[whatwg] Menus, fallback, and backwards compatibility: ideas wanted
lachlan.hunt at lachy.id.au
Fri Dec 2 07:18:24 PST 2005
Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> I just don't see the thing as it is used in Gmail for example as a
> form. More as a standalone widget separate from the form.
It's not a form in the traditional sense, it is designed as a standalone
widget. The form is just there for fallback to give server side
processing when required.
>>> Now assuming scripting is more or less required for applications
>> Why should script be required for applications?
> I believe this was one of the baselines once mentioned here on this
> list by Ian. I kind of agree with that. Making everything fallback is
> just not going to work. And accessibility clients can just build on
> top of the DOM (what they should do anyway).
with limited or no JS support isn't just limited to those that choose to
disable it or accessibility clients.
Besides, the best practices now being encouraged with DOM Scripting
involves using "progressive enhancement" so that applications degrade
gracefully for users without JS, and building applications that
unconditionally require JS is like going back to the old junky "DHTML"
sites of the '90s that we've been pushing away from for the last few
years. Even Gmail and Google Maps have now accepted non-JS clients by
providing JS free alternatives.
>> I believe there should be fallback for users with JS disabled,
> We are talking about applications here.
And why shouldn't I be able to access such applications with my phone,
when I'm away from home? Why should such apps be limited to the desktop?
More information about the whatwg