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

Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:04:12 -0400
Message-ID: <abd6c8010607250804o1062cabbi548d743a194d5ff3@mail.gmail.com>
To: www-html@w3.org

On 7/25/06, Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au> wrote:
> 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>

That is a general problem with feature-by-feature testing and is well
outside the scope of noscript. Feature-by-feature testing is something
that has more to do with the concept of cross-platform, cross-UA
coding.

-- 

Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 15:04:22 GMT

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