- From: Chris Were <chris.were@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:14:21 +0930
> >>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. > > could you explain more what you mean by future and past degradation? > This hasn't really made anything clear I'm afraid, but I think you're > probably right that we're talking at crossed purposes.. By past degradation I mean the ability of current documents/applications using current standards to degrade nicely to older browsers. By future degradation I mean the ability of future documents/applications using future standards (such as those being worked on by WHATWG) to degrade nicely to browsers we currently use. In my original post I was referring to the ability of current web applications to degrade nicely to older browsers, whereas I believe you were referring to the ability of future web applications to degrade nicely to current browsers. This latter capability is obviously an essential requirement as you mentioned. The point I was making is that current web applications don't have a requirement to degrade nicely for older browsers if they're built using technology only available to the latest browsers. Hope that clears things up. Chris
Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 16:44:21 UTC