- From: Philip Jägenstedt <philipj@opera.com>
- Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 15:13:29 +0100
On Thu, 03 Dec 2009 14:29:19 +0100, Kit Grose <kit at iqmultimedia.com.au> wrote: > It seems counterintuitive to me that having produced fallback content > already, I still need to use Javascript to test for compatibility > (even if I *did* generate two formats, there's obviously no guarantee > IE9 won't come out requiring WMV or a similar issue with a different > UA). > > Are there any other elements in HTML that _require_ Javascript to > provide a good UX? What's wrong with using JavaScript to work around temporary problems? In the long term, is there a use case for allowing fallback content? I'll freely admit that the most important reason I oppose this is because I don't want to implement it, because fallback behavior is a mess (see <object>). If there is any other browser implementor that thinks fallback is a good idea, it might be worth discussing. -- Philip J?genstedt Core Developer Opera Software
Received on Thursday, 3 December 2009 06:13:29 UTC