Re: Javascript repository or package for PEAR

<greg@chiaraquartet.net> wrote : >>> you are right, if you would like to make web-apps user-friendly you have >>> to use JS. >> >> I think that PEAR don't have to *depend* on JS. I mean that no PEAR >> package should not work if JS is disabled in (or not supported by) the >> browser, because is a PHP Repository. Even so, packages could add some >> *optional* JS stuff to make the package frendlier to the end user when >> JS is available. > > I think an application that allows customization and is specifically for > generating js makes a great deal of sense. > > On chiaraquartet.net, we generate a dynamic menu of our concerts by > extracting database information with php and generating JS that interfaces > with a js frontend. It works nicely, and since we use PHP, we can also use > a form-based approach for browsers that don't like js, or for people who > have disabled it. Honestly though, only a few developers disable > javascript, most users don't even know it exists, let alone how to disable > it. So, applications targeted at developers should have the ability to work > when the option to disable javascript is selected. Otherwise, working under > many situations is simply a bonus that makes an application better, I think I am ok to use javascript in webapps but only if it works on every browsers which is not the case most of the time. If you can't use a pear class because it relies on some buggy javascript, that's too bad. IMO, there should always be an option not to use javascript, even if the application doesn't behave as good as with javascript. In some companies, they turn off javascript and java (as well as flash) on employees browsers. Even worse, in some companies I know, they still use Netscape 4 ! ;) I agree with Pierre-Alain and think it would be a good idea to have javascripts in the HTML_Javascript package. Bertrand Mansion Mamasma