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

Re: <link> vs. <script> for external scripts

From: Toby A Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:43:09 +0000
To: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
Cc: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <20031121114308.GA24730@ophelia.goddamn.co.uk>
On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:45:18AM +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote:
| >>I'm not even entirely sure that we need <noscript/>. What about:
| >>
| >><body onload="document.getElementById('noscript').style.display='none';">
| >>	<h1>Example</h1>
| >>	<p id="noscript">This paragraph acts more or less the same as a
| >>	<code>&lt;noscript/&gt;</code> element.</p>
| >></body>
| >>
|  That would not work if there were multiple noscript sections, since 
| they can't all have the same id.  

That's not really the point though, is it?

| You would have to use the DOM to 
| manipulate the style sheet rule for the class "noscript" instead.

Or use:
document.getElementById('noscript1').style.display='none';
document.getElementById('noscript2').style.display='none';
document.getElementById('noscript3').style.display='none';

There are various ways of doing it, but the end result is the same.

| >Good one! I Didn't think of that one.
| >I absolutely agree.
| >
| >This is much nicer than the <noscript/> element and it eliminates the 
| >problems with the content model of <noscript/>.
| >
|  This would lose all the semantic value that having a <noscript> 
| element provides.

<noscript/> provides semantic value? Oh, I get it! It's a joke! Very
funny.

<noscript/> is all about processing and presentation, and none about
semantics.

-- 
Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS
Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132

Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 06:43:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 5 February 2014 23:40:10 UTC