- From: David Dorward <david@dorward.me.uk>
- Date: Wed, 11 May 2005 12:51:06 +0100
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 12:37:38PM +0100, Stuart Smith wrote: > That said, I am definitely not saying you shouldn't use. You might want to > research the <noscript> tag which hides scripts from browsers not using it. > You can then embed an alternative. Noscript hides content from browsers which have JavaScript enabled, it doesn't hide scripts from anything - they just get ignored if they are not supported. It won't help in this case anyway, since (based on the description): (a) and script degraces gracefully anyway (and degrading gracefully is much preferable to the boolean <noscript>ness which (for example) would give situations such as a script which depending on DOM 2 not working on Netscape 4 (since NS4 doesn't do DOM 2), but the <noscript> content wouldn't be displayed either (since NS4 does do JS)). and (b) a lot of AT packages are just wrappers around Internet Explorer which will still execute the JavaScript anyway. > <noscript> > <body> The <noscript> element may not contain a <body> element in any version of (X)HTML. -- David Dorward http://dorward.me.uk
Received on Wednesday, 11 May 2005 11:51:15 UTC