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

Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Jul 2006 18:05:08 +0100
To: www-html@w3.org
Message-ID: <eag4g3$qj4$1@sea.gmane.org>


"Mark Birbeck" <mark.birbeck@x-port.net> wrote in message 
news:640dd5060607290927x36ab63a9x1bf03c09cdfb1b8@mail.gmail.com...
>> Now if someone has JS enabled, they'll see the link, if not they see
>> nothing.  It's the best of both worlds.
>
> That is an example of using <noscript>, that's true, but there is no
> *need* for this. Your use of document.write() is to create something
> in the document that would only be accessible to someone who has
> script enabled, but that can just as easily be done like this:

Unfortunately this has just changed the problem to require a <nostyle>, 
since the below requires that display:none be supported, it also requires 
CSS OM support (which may be independant of other sorts of script support) 
Of course it would work fine in many situations, and this is mostly a 
problem of assuming binary enviroments, either script/noscript etc.

> There are plenty of other ways this could be done, but the key point
> is that we therefore don't *need* the <noscript> element in an *XHTML*
> browser.

Definately not, it would be extremely bad to have one.

Jim. 
Received on Saturday, 29 July 2006 17:05:39 GMT

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