- From: Chris Were <chris.were@gmail.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:30:44 +0930
> > I think this mention of fancy behaviour is the key. What I am talking > > about by a web application is a *single* page where all server > > interaction occurs through XMLHttpRequest. In this instance all > > functionality of the particular application is provided through > > javascript - a collection of fancy behavious all combined to make the > > application. Browsers that do not support javascript can not use the > > application. > > but that's just being completely wrong headed, there's nothing special > about the xmlhttp request that prevents degradability, my over 2 year I'm not saying there is anything about xmlhttp request that prevents degradability. A particular web application that is designed entirely around the functionality provided by XMLHR would have no requirement to degrade nicely. Any degradation and it becomes useless as all its functionality and content is provided through javascript. > >As such it means nothing for that web application (in > > this case just one page) to degrade as there is no content to view and > > no functionality available. > > but that's rubbish, there is functionality - it's what the javascript > provides etc. There's no functionality for the degraded experience. > It's wrong to say there's none, you may feel there's > nothing that can be usefully done as fallback, but that still means > the page itself should degrade to something - not just error etc. Of course the page should degrade to something, not just error. There should be a message that says 'Sorry your browser is not supported'. But that is not degrading nicely - At the end of the day the user can't use the application.
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 00:00:44 UTC