? can't be read by screen
readers. they accomplish what they do by hiding text, which also hides
it from screen readers.
--
PHP General Mailing List (http://www.php.net/)
To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
