On Mon, 31 Jul 2006 05:26:33 +0200, magick <jasper.magick@gmail.com> wrote: > But when it comes to something like this, can you really say <noscript> > isn't needed? I think I have an example you'd have to agree with, that > <noscript> *is* needed here. > > <script type='text/javascript'> > <!-- > document.write("<p><a href='javascript:sword_enlarge()'><img > src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My Sword' /></a></p>"); > //--> > </script> > <noscript><p><a href='sword.gif'><img src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My > Sword' /></a></p></noscript> Take a look at what it produces in the two cases: <a href='javascript:...'><img src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My Sword' /></a> <a href='sword.gif' ><img src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My Sword' /></a> Identical except for the content of the href attribute. This is exactly what I was referring to in my very first reply to you: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-html/2006Jul/0039 "you provide the initial content, and then modify it with DOM access methods, rather than using document.write. As a result, you don't need a method of providing <noscript> content." In this case your initial content is <a href='sword.gif'><img src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My Sword' /></a> and then you use DOM access methods to change the href attribute. Best wishes, Steven PembertonReceived on Monday, 31 July 2006 12:04:26 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 July 2008 07:54:33 GMT