- From: Chris Were <chris.were@gmail.com>
- Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 16:09:39 +0930
> > There are two ways to think of web applications - the traditional > > click-load-click-load model or a _new_ completely dynamic page > > (application) through JS/CSS/DOM. The latter approach is new (although > > using existing technology from roughly IE5.5+) and requires no > > degradation. > > I don't agree it's new in the slightest as you note it's been trivial > since IE5.5, and has possibly been going on longer depending on > exactly what you mean - what you don't explain though is why that > model requires no degradation - what's the difference? Are you refering to future or past degradation? The model I mentioned doesn't require past degradation, but the future WHATWG specification definately requires degradation to continue supporting what is currently possible. > >[...] defining what a web > > application is now and what it could be in the future (which from what > > I see you all appear to be doing a damn good job at) > > The entire WHAT-WG premis is based on degradation, there's no need or > point to any of the WHAT-WG stuff if works with IE6 is not a > requirement. Yes (I think) we got our wires crossed. I was refering to the current ability to degrade nicely, while you were discussing future degrading capabilities. Regards, Chris
Received on Wednesday, 8 September 2004 23:39:39 UTC