- From: Todd Fahrner <fahrner@pobox.com>
- Date: Sat, 24 May 1997 13:11:47 -0700
- To: "Joel N. Weber II" <devnull@gnu.ai.mit.edu>, scotti@microsoft.com
- Cc: www-style@w3.org
At 3:49 PM -0400 5/24/1997, Joel N. Weber II wrote: > Maybe I'm misunderstanding something, but it looks to me like > dynamic HTML assumes the browser internally flattens out the HTML > tree. That would make implementing it difficult in a browser which > uses a tree structure internally. > > >From what little I've seen of dynamic HTML, it looks to me like it's > impossible to get any two browsers to support it the same exact way. > And it doesn't look like it's going to downgrade gracefully either. I don't quite follow you here - probably my shaky grasp of implementation issues. But as for graceful degradation - that's at the heart of my questions. I'd say that something degrades gracefully if you end up shipping only the parts of a document that the client - any client - can make good sense of. If you can have totally generic HTML (no presentational markup) in one file, CSS in another, and scripts in a third, I'd say you've hit the target. And it's looking to me like that's what we'll have in both 4.0 browsers, with the exception of NS's markup-based solution to "dynamism". *yawn* __________________ Todd Fahrner mailto:fahrner@pobox.com http://www.verso.com
Received on Saturday, 24 May 1997 16:10:44 UTC