[whatwg] [web-apps] Some comments
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Aug 25 15:55:15 PDT 2004
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, [ISO-8859-1] Olav Junker Kjær wrote:
> 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.
There's no reason CSS should be required.
Script, sure (it's an application after all), but not CSS.
> 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.
There is, however, a difference between "degrade gracefully" and "degrade
functionally". We're not saying that WA1 stuff should actively _work_ in
old browsers, naturally. Just that it shouldn't completely screw up and
look like a horrible mess. (Or at least, that it shouldn't force authors
to get to that point if they don't want it to.)
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg