Follow @Openwall on Twitter for new release announcements and other news
[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2012 14:00:26 +1000
From: Conrad Pankoff <>
Subject: Re: Wiki for musl?

Hi, "web person" here. I'm going to have to disagree with part of this.

On 14/06/2012, at 1:10 PM, Kurt H Maier wrote:
>> For pure static content broken into
>> logical pages, I'm perfectly happy without any ajax, but if the site
>> is something interactive/editable or an "application" of sorts, I
>> don't like it to feel like a second-class citizen in the world of
>> applications.
>> Graceful fallback to non-AJAX when JS is disabled (or in browsers that
>> don't support JS) is of course a requirement for an accessible site.
> That graceful degradation is a unicorn that has never been caught.  The
> de facto solution that web people have adopted is in the style of
> google: AJAX wherever possible, with a failover site written in regular
> HTML.  The two front ends share no components and will double your
> development and maintenance costs up front.  Recently Google has begun
> to drop the HTML alternatives; GMail is a notable exception.  You should
> consider whether it's worth your time to support both front ends; most
> places ignore the non-ajax crew.  I would prefer not to, but you'll
> receive no acrimony from me if you make that decision.

I've personally written a few sites that work exactly this way - but from the opposite direction (I think the marketing guys call it "progressive enhancement"). By default, they are regular old HTML and no crazy ajax stuff. Then some JavaScript comes along and applies behavioural changes to the page to enable the fun stuff.

In saying this, however, it's not a trivial task to put together a site in this fashion.


Powered by blists - more mailing lists

Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.