W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html-editor@w3.org > July to September 1997

Re: The Problem With <NOSCRIPT>

From: Russ Thomas <rthomas@easynet.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 1997 11:55:24 +0100
Message-Id: <199707171105.MAA10911@orange.easynet.co.uk>
To: "Rev. Bob" <rev-bob@full-moon.com>
Cc: <hwg-newtech@hwg.org>, <www-html-editor@w3.org>

 ----
From: Rev. Bob <rev-bob@full-moon.com>
> > Here's what I propose.  Before the LANGUAGE attribute can be
> > depreciated, it needs a replacement that will adequately substitute
> > for the information that it provides.  To that end, I propose
> > allowing the <NOSCRIPT> tag to take the TYPE attribute, as well as
> > developing a new VER (version) attribute that would apply to both
> > <SCRIPT> and <NOSCRIPT>.
>
> Yes, that's workable I believe.  Yet in a multi-scripting environment
> it may prove messy - maybe?  If NOSCRIPT was by definition associated
> with SCRIPT (aliken this to FRAMESET/NOFRAMES) then a disassociated
> pair matching need not take place...
>
> <title>Document Title</title>
> <script [who_cares]>Boogedy!<br>
> <noscript>
> uh... I'm confused...
> </noscript>
> </script>
> End of text.
>
> In this model, there is no need to match attr pairs
>
> Anyone see any holes here?

Yep, I see a big one - the contents of <script> should be commented out
for non-scripting browsers, which means that those browsers which most
need the <noscript> content will never see it.
===============
Agreed - tho' I'd argue thats is adding excuses to hang onto a cobbled-together
-fudge... surely the time WILL come when this is unnecessary. And besides, a
suitable doctype forwarns of author's intent (assuming one is avalable).  Why
we needed the comments in the first place and simultaneously didn't need them
for FRAMSETs is testement to the fact that this stuff was added as
non-standards driven, unratified "really good ideas" <g>.
==

Also, consider the case in which someone scripts content in multiple
languages on the same page, and may want to use the same <noscript>
contents for all of 'em.
========
I thought I did... here it is requoted:

>>Further - in XML it would be possible to "point" 
>>all NOSCRIPTs to one place. Think the same is almost
>>true with CSS... need to think about that one tho'.

as we are talking "futures" (wishes) here I would prefer the "solution" to
take advantage of ratified standards (and "official" proposals) and dispense
with tacky hangovers from the past.
==

  (In that circumstance, it would be helpful if
the VER and TYPE attributes in <NOSCRIPT> could be comma-delineated
lists, ie. <noscript type="text/jss,text/tcl" ver="1.2,1.0"> - in which
the contents are displayed if neither JavaScript 1.2 nor TCL 1.0 are
recognized.
===============
yep that would work too - I do agree Bob, just think this could get messy. 
Usual trade-offs, for maximum fexibility go with (your) comma delimited ver
lists.  Ease of use - embed noscript in script.

...interesting.

Russ
Received on Thursday, 17 July 1997 06:58:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:42 GMT