You're basing your assumptions on a broken premise. You're clearly not browsing normally, but rather are crippling your browser in some way, after which you decide to bash whatever you can, without clearly identifying your methods.
As I mentioned earlier it's at the developer's discretion as to whether they want to enable JS degradation or not. Sometimes when an application is sufficiently complex a developer may choose not to, or not have certain actions map to links.
You shouldn't base your assumptions on one implementation, but rather, read what the technology claims to do and then try it so you can actually see, rather than just slash and burn.
It's people like you that really make me wonder whether we should even continue down the standards based route, or continue to support text-based browsers, as mentioned in our latest blog posts http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/, or http://dev.noloh.com/?/blog/ for you. Not a single client or user has ever asked for such features, but we always get complaints from the die-hards. So we work and implement it, to what effect? Next you'll complain that some app that uses NOLOH doesn't do XYZ. There's nothing we can do about that, we can't force users to upgrade, or implement a feature, we can only offer it.
Clearly it doesn't matter what we do, or how compatible we try to be, you won't care, won't listen, and won't actually try it.
Firefox 3.6.8 on Vista Home Premium x64 without js on. That's all.
If I were in the market for a web framework, I would not take it on faith that I could rely upon interoperability features the site claims but does not demonstrate. And I wouldn't write the demo myself unless I had already ruled out your competitors.
If you decide to drop it, I have no doubt you can still find a large potential market of developers either indifferent or ignorant about the ongoing disintegration of the open HTML web. It comes down to what kind of effect you're comfortable with having on the industry.
There we go, without js, which you didn't identify at first. Rather, you just started to list things that seems like they weren't working.
The best way to determine if something lives up to its claims is to try it. You can't look at sites done in NOLOH and then expect them to have implemented or turned on every feature.
Furthermore, it's amazing that when our competitors 280north, or Sproutcore, or whatever else is "cool" posts something nobody complains that you HAVE to have js. No degradation options, no text-based browsers. Nobody complains that their sites aren't in their tool, or that they have significantly less resources than we do.
As soon as we post something there's usually somebody that steers the conversation to a different topic and then criticizes us for one reason or another. In this case you successfully diverted the conversation from "single page" websites into a conversation on js degradation, which in the case of NOLOH is really irrelevant to most users.
Search engines get a different version from the js, non-js versions, thus the non-js version is only for humans that specifically decide to turn off their js. Could it be better, yes, will it be better, yes, can we mandate it, no.
> There we go, without js, which you didn't identify at first.
I thought it was fairly obvious that someone on a technical forum complaining about anchors not leading anywhere and hidden divs appearing on the page is using NoScript, or otherwise has javascript disabled.
>Rather, you just started to list things that seems like they weren't working.
Well, they weren't, were they?
> As soon as we post something there's usually somebody that steers the conversation to a different topic and then criticizes us for one reason or another.
Mm, kinda like how you complain about your competitors instead of addressing issues about your javascript degredation?
If you bring up your product as a solution, it seems reasonable to expect us to describe why it isn't.
You clearly decided to pick and choose what you want to respond to. That's no way to have an adult discussion, as such I won't reply to you further, otherwise you can easily advance any conversation into any direction you like.
Is it not normal to respond to only parts of a comment? That's why we developed quoting methods, right? Because, y'know, we may not have something to say about everything?
We have this fantastic thing called threaded discussion. There is not a direction for a conversation, but many, as is evidenced by the deeply-threaded messages on most technical boards (think Slashdot, not Digg).
As I mentioned earlier it's at the developer's discretion as to whether they want to enable JS degradation or not. Sometimes when an application is sufficiently complex a developer may choose not to, or not have certain actions map to links.
You shouldn't base your assumptions on one implementation, but rather, read what the technology claims to do and then try it so you can actually see, rather than just slash and burn.
It's people like you that really make me wonder whether we should even continue down the standards based route, or continue to support text-based browsers, as mentioned in our latest blog posts http://dev.noloh.com/#/blog/, or http://dev.noloh.com/?/blog/ for you. Not a single client or user has ever asked for such features, but we always get complaints from the die-hards. So we work and implement it, to what effect? Next you'll complain that some app that uses NOLOH doesn't do XYZ. There's nothing we can do about that, we can't force users to upgrade, or implement a feature, we can only offer it.
Clearly it doesn't matter what we do, or how compatible we try to be, you won't care, won't listen, and won't actually try it.