- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 22:55:15 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Olav Junker Kj?r wrote: > > For WAML, however, I don't think graceful degradation as far as support > for browsers without CSS or script makes sense. As I understand the > spec, WAML is intended for complex applications with menus, dialog > boxes, complex controls, lots off script, two-way communication with the > server in the background and so on. There is no way, that this kind of > application will degrade gracefully on browser which doesn't support CSS > or script. There's no reason CSS should be required. Script, sure (it's an application after all), but not CSS. > The position paper says: > > "Basic Web application features should be implementable using behaviors, > scripting, and style sheets in IE6 today so that authors have a clear > migration path. " > > I think this is a resonable requirement, however its a far cry from > requiring that web applications should degrade gracefully in Netscape 2 > with scripting turned off. There is, however, a difference between "degrade gracefully" and "degrade functionally". We're not saying that WA1 stuff should actively _work_ in old browsers, naturally. Just that it shouldn't completely screw up and look like a horrible mess. (Or at least, that it shouldn't force authors to get to that point if they don't want it to.) -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 15:55:15 UTC