You are viewing a plain text version of this content. The canonical link for it is here.
Posted to users@wicket.apache.org by bmarvell <ma...@gmail.com> on 2007/09/06 11:41:41 UTC
Progressive Enhancement
Guys,
While I'm ruffling the wicket feathers I thought I'd ask about about another
issue that's been bothering me with wicket.
>From what I can see you either have the option of using AJAX or not. This is
all well and good but they seem like very forked approaches. So what I'm
trying to say is has there been any thought into taking a progressive
enhancement approach?
Taking that approach would mean pages that "were ajax" would work if the the
user disabled javascript or not. Not to mention a whole wealth of other
benefits that can be found here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
Just a question/thought don't flame me ;)
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Progressive-Enhancement-tf4390623.html#a12518275
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Progressive Enhancement
Posted by Martijn Dashorst <ma...@gmail.com>.
See AjaxFallbackLink [1] and friends.
Martijn
[1] http://people.apache.org/~tobrien/wicket/apidocs/org/apache/wicket/ajax/markup/html/AjaxFallbackLink.html
On 9/6/07, bmarvell <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> While I'm ruffling the wicket feathers I thought I'd ask about about another
> issue that's been bothering me with wicket.
>
> From what I can see you either have the option of using AJAX or not. This is
> all well and good but they seem like very forked approaches. So what I'm
> trying to say is has there been any thought into taking a progressive
> enhancement approach?
>
> Taking that approach would mean pages that "were ajax" would work if the the
> user disabled javascript or not. Not to mention a whole wealth of other
> benefits that can be found here...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
>
> Just a question/thought don't flame me ;)
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Progressive-Enhancement-tf4390623.html#a12518275
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
--
Buy Wicket in Action: http://manning.com/dashorst
Apache Wicket 1.3.0-beta3 is released
Get it now: http://www.apache.org/dyn/closer.cgi/wicket/1.3.0-beta3/
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Progressive Enhancement
Posted by Matej Knopp <ma...@gmail.com>.
You can have this kind of degradation with wicket. Just use
AjaxFallbackLink and AjaxFallbackButton, they work both with or
without Ajax, depending on user capabilities.
-Matej
On 9/6/07, bmarvell <ma...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Guys,
>
> While I'm ruffling the wicket feathers I thought I'd ask about about another
> issue that's been bothering me with wicket.
>
> From what I can see you either have the option of using AJAX or not. This is
> all well and good but they seem like very forked approaches. So what I'm
> trying to say is has there been any thought into taking a progressive
> enhancement approach?
>
> Taking that approach would mean pages that "were ajax" would work if the the
> user disabled javascript or not. Not to mention a whole wealth of other
> benefits that can be found here...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_enhancement
>
> Just a question/thought don't flame me ;)
> --
> View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Progressive-Enhancement-tf4390623.html#a12518275
> Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Progressive Enhancement
Posted by bmarvell <ma...@gmail.com>.
Thanks :)
Erik van Oosten wrote:
>
> Here is an article on the subject:
>
> http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/2007/01/backward-compatible-ajax-development.html
>
> Regards,
> Erik.
>
>
>> Taking that approach would mean pages that "were ajax" would
>> work if the the user disabled javascript or not. Not to mention
>> a whole wealth of other benefits that can be found here...
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
>
>
>
--
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/Progressive-Enhancement-tf4390623.html#a12520702
Sent from the Wicket - User mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org
Re: Progressive Enhancement
Posted by Erik van Oosten <e....@chello.nl>.
Here is an article on the subject:
http://day-to-day-stuff.blogspot.com/2007/01/backward-compatible-ajax-development.html
Regards,
Erik.
> Taking that approach would mean pages that "were ajax" would
> work if the the user disabled javascript or not. Not to mention
> a whole wealth of other benefits that can be found here...
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: users-unsubscribe@wicket.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: users-help@wicket.apache.org