W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > January 2003

Re: My thoughts on XHTML 2

From: Jim Dabell <jim-www-html@jimdabell.com>
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 16:46:12 +0000
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-Id: <200301231646.12386.jim-www-html@jimdabell.com>


On Thursday 23 January 2003 3:37 pm, Jonas Jørgensen wrote:
> Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP] wrote:
> >>Assuming DOM support, there is no real need for
> >><noscript> - and only modern, future browsers will
> >>support XHTML 2 you may assume this
> >
> > I would respectfully strongly disagree; even using the most
> > modern browser(s), I still operate with JavaScript disabled
> > by default
>
> I don't understand your argument. Why do you think XHTML 2.0 needs the
> <noscript> element?

Well perhaps I have misunderstood, but your argument appears to be that 
there is no reason to cater to XHTML 2.0 user-agents that don't process 
scripts.  Or are you saying that there is a better way of rendering content 
for only non-script-processing user-agents?

Jonas was pointing out a single reason why an XHTML 2.0 user-agent would not 
process scripts - user choice.  An informed choice, btw, considering the 
history of browser security.  CERT have recommended disabling scripting in 
browsers on quite a few occasions, I believe.

I don't see the ability to run scripts as a fundamental part of XHTML 2.0, 
and I'm sure plenty of user-agents will not implement it, and the vast 
majority that do will have an option to switch it off.

I don't particularly like the <noscript> element, but I don't particularly 
like the <script> element either.  Shouldn't every use of the <script> 
element be covered by a linked script that takes its cue from the page 
structure?


-- 
Jim Dabell
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 11:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:15:54 GMT