- From: Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
- Date: Sat, 11 Sep 2004 10:15:34 +0000 (UTC)
On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Jim Ley wrote: > On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:30:44 +0930, Chris Were <chris.were at gmail.com> wrote: > > 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. > > That's just ridiculous, if any application has a requirement to > degrade nicely, then just saying "this application uses javascript so > doesn't have to" isn't something I can agree with I'm afraid. It's worth noting that the person you are disagreeing with is representing the opinion of a Web application provider. If application providers consider that compatibility with non-JS browsers (and browsers with JS disabled) is not critical, then that is an important datapoint. > I think this sort of attitude highlights why the WHAT-WG isn't > particularly correct when it says degradibility is an absolute > requirement, if people are happy to say "bog off browser not supported" > then we might aswell go straight to good solutions and not harp on > trying to tweak to text/html until it's even more of a mess. I haven't yet seen anyone say that compatibility with IE6 isn't important, and that has always been the most important factor here. There's a huge leap of logic from "compatibility with the minority of browsers that don't support JS is not important" to "compatibility with the most deployed user agent is not importnat". -- Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
Received on Saturday, 11 September 2004 03:15:34 UTC