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

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

From: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
Date: Sat, 22 Nov 2003 00:43:19 +1100
Message-ID: <3FBE1677.8040309@postoffice.csu.edu.au>
To: Toby A Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
Cc: www-html@w3.org

>> This would lose all the semantic value that having a <noscript> element provide
>
><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.

  Just because the <noscript> element is not displayed for UAs that 
support the scripting languge used, and is for UAs that don't, does not 
make it a presentational element.  A noscript element tells the UA that 
this section is specifically for use only when scripting is not 
supported or disabled.  Defining class or id attributes and setting the 
style to 'display:none;' does not inform the UA that the section is only 
for UAs that don't, or can't, use scripts, even though it may have the 
same presentational effect.
Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 08:43:38 UTC

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