Mike Leone (on-the-go) on Fri, 24 May 2002 16:34:43 -0400


[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [PLUG] OT: ...compatible browser or else!


On Fri, May 24, 2002 at 01:37:40PM -0400, Fred K Ollinger wrote:
> > Theoretically, they should already be in compliance with the licenses
> > for the sw they have. Why would you think they would need to buy more
> > sw, to continue in the development vein they've chosen?
> 
> I never saw this to be true in a large enough workplace.

What, be in compliance? Me neither, but we make the attempt. More to the
point, tho, is why would they need to purchase *more* software, to make the
pages browser-agnostic? And, if they're already in non-compliance, a few
more won't hurt. :-) So, I don't see licensing as an issue, or impediment,
to changing the pages.

> 
> > And switching over would provide a costs savings, but in a longer run,
> > since you've got to convert and test everything, and then run both
> > systems in parallel for at least a little while, unless you want to take
> > the chance of switching cold turkey, and hoping it all goes smooth.
> 
> That's not how compliant pages need to work. You need very little code.
> Just a part to detect browser, then send them to static pages.

Not really, since usually the reason for the non-compliance is proprietary
programming in the web site - ASP code, VBScript, etc. If you want true
generic, non-OS-specific pages, you should re-write all that (Java, JavaScript, 
etc). That takes time and debugging.

> Anyway, w/ all this typing, we could have probably written the scripts to
> fix everything all ready. :)

No doubt. :-)

Attachment: pgpfWR8t3f9I9.pgp
Description: PGP signature