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