[whatwg] RE: Degrading of web applications

Ian Hickson ian at hixie.ch
Sat Sep 11 03:15:34 PDT 2004

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004, Jim Ley wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 16:30:44 +0930, Chris Were <chris.were at gmail.com> wrote:
> > A particular web application that is designed entirely
> > around the functionality provided by XMLHR would have no requirement
> > to degrade nicely. Any degradation and it becomes useless as all its
> > functionality and content is provided through javascript.
> That's just ridiculous, if any application has a requirement to
> degrade nicely, then just saying "this application uses javascript so
> doesn't have to" isn't something I can agree with I'm afraid.

It's worth noting that the person you are disagreeing with is representing 
the opinion of a Web application provider. If application providers 
consider that compatibility with non-JS browsers (and browsers with JS 
disabled) is not critical, then that is an important datapoint.

> I think this sort of attitude highlights why the WHAT-WG isn't 
> particularly correct when it says degradibility is an absolute 
> requirement, if people are happy to say "bog off browser not supported" 
> then we might aswell go straight to good solutions and not harp on 
> trying to tweak to text/html until it's even more of a mess.

I haven't yet seen anyone say that compatibility with IE6 isn't important, 
and that has always been the most important factor here. There's a huge 
leap of logic from "compatibility with the minority of browsers that don't 
support JS is not important" to "compatibility with the most deployed user 
agent is not importnat".

Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'

More information about the whatwg mailing list