[whatwg] <output> and onforminput
jim.ley at gmail.com
Thu Jun 24 08:22:43 PDT 2004
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 12:31:44 +0000 (UTC), Ian Hickson <ian at hixie.ch> wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> >> I think you are reading way too much into "backwards compatible".
> >> HTML4+ECMAScript is "backwards compatible" with Lynx.
> > Sure it is
> So GMail works in Lynx?
I don't understand the relevance (nor why you seem to keep mentioning
gmail as if it's some competent web-application, the code is
reasonably competent script, but it's not a good web-application, and
the large security holes in Google suggests that the organisation as a
whole, don't know much client-side at all, they are not to be used as
You could of course create gmail so it degrades to work in lynx yes.
> If a user is using Lynx, he is likely to be reasonably savvy. (Indeed, if
> the user is using anything but IE, he is likely to be reasonably savvy.)
Rubbish, you've obviously never seen the users of web-tv units.
> It would be helpful if you could send specific comments on the areas that
> still do not gracefully degrade, along, ideally, with an example of how
> they could be made to degrade in a way that you would consider acceptable.
I've done that, lots of time (for example the fieldset suggestion for
select-editable) there's no point just adding more comments until
you've addressed the others.
> I assure you use cases were the basis of every feature in the spec.
Maybe bringing that discussion into public would help. As at the
moment, I really don't see the use cases for a lot of it.
>The use case for the datetime control
> is any system that needs to have an exact time, e.g. a calendar
Could you point me at such an application existing on the web at the moment?
More information about the whatwg