- From: Malcolm Rowe <malcolm-what@farside.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jun 2004 10:55:41 +0100
Jim Ley writes:
>> I think you are reading way too much into "backwards compatible".
>> HTML4+ECMAScript is "backwards compatible" with Lynx.
> Sure it is, but HTML4 + WF2 is not - since you're over constraining
> things like datetime which mean they do not work in a non-WF2 browser
> without particularly aware users.
How is a WF2 <input type=datetime> control any different to a HTML4 page
containing a simple input control and a script that verifies that the date
is in a particular formant? If you agree that HTML4+ECMAScript degrades,
then HTML4+WF2 degrades in a similar fashion. In both cases, the server has
to accept 'invalid' data (either from a non-scripting or non-WF2 client,
respectively), and deal with it (presumably by returning an error page).
With the exception of the repetition model, which I've raised some concern
about in a long post in another thread, I believe that all of the other WF2
functionality degrades to something sensible; that is, while a document with
WF2 controls might not be 'easy to use' in a legacy browser, it's not
significantly harder than a HTML4 forms document.
I personally believe that Web Forms 2 must work in lynx. Forget IE6
'compatibility/extension libraries' - if we get the model right, most
HTML4+WF2 documents will be accessible to lynx users.
That's not to say that you couldn't write a WF2 document that doesn't work
in {lynx, Mozilla, Opera, IE}, of course you could; but no feature should, a
priori, be unusable if accessed with a non-WF2 client.
The repetition model is the only part of the spec that I'm aware of that is
completely unusable if you have a non-WF2 non-DOM-supporting client. Are you
aware of any others?
Regards,
Malcolm
Received on Tuesday, 22 June 2004 02:55:41 UTC