On Sun, 24 Mar 2013 11:03:16 +0100 Jacob Carlborg <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2013-03-23 18:47, Nick Sabalausky wrote: > > > Totally different domain. We're talking about replacing JS due to > > JS's problems when used heavily. Any site that uses JS that heavily > > in the first place wouldn't be working on IE6 anyway. So, if you're > > making such a JS-heavy site that a "NewJS" could even matter at > > all, then you've *already* made the decision (explicitly or > > implicitly, ill-advised or not) to not support IE6. > > > > In other words, a site that needs to work on IE6 isn't going to > > be JS-heavy enough to benefit from "NewJS". Therefore, > > the whole issue of a "NewJS" isn't relevant to IE6 at all. > > What I mean is that users don't upgrade to the latest version of > their browser. > That's why there's the "fallback to JS" stuff.
