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

Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript

From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:46:05 +1000
Message-ID: <44C62EAD.5000002@lachy.id.au>
To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
CC: www-html@w3.org

Orion Adrian wrote:
> noscript is a convenience. That's all. While it's possible to do as
> you suggest, noscript is much easier to read and much cleaner. It
> produces a nicer output for search engines and it's a standard way of
> saying what you just put there. It also doesn't rely on CSS which may
> also not be supported.

A major problem with noscript is that it doesn't distinguish between a 
browser that fully supports the script and one that has script enabled 
but doesn't implement the required features.

<script>
   if (!document.getElementById) {
     ...
   }
</script>

<noscript>
<p>Browsers with script enabled that don't pass that test will not see 
the result of the script, nor this alternative content.
</noscript>

-- 
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 14:46:29 GMT

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