- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 25 Aug 2010 12:01:42 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068
--- Comment #64 from Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com> 2010-08-25 12:01:38 ---
(In reply to comment #63)
> It's simple enough to provide fallback content that is removed with JavaScript
> without the need for a noscript element:
> Markup:
> <div id="nojs">
> <h2>JavaScript Required</h2>
> <p>Unfortunately, Javascript is required to use this application.
> Alternatively, you can use the <a href="...">Flash version of XYZ</a> or <a
> href="...">some other version</a> of the game we have lovingly prepared for
> you.</p>
> </div>
> JavaScript:
> var objRemove = document.getElementById('nojs');
> objRemove.parentElement.removeChild(objRemove);
Hmm, or just use NOSCRIPT. I'd say NOSCRIPT was more semantically appropriate
personally. I see no issue using NOSCRIPT unless the author is thinking of
duplicating functionality within it, *then* use progressive enhancement
instead. But that is an issue I have with maintainability, design and best
practice, not against the NOSCRIPT element.
--
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Wednesday, 25 August 2010 12:01:43 UTC