[whatwg] [web-apps] Some comments
ian at hixie.ch
Wed Aug 25 16:14:51 PDT 2004
On Mon, 9 Aug 2004, Matthew Raymond wrote:
> the only ones defined so far in WA1 are those that already exist and are
> widely used by multiple browsers.
While obviously things that are already supported have priority, I expect
we will be adding new interfaces. (e.g. the stuff in WF2 for forms, and
the canvas stuff in WA1.)
> The idea isn't to prevent webmasters from creating markup that
> doesn't degrade gracefully. The idea is to allow webmasters to create
> markup that degrades gracefully but still had the new functionality in
> compliant browsers.
> What, then, makes using WAML any different from using XUL + HTML4? If
> WAML requires a compliant browser simply to be used, why even bother
> developing it when you can use XUL 1.0 right now? If you're going to
> throw graceful degradation out the window, better to create a
> standardized subset of XUL, a language which has already seen practical
> use in tandem with CSS and which supports just about any widget you
> might need. It should be noted, however, that this would be beyond the
> scope of the WHAT WG's charter.
Yup. If backwards compatibility is not an issue, then XForms, XUL, Flex,
SVG, Flash, etc, all exist already.
Ian Hickson U+1047E )\._.,--....,'``. fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/ U+263A /, _.. \ _\ ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer. `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
More information about the whatwg