Robert Bihlmeyer wrote: > > Rick Lutowski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Why have browsers been stuck at 1.1 for years? Just a wild > > guess, but might it have something to do with MS stopping Java > > support with 1.1, and also controlling 80% of the browser market? > > It could also be because the perceived benefit for the user is not as big
For 80% of the browser base, it's Microsoft that's doing the perceiving re the benefit of Java 2. > as you think. Users *are* installing add-ons for flash and other crap. Only the more technically savvy ones. The majority of users don't know what a plug-in is and/or couldn't care less. That's why any technology based on plug-ins will never reach the majority. For something to be widely useful in a browser it has to be pre-installed by the vendor. > So go ahead and use it on your site. You'd better make it optional, > though -- but this is good advice for almost any web technology > (scripting, css, mathml, ...). If it can be optional, then it can't be critical. So maybe the site should not bother with it at all -- just use the 'low tech' backup technology instead. Something 'high tech' like flash or Java3D that is critical to the site cannot be marked optional, e.g., a 3D gaming site can't very well make 3D optional! However, you point is well taken, because most sites that use flash etc CAN make them optional, which implies they should take it out entirely (i.e., 'high tech' web solutions are being misused for the most part). That doesn't mean scrap the high tech or leave it out of the browser, it means sites need to be designed more intelligently. Rick -- Rick Lutowski |[EMAIL PROTECTED] \ oo \____ http://www.jreality.com/ _______ __\ ____________________________________________________________ /_ | _____/ `------------------------------------------------------' -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]