[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
On Sunday 06 May 2007 11:06, Neil Williams wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2007 08:58:19 +0100 > > Neil Winchurst <neil@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Javascript has a limited role even in strict HTML4 - it is NOT suitable > > > as a work-around for bad HTML. > > > > Are you saying that it is not worth the effort to learn javascript at > > all? I thought it could be quite useful for some things. > > Well, put it this way: I stopped using Javascript 5 years ago and > haven't missed it yet. > > In many, many cases, the roles that Javascript was intended to fill are > better suited to server side scripting. Try turning Javascript off in > your browser and browse a few sites. Javascript tends to be IE-only, > used to excess in inappropriate areas and is generally buggy. Trying to > get any accessibility or browser-independence for a website can only be > hindered by Javascript. > > Don't learn Javascript. Learn PHP. Learn both! Just because some people abuse something doesn't mean we all have to stop using it. PHP wont do dynamic client side and that is IMHO a REAL requirement for certain web pages. Filling in some long forms with things that can be checked in javascript is far preferable to multiple page reloads - but you will still have to check the data server side for those that have no javascript. Ajax and Web2 will cause all sorts of new problems but in time will lead to fantastic web sites that, alas, will not be fully usable by all. But why always go for the lowest common denominator? You can plagiarise a lot of GPL code for cross browser compatability - most of the ajax implementations and fckeditor have some useful stuff. Some things you cant offer to all web users but you can make other users lives a lot easier by using dynamic client side judiciously. Tom te tom te tom -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html