On Jan 2, 8:28 am, Daniel <[email protected]> wrote:
> I'm not saying that just because Google does something it makes it ok.
> I'm just hoping that as developers we don't become so dogmatic in our
> approach that we forget to ask "why." 10 years ago it was safe to say
> that progressive enhancement was the best development strategy for
> every developer and every project. It certainly still is the best
> appoarch if I'm creating a blog or targeting the enterprise market.
> However, the web is becoming SO MUCH more than just a collection of
> documents and hyperlinks. If the core of a given development project
> is a rich application-style experience, it doesn't make the developer
> more ignorant for requiring javascript. At that point it's a HR/budget
> discussion -- "will adding $x amount of time to support a static
> experience result in $y financial return." I'm just giving the
HR does not normally make such decisions.Not any company that wants to
be profitable at least.
> developers at Google and Twitter the benefit of the doubt that they
> have had that discussion, and the final decision was not a matter of
> "willful ignorance" on their part.
Comp.lang.javascript posters were pretty vociferous about templating.
It was darn near impossible to ignore us. Some of us got really
frustrated with such messes.
Honestly, I don't really know why "Google+" uses that approach or why
twitter has, in the past, use body { display: none } causing the page
to be blank. I do know that that approach causes problems and in the
case of Twitter.com, I recall the blank page. Best avoided.
See also:
"Encapsulation and js, html, css "
--
Garrett
Twitter: @xkit
personx.tumblr.com
--
To view archived discussions from the original JSMentors Mailman list:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To search via a non-Google archive, visit here:
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
[email protected]
