W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > September 2002

Re: Comments about the 2002-08-05 XHTML 2.0 WD

From: David Woolley <david@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 28 Sep 2002 14:48:12 +0100 (BST)
Message-Id: <200209281348.g8SDmDq01839@djwhome.demon.co.uk>
To: www-html@w3.org

> If, in this case, the DOM WG chooses to endorse the Mozilla-style 
> non-support of document.write in XML (which I think would make sense), 

I've always read the W3C DOMs as not allowing document.write on the
loading document, so I've always interpreted that common usage as
being a DOM 0 feature; I wish there were a document that defined
DOM 0.

> > There are still uses for having script elements inside the body, with
> > or without document.write(). For example, some server-side technologies

They use I've found for document.write at load time is when marketing 
people insist that there be a Javascript "button" (quite often just 
duplicating the browser back button and typically an image link)
that is non-essential.  There is no inverse equivalent in HTML 4 (not
checked XHTML 2) for <noscript> which is only included when scripting
is enabled.  Without the load time scripting and given that marketing
people tend to "know best" on such issues, one is left with a dead 
control for users without scripting.

This is probably an argument for a <hasscripting> element, or, if XML
allows it, conditional content flags that indicate the presence of
scripting capability, rather than for load time scripting.
Received on Saturday, 28 September 2002 10:15:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:52 GMT