comp.sys.acorn.advocacy Google Group

Re: Messenger Plus! Live

2008-10-10T13:47:22Z

It would be useful if the RISC OS MSN clients understood the plus
coloured display names, they are of the form [c=#7D007D]Text[/c]

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-10-06T13:05:28Z

Apart from the disability discrimination act for one thing. Also the
search engines are effectively blind users, and what about users on
mobile phones.
Agreed, but the site should be fully functional, but plain without.
Those without CSS probably don't have it with good reason, visual
disability or preference for plain displays.

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-17T17:46:37Z

(Trying again! The first one isn't visible here - personally, I suspect
Harriet.)
The date being 15 Sep, Peter Naulls
spouted the following:
I would just like to add some of my own fuel to the fire here.
Personally, I believe both your arguments have their good points and
their bad points. The fact is, Peter, that there *are* internationally

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-17T17:23:48Z

No, this is not an argument I made, nor is it valid. I never said
anything about it being "outmoded", although I can see perhaps
why you think I might have. What I _did_ say is that expecting
people to adhere to older standards just so RISC OS browsers will
work on them is highly unrealistic. As for the standards - they

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-16T09:00:06Z

The date being 16 Sep, Peter Naulls
spouted the following:
I would just like to add some of my own fuel to the fire here.
Personally, I believe both your arguments have their good points and
their bad points. The fact is, Peter, that there *are* internationally
agreed standards - they are set by the World Wide Web consortium

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-16T16:40:08Z

You could, but I have plenty of suggestions, not to mention the work
I'm personally doing, which unfortunately, is very slow. But I
can come up with tasks for others.
> If you don't want to continue then discussion then don't.
I'm afraid a discussion in which one of the antagonist refuses to
name specifics, is destined to go nowhere. Improving RISC OS

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-16T16:19:38Z

The date being 16 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
write:
I could say exactly the same to you. If you don't want to continue the
discussion then don't.

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-15T23:06:56Z

Exactly a good way to continue with a vague argument and avoiding
the point.
Nice theory, but full of problems. I think I can safely assume
you've never worked on a browser. Again, how can you be sure
your site is "unlikely to cause any problems" with this last
2% of browsers (which could be a great many), without testing

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-15T22:24:37Z

The date being 15 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
write:
Exactly!
The whole point, which you don't seem to be able to grasp, is that you
don't test on lots of obscure browsers. You design your site in a way
which is unlikely to cause any problems, and if you or your visitors

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-15T16:42:41Z

You're avoiding specifics. What is "compatible" and how do you
test it against many obscure browsers which do not conform to
standards (and which standards)?
Laudable, but you have to remember that the goal of your audience
is to view arbitrary websites 100%, on the platform they're using -
your site or otherwise. Just because your site conforms to

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-15T10:03:54Z

The date being 14 Sep 2008, Greg <g...@nospam.demon.co.uk> decided to
write:
Because standards evolve. New techniques come along. If they solve a
problem or allow you to provide a new service that you couldn't before
that's fine as long as you accept that those services might not, at
least initially, be available to everyone.

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-12T12:03:58Z

In der Nachricht <56e613dd4f.n...@user.minijem. plus.com>
Richard Porter <dontuset...@address.uk.invali d> hat geschrieben:
[snip]
That's a political issue. It would avoid a lot of problems and
distribute the power to more as a few companies - good for the business,
security and market.
[snip]

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-14T18:37:57Z

In article <2117c9de4f.n...@user.minijem. plus.com>,
dontuset...@address.uk.invalid says...
The heck you should. How the hell will anything advance with a view like
that!
Why should everything point down to the lowest denominator.

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-14T17:49:11Z

[not much, just repeating the same old argument]
You're trying to argue for a reality which isn't. And you still
miss the point I made at the very beginning and repeated above.
Say it all you want. That doesn't make it true. And it certainly
doesn't help RISC OS.
No, it is nothing to do with that whatsoever. It's about the

Re: Consultation on Public Sector Web Sites

2008-09-14T17:16:09Z

The date being 12 Sep 2008, Peter Naulls <pe...@chocky.org> decided to
write:
But the government is saying don't worry if your web site doesn't work
on any browsers with under a 2% penetration. I'm saying you shouldn't
be concerned about specific browsers.
Maybe, but if you need to use a government web site to pay your tax or