”

Teddy what is hypocritical about this? I use nofollow because the urls added in the comments are not editorially granted by me – most of them I’ve never even visited so why would I give a real link to them?

The BBC links are useful links given by editors who think that readers might link them. This layer of editorial choice means nofollow isn’t required.”

In what way is this different to the nofollow on your Gravatar link? It looks like the same principals, only on a different scale.

No we can’t go around throwing random accusations and certainly there is no right for anyone to be abusive to the many good people working for the BBC, but when you are funded by an enforced payment the public have the right to question your actions in much the same way as they would a political party or the police.

There is no opt out here, if I don’t like how the BBC behave I can’t watch someone else’s content and not pay the BBC, well not over conventional broadcast standards anyway. In fact not paying them when you don’t even have a TV can be quite difficult.

Being answerable doesn’t give the public a right to abuse you and accuse you of anything you like.

Try and remember that people who work for the BBC are people like everyone else. What’s more, the kind of people who will respond to you are trying to engage with you on a human level. Coming across like you’re accusing them of something isn’t like to encourage engagement.

I suppose the BBC could say we produce exactly standards complaint code, and if it doesn’t work for the majority of our audience who use ‘vendor’ supplied browsers, then tough cookies, but that doesn’t really support universal access, does it?

Yes, it would! (ITYM compliant) Would anyone argue against the BBC saying we produce standards compliant broadcasts and if that doesn’t work for a minority of our audience, then you need to get your TV fixed?

I wrote that the BBC may be being captured, in a wider way than just browsers. Feel free to argue either way – at this point, I don’t understand which takes precedence: their XHTML and CSS standards, or their browser support standard.

The link given is depressingly browser-centric instead of based on vendor-independent standards.

I’m fairly unsure how you could list which browsers you supported, without being browser-centric. I suppose the BBC could say we produce exactly standards complaint code, and if it doesn’t work for the majority of our audience who use ‘vendor’ supplied browsers, then tough cookies, but that doesn’t really support universal access, does it?

I’m interested that you think the BBC has been so ‘captured’ by vendors. I wondered if you could point to another public body in the UK that openly publishes their ‘vendor’ driven browser support guidelines AND their CCS standards, semantic mark-up and approach to XHTML ingerity?