Also, anyone can submit a greasemonkey or altered html or css to fix issues :) its a challenge :)
Jon--On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:34 PM, Mirko Lindner <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
I belief the point here was, that we should not limit people to access
On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Bas Wijnen <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 04:23:49PM -0800, Ron K. Jeffries wrote:
>> A different opinion:
>> We want [need] as many people to buy and use the Most Excellent (and VERY free)
>> Nanonote as possible.
>> A web site that's usable by PEOPLE who are interested in this
>> fine product should not require them to abandon the [mainstream] browser
>> they currently prefer.
> I find it unlikely that people interested in free hardware will have IE
> as their preferred browser. This is based on nothing, though.
the site, because of their preferred browsers. The beauty of our
hardware project is, that you don't need to know how free it actually
is to like it.
Even if the customer loves Windows, has an iPad and has never heard of
gnu/linux, if s/he finds a cute little device with a convincing
software package we have a shot at getting to her/him. People do not
expect a full Win on a small dictionary or wikipedia device etc. So
let's have a page which in design and technicalities opens us to as
many people as possible.
My 2 cents on this.
I am in full agreement here. Started getting rid of validator errors.
>> Making a straight ahead site such as sharism.cc work with major browsers
>> is not a big deal. [the small glitch I saw is already FIXED!]
>> Let's not be so ultra-purist that we reject people who have not YET
>> totally accepted the free, open, libre. copyleft dogma.
>> > Bas Wijnen schreef:
>> >> I suggest dropping support for non-free browsers (IE and Safari), and
>> >> adding http://validator.w3.org/ to the list. If it validates, it
>> >> most likely already works in all browsers except IE.
> This however is still true. If the site validates, it will work
> everywhere. If the IE support isn't tested anyway, a validating site
> actually stands a bigger chance of working there than a non-validating
> So I'm not suggesting to make life harder for non-free browsers. I am
> suggesting to put no time in them. Follow the standards, let them be
> able to read standard sites properly. For the most part, even IE
> already does (AFAIK).
Once this is done and I did the changes to the webpage, it would be
great if people from the list here could browse to our page and give
us feedback on the appearance. Let's make this project about open in
every aspect imaginable.
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Qi Developer Mailing List
> Mail to list (members only): firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.qi-hardware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/developer
Qi Developer Mailing List
Mail to list (members only): email@example.com
Subscribe or Unsubscribe: http://lists.qi-hardware.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/developer
internet: @rejon + skype: kidproto
Sent from San Francisco, CA, United States