W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > July 2010

[Bug 10068] Deprecate noscript

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Jul 2010 09:04:19 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1OW44h-0004n1-1E@jessica.w3.org>

Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
                 CC|                            |lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.
                   |                            |com

--- Comment #5 from Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com>  2010-07-06 09:04:18 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I think the noscript element should be deprecated, as it's better practice for
> developers to design pages that work without JavaScript and progressively
> enhance them using JavaScript, than assume JavaScript is supported and then
> provide some fall back content if it isn't.
> From the examples of noscript content we find on the Web, most contain
> unhelpful information such as "Your browser does not support JavaScript". It's
> good that it's mentioned for backwards compatibility, but it doesn't really
> serve a useful purpose, and developers should be discouraged from using it.

I understand this, but progressive enhancement means the default view in the
unhelpful examples you have found will probably be "Your browser does not
support JavaScript" (which is a useful purpose in a sense that it's better than
saying nothing at all).  And in true spirit of shoddy design,
JavaScript-enabled users may see this message for a split second, before the
progressive enhancement takes effect, unlike with noscript, which is invisible
from the start for such users.  Again this can be avoided, for example if CSS
is available, but noscript takes care of this from the outset.

In good examples however, we use noscript to replace print buttons and window
closing buttons, saying things like "please use the print facility provided by
your browser", or "you may now close this window".  OK, you might be able to
work around noscript, but noscript is the neatest solution for these cases.

I'm absolutely aligned with your sentiments incidentally, but I think this
proposal is dealing with the tool rather than the craftsman.

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 Tuesday, 6 July 2010 09:04:20 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 16:30:51 UTC