Of course I want everything to work on all browsers, but come on now: that’s impossible.
By “you don’t agree with this goal”, I meant that you disagree with ALA’s decision to use browser-specific and non-standard code sparingly, at the expense of not getting to use a lot of extra functionality.
IE (6) *should* be top priority, and it *can* be top priority without adding lots of IE-specific code.
If you actually read my posts, you’ll see that I complimented ALA in my last post.
I saw. And if you had read older articles, you’d have seen that ALA *have* published “something that works on Internet Explorer”, unless you meant a *whole article* about something that *only* works in IE.
Thing is, I didn’t say you were incapable of complimenting ALA, and I think you *have* read older articles, possibly missing the IE-specific non-standard parts. Compliments or not: this is not the first time you bring it up. Considering that your article, if memory serves me correct, was rejected because it was too IE-specific, I can’t see any other reason for you to keep bringing it up, than personal reasons. I apologize if I’m wrong, but it’d be a weird coincidence.
At any rate, it doesn’t need to be brought up again, any more than you need to criticize a fantasy adventure movie for not being a documentary about dogs. Not being too browser-specific is part of the definition of ALA, not an oversight that needs to be reported.