[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

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





--- Comment #21 from Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com>  2010-07-07 20:28:53 ---
(In reply to comment #20)
> (In reply to comment #13)
> > HTML web developers have an obligation to ensure their applications respond
> > gracefully in all situations, including no JavaScript support, or even scripts
> > being stripped. 
> 
> The more such comments on this issue I am reading the more I think that
> noscript should not be deprecated.
> 
> Such an "obligation" does not exist.
> 
> Many customers or clients do not care much (if at all) about situations where
> JavaScript is not available and will not pay for time spent on preparing for
> such situations. And they also often do not even care if the HTML-code is
> valid. None of that will be changed by declaring noscript deprecated.

Could you provide an example of where noscript is beneficial, couldn't have
been achieved using any other technique, and is robust? If people don't care,
they don't care; there's not much we can do about that with or without the
noscript element. The noscript element was well-intended, but in practice,
hasn't worked very well. Keeping it isn't going to make web pages more robust
and work when scripting isn't available. Deprecating it (or whatever the HTML5
equivalent is) will at least make those that care look at other techniques to
ensure their pages do work when scripting isn't available, which is what we
ultimately want to happen. The same cannot be said for keeping noscript, as it
encourages people to think in terms of graceful degradation (except not very
gracefully).

If you have use-cases for noscript that are robust and couldn't be achieved by
any other method, then I might understand your argument to keep it. I've yet to
read a convincing argument for retaining it.

-- 
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, 7 July 2010 20:28:55 UTC