- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Fri, 12 Nov 2004 13:45:01 +0000 (UTC)
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