W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-html@w3.org > July 2006

Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript

From: Sebastian Redl <sebastian.redl@getdesigned.at>
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2006 20:42:53 +0200
Message-ID: <44C514AD.4050801@getdesigned.at>
To: www-html@w3.org

Johannes Koch wrote:

> I think, whether you need an alternative (noscript) for the scripting 
> depends on what is done in the script. If essential functionality is 
> added via scripting, a noscript alternative _is_ needed.

If the functionality is so essential, then all that could possibly be in 
the <noscript> element is a notice that the page doesn't work without 
JavaScript - something you can simply put in the page anyway and then 
remove with JavaScript. If scripting doesn't work, it won't get removed.

Given that, without document.write, all JS stuff is done after page 
load, you can simply emulate <noscript> functionality by having, for 
example, an element class 'noscript' and simply removing, with JS, all 
elements carrying this class prior to doing the real JS stuff.

Sebastian Redl
Received on Monday, 24 July 2006 18:43:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 27 March 2012 18:16:07 GMT