- From: Geoffrey Sneddon <foolistbar@googlemail.com>
- Date: Fri, 29 Feb 2008 16:18:47 +0000
On 29 Feb 2008, at 01:29, Shannon wrote: > Geoffrey Sneddon wrote: > > While yes, you could rely on something like that, it totally > breaks in any user agent without scripting support. Nothing else, to > my knowledge, in HTML 5 leads to total loss of functionality without > JavaScript whatsoever. By total loss of functionality I meant something that is functionality provided by HTML itself (and not through CSS or some DOM API) which leads to the page being totally unusable. > Well nothing except global/session/database storage, You already have the fallback for people without ECMAScript, so that works fine. > the "irrelevant" attribute, So you can edit something which you otherwise couldn't. Oh well. Nothing breaks. > contenteditable, Oh come on. Even IE supports this. This most certainly is backwards compatible. > contextmenu, Again, this is a DOM API and can be recreated in ECMAScript (which, if you're try to use it at all, you know is enabled). > draggable, Both IE and Safari have partial support for this already. > the video and audio elements, canvas All three of these have fallback content, which is needed sometimes when a browser does support HTML 5 anyway. > and the connection interface. Again, you know you have ECMAScript enabled already to be able to use this at all. Something similar could be done using XMLHttpRequest, if I am not mistaken. -- Geoffrey Sneddon <http://gsnedders.com/>
Received on Friday, 29 February 2008 08:18:47 UTC