> this space is already crowded

"Cambrian Explosion" springs to mind.

Javascript libraries, Web frameworks and CMS's all seem to have this theme where the perceived difficulty of rolling your own is less then bending something existing to your will.

I can understand why backwards compatability is important for an organisation such as the BBC. But at the same time it would be really nice if these larger organisations were encouraging people to upgrade their browsers where possible.

But not so nice if you're a paying user (via the license fee) and upgrading means a new OS or computer. I think their mandate is to work for their paying users, ahead of helping web developers.

But the web is worldwide, how many readers of BBC news are from outside the UK? And not every UK citizen has to purchase a license.

They've recently been trying to encourage everyone to make the switch to digitial TVs. I'm sure it's a lot easier to get people to upgrade their browser than buy a new television.

The BBC has a specific mandate to the British people. If they are not serving them then they are not doing their job.

We're talking mainly bells and whistles (progressive enhancement) via Glow not basic access to data.

That said BBC produce a lot of content for the web that not everyone can get (people don't all have computers), several digital radio channels (not everyone has digi-radio), several digi-TV channels (a lot can't even get the signal, many don't have the hardware).

So the BBC aren't worried about large scale access issues, why worry so much about obsolete browsers?

Indeed - was reinventing the wheel really a good use of my TV tax money?