- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2004 23:14:51 +0000 (UTC)
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote: > > Obviously, unsupported Javascript objects can't degrade, but I think > the only ones defined so far in WA1 are those that already exist and are > widely used by multiple browsers. While obviously things that are already supported have priority, I expect we will be adding new interfaces. (e.g. the stuff in WF2 for forms, and the canvas stuff in WA1.) > The idea isn't to prevent webmasters from creating markup that > doesn't degrade gracefully. The idea is to allow webmasters to create > markup that degrades gracefully but still had the new functionality in > compliant browsers. Right. Exactly. > What, then, makes using WAML any different from using XUL + HTML4? If > WAML requires a compliant browser simply to be used, why even bother > developing it when you can use XUL 1.0 right now? If you're going to > throw graceful degradation out the window, better to create a > standardized subset of XUL, a language which has already seen practical > use in tandem with CSS and which supports just about any widget you > might need. It should be noted, however, that this would be beyond the > scope of the WHAT WG's charter. Yup. If backwards compatibility is not an issue, then XForms, XUL, Flex, SVG, Flash, etc, all exist already. -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2004 16:14:51 UTC