- From: Didier PH Martin <martind@netfolder.com>
- Date: Fri, 10 Sep 2004 09:37:20 -0400
Hi Chris, > 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. 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. > right. You may need to degrade for some device also able to support javascript. For instance, pocketPC connected to the intranet with 802.11b connections. The screen is smaller but still support javascript and xmlHttpRequest. Two scenarios: a) you create a single rendering language (xml based) produced by different servers. That language is interpreted differently in different devices. b) you create a single domain model language (xml based) and let XSLT perform different transformations on these different devices. The good point about (a) is the relative low cost of porting to different devices. The impact though is the poor quality of the porting. Some layouts are hard to degrade gracefully for different resolutions and capabilities. The good point about (b) is that you gained maximum adaptability to the different devices. Allowed other processes to parse and process the data. Therefore you killed two birds 1) get a web service, 2)transformation of this data to different devices without bad degradation (let's say a more controlled degradation). The bad point is the increase development price for the different transformation templates. Cheers Didier PH Martin
Received on Friday, 10 September 2004 06:37:20 UTC