[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #68 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>  2010-08-25 22:21:00 ---
(In reply to comment #59) 
> There are very distinct differences between deprecating something and making
> something immediately obsolete.

But these distinctions reflect general concerns about the HTML obsolescence
track itself, rather than making a material difference in the case of
"noscript" *in particular*, right?

> Deprecating noscript is saying that every instance of its use has an
> alternative, better approach.

Indeed.

> I happen to believe this is true. Gez does also, as he stated when filing the bug.

I tried to describe an analytics use case for "noscript" in comment #43: record
the maximum information available about a user or user interaction with a
single HTTP request (trading the loss of information for a small proportion of
users for performance and cost gains).

Nobody has given grounds for dismissing that use case, requested specific
additional information, suggested any "better approach", or conceded that
"noscript" is arguably appropriate for that use case. Would anyone who favours
moving "noscript" along the obsolescence track care to comment one way or the
other?

-- 
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 22:21:04 UTC