Re: DOM, markup, and "dynamic html"
At 3:49 PM -0400 5/24/1997, Joel N. Weber II wrote:
> Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it looks to me like
> dynamic HTML assumes the browser internally flattens out the HTML
> tree. That would make implementing it difficult in a browser which
> uses a tree structure internally.
> >From what little I've seen of dynamic HTML, it looks to me like it's
> impossible to get any two browsers to support it the same exact way.
> And it doesn't look like it's going to downgrade gracefully either.
I don't quite follow you here - probably my shaky grasp of implementation
issues. But as for graceful degradation - that's at the heart of my
questions. I'd say that something degrades gracefully if you end up
shipping only the parts of a document that the client - any client - can
make good sense of. If you can have totally generic HTML (no presentational
markup) in one file, CSS in another, and scripts in a third, I'd say you've
hit the target. And it's looking to me like that's what we'll have in both
4.0 browsers, with the exception of NS's markup-based solution to