W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > November 2004

[whatwg] [web-apps] Some comments

From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:45:01 +0000 (UTC)
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.61.0411121344230.2337@dhalsim.dreamhost.com>
On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 12:47:59 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> > > Which is the exact same situation as with javascript calculator.  It's
> > > completely semantically empty unless you do it in the markup too.
> > > javascript is just as optional as CSS if correctly used, an example of
> > > an incorrect use of either does not disqualify that point.
> > 
> > What gives you the idea that JS is optional?
> 
> Implementation experience, specification experience, accessibility
> experience, there are plenty of sites on the web that rely on JS, but
> equally there are plenty that rely on CSS.

The difference is that relying on JS is legitimate, while relying on CSS 
is not.

-- 
Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Friday, 12 November 2004 05:45:01 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:08:20 UTC