- From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 24 Jun 2004 16:22:43 +0100
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:31:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > >> > >> I think you are reading way too much into "backwards compatible". > >> > >> HTML4+ECMAScript is "backwards compatible" with Lynx. > > > > Sure it is > > So GMail works in Lynx? I don't understand the relevance (nor why you seem to keep mentioning gmail as if it's some competent web-application, the code is reasonably competent script, but it's not a good web-application, and the large security holes in Google suggests that the organisation as a whole, don't know much client-side at all, they are not to be used as a recommendation. You could of course create gmail so it degrades to work in lynx yes. > If a user is using Lynx, he is likely to be reasonably savvy. (Indeed, if > the user is using anything but IE, he is likely to be reasonably savvy.) Rubbish, you've obviously never seen the users of web-tv units. > It would be helpful if you could send specific comments on the areas that > still do not gracefully degrade, along, ideally, with an example of how > they could be made to degrade in a way that you would consider acceptable. I've done that, lots of time (for example the fieldset suggestion for select-editable) there's no point just adding more comments until you've addressed the others. > I assure you use cases were the basis of every feature in the spec. Maybe bringing that discussion into public would help. As at the moment, I really don't see the use cases for a lot of it. >The use case for the datetime control > is any system that needs to have an exact time, e.g. a calendar > application, Could you point me at such an application existing on the web at the moment?
Received on Thursday, 24 June 2004 08:22:43 UTC