W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > w3c-wai-ig@w3.org > October to December 2001

Re: Minimal Browser Capabilities

From: Vadim Plessky <lucy-ples@mtu-net.ru>
Date: Tue, 25 Dec 2001 11:37:58 +0000
Message-Id: <200112250839.fBP8duH03823@post.cnt.ru>
To: Kynn Bartlett <kynn-edapta@idyllmtn.com>
Cc: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Tuesday 25 December 2001 02:17, Kynn Bartlett wrote:
|   At 8:49 PM -0500 12/24/01, Access Systems wrote:
|   >On Tue, 25 Dec 2001, Vadim Plessky wrote:
|   >  > Of course, you need to have JavaScript enabled to get this code
|   >  > working :-) // but you can't do any on-page browser detection
|   >  > without
|   >
|   >JavaScript, anyway.
|   >But Javascript is not normally on in Lynx.  (in fact I don't know how to
|   >enable it in Lynx or if it is even possible)
|   Lynx doesn't do JavaScript.  This should be considered a serious
| shortcoming in Lynx, but instead it seems to be viewed as a virtue.  I'd
| really like to see text browser that did JavaScript and CSS.

I guess many people mix JavaScript and DOM.They are *not the same*!
JavaScript is just one more programming language, like C, C++, Pascal or 
Visual Basic. You can make computations, store results, etc.
To make some DynamicHTML effects, you need to have DOM implementation (at 
least DOM1). To capture mouse or keyboard events, you need DOM2 being 
It's pretty much the same as compiler (gcc) and libraries (stdio.h, or glibc)
You can use one compiler with different libraries. And you use library with 
different languages (language bindings).

BTW: what are advantages if using text-based browser?
I really do not understand that.
Graphics environment has so many advantage over text so I am quite confused 
to hear this.

|   Anyway, the answer there would be a <noscript> fallback intended for
|   browsers which don't do JavaScript or which don't have JavaScript
|   enabled.

And, IIRC, my example exactly provides NOSCRIPT section :-)
JavaScript was turned Off in first releases of KDE/Konqueror by default (say, 
KDE 2.0 and 2.0.1, one year ago) as some people think that JavaScript and 
security is an oxymoron.
I have to admit that testcase/example was written by me in Oct.-Nov.2000  and 
mostly untouched fromn that time.
I still monitor userAgent progress using this example (as Nestcape 6.0 was 
based on M18, nad Netscape 6.2 uses mozilla 0.9.x; it's also always funny to 
test Opera in its "emulation" mode with this code)
|   >I say it again, there should be no assumption what so ever that there is
|   >any user side support for anything.
|   Surely you don't mean "for _anything_".  Do you assume client-side
|   support for HTML 2.0?  What about HTML 3.2?  What about HTML 4.01
|   Transitional?  What about HTML 4.01 Strict?  What about CSS level
|   1?  What about CSS level 2?  What about ECMAScript?  What about
|   DOM?
|   See, we need to assume some level of basic support.  Okay, so some
|   browsers won't measure up to it -- but some browsers (such as Lynx)
|   have not been reprogrammed in 5 years.  More recent browsers do
|   indeed have some degree of all of the above, so the answer simply
|   is to ask what is the reasonable level of support to expect, and
|   is it fair game to expect someone to be using a reasonable browser
|   when accessing your site?
|   --Kynn


Vadim Plessky
http://kde2.newmail.ru  (English)
33 Window Decorations and 6 Widget Styles for KDE
KDE mini-Themes
Received on Tuesday, 25 December 2001 03:41:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 13 October 2015 16:21:15 UTC