Re: [MACCAWS] browsers? No, user agents.

--- joeldcanfield <[email protected]> wrote:
> --- In vkit@y..., Chris Kaminski <chris@s...> wrote:
> > I'm gonna throw in a vote for 'client' b/c I think
> it's a shorter 
> term, and
> > one whose common definition is closer to the comp
> sci definition. 
> Most of my
> > uneasiness with 'user agent' stems from the fact
> that the term is 
> pretty
> > much meaningless to the layperson.
> 
> Two points:
> 1. Our goal is to educate those lay persons, is it
> not? Introducing 
> proper terminology won't hurt, as long as it's
> properly defined as 
> needed.
> 2. We're composing information on web standards. The
> W3C, who 
> establish those standards, use the term 'user
> agent.' How is it *not* 
> hypocritical to use a different term? 
> 
> spinhead
> 

There has to be some added value to MACCAWS efforts,
otherwise what's the point of regurgitating the W3C
docs? My point is that we're here to add a layer of
interpretation to standards so that they can be
reasonably adopted and embraced by the masses. We've
already discussed and debated the fact that it's too
ambitious to go 100% hardline standards compliant,
which is why a real-world interpretation of best
practices -- and a mission of changing the way of
thinking about the NEED for standards compliance --
will make our goal acutally attainable by the
naysayers.




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Health - Feel better, live better
http://health.yahoo.com