Thinking there may be a core misunderstanding about what backward compatibility can, is, and should be. How do you define it?
May 17, 2013 · 8:26 PM UTC
3
3
@mollydotcom can't we just have forward compatibility instead? :( #wantprogressiveenhancement #nocanhas
1
@kirabug We move forward too fast for interop right now. This makes your life, and mine, much harder. We also need a better def of PE IMO.
1
@mollydotcom backwards compatible = content is accessible even on an old old machine. Probably need to think broader than web dev though.
1
1
@eyesofjeremy Web principles specifically encourage content accessible. What specifically do you mean re "broader than web dev" - curious!
1
1
@mollydotcom "works in Lynx" = backwards compatible :) (although I the stuff I'm making now might not since everything is so JS-driven)