"Adam D. Ruppe" <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ieleht$1qc...@digitalmars.com... > bearophile: >> On a more modern browser it works "well enough" (Firefox 4). > > This is a bit of a rant, but I hate how the web community > always uses "modern browser" like this. > > I ran this site on Firefox 3.6.3. The most recent one it offers > on getfirefox.com is 3.6.13 - I'm not very far behind! My about > firefox box says Gecko from April 2010. > > That should be modern by any sane definition! > > (Now, my every day browser, Konqueror 3.5.7, is (c) 2005. So > I can understand it not being a "modern browser". But it works > for me so I won't change it. Something I find hilarious though: > it's CSS2 compliance was better than firefox up until about > last year! > > I just wrote a site going wild with css for a web demo for the > company, and it worked almost as well in my old Konq as it did > in my newer Firefox. The kde folks did a really impressive job > there.) > > > Anyway, it just irks me that so many web evangelists say "modern" > when they really mean "bleeding edge". And in Google's case, it > is even worse: when they say "all modern browsers", they actually > mean "/our/ bleeding edge beta". It really annoys me. >
Hear, hear!
