[whatwg] [web-apps] Some comments
Olav Junker Kjær
olav at olav.dk
Mon Aug 9 04:31:35 PDT 2004
> Furthermore, all our "gracefully degradation" solutions so far have
> not required CSS.
I think the requirements for backwards compatibility of WAML should be
different that for WF2. With WF2 it makes sense to strive for graceful
degradation, since it is possible to implement most of the features
For WAML, however, I don't think graceful degradation as far as support
for browsers without CSS or script makes sense. As I understand the
spec, WAML is intended for complex applications with menus, dialog
boxes, complex controls, lots off script, two-way communication with the
server in the background and so on. There is no way, that this kind of
application will degrade gracefully on browser which doesn't support CSS
or script. Even if new elements were designed so that they wont show up
in those older browsers, the app would stille be completely non-functional.
The position paper says:
"Basic Web application features should be implementable using behaviors,
scripting, and style sheets in IE6 today so that authors have a clear
migration path. "
I think this is a resonable requirement, however its a far cry from
requiring that web applications should degrade gracefully in Netscape 2
with scripting turned off.
If course you could implement a pure HTML version of the webapp that is
compatible with old browsers, but that version will likely have a very
different UI and flow. You won't implementet it *in the same page* as a
WAML-app. So I suggest non-graceful degradation for browsers that don't
support WAML: redirect to an alternative page.
Olav Junker Kjær
More information about the whatwg