- From: Dimitri Glazkov <dimitri.glazkov@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:56:59 -0500
Since, AFAIK, the fragment identifier is not passed onto the server by the UA, I can't see how an application could be designed with proper noscript degradation and reliance frament ids for query communication. Besides, using query parameters is much more natural for HTML: forms with method=get are the way to build it. On 9/10/07, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > On Mon, 10 Sep 2007, Aaron Boodman wrote: > > On Sep 10, 2007 2:21 PM, Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote: > > > > > > I still don't understand how you see this working using the same > > > codebase both online and offline. The model I'm proposing basically > > > relies on the app being an offline app, except that while you're > > > online the offline app is talking to the server to keep its database > > > updated and the server updated with the user's changes. What you're > > > describing seems like it would require a different set of code for the > > > offline case than the online case. > > > > You can share the UI code for normal web apps with local-mode ones if > > you have a clean separation between the server and the UI. In fact, I > > think it will be common to want to do this. Bookmarks and URLs from the > > online app should work with the offline one and vice versa. > > I agree, I just don't see how this applies to the example Robert gave > with Bugzilla. The idea of having some URIs be decomposed by the > client-side and have them fetch different pages from the server seems > really unwise, especially since in browsers that don't support this, > they'll not be decomposed and will end up fetching different pages. > > -- > Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL > http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,. > Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.' >
Received on Monday, 10 September 2007 15:56:59 UTC