W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-html-bugzilla@w3.org > August 2010

[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2010 22:31:59 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ol8Dn-0008TE-PB@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068


Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net> changed:

           What    |Removed                     |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
             Status|RESOLVED                    |REOPENED
         Resolution|WONTFIX                     |




--- Comment #26 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-08-16 22:31:59 ---
(In reply to comment #25)
> EDITOR'S RESPONSE: This is an Editor's Response to your comment. If you are
> satisfied with this response, please change the state of this bug to CLOSED. If
> you have additional information and would like the editor to reconsider, please
> reopen this bug. If you would like to escalate the issue to the full HTML
> Working Group, please add the TrackerRequest keyword to this bug, and suggest
> title and text for the tracker issue; or you may create a tracker issue
> yourself, if you are able to do so. For more details, see this document:
>    http://dev.w3.org/html5/decision-policy/decision-policy.html
> 
> Status: Rejected
> Change Description: no spec change
> Rationale: <noscript> is indeed blunt, but it still serves a valid purpose.
> What problem does making it obsolete solve?

Interesting. One is moved to ask, then, what problem does making longdesc
obsolete solve, if that's the question that must be asked for removing existing
elements and attributes. 

Anyway, I had thought I provided reasons for removing the attribute, earlier.
However, in case the writing isn't clear enough, I'm not asking to make it
obsolete; I'm asking to deprecating the attribute. No valid attribute and
element in HTML4 should be immediately shifted to obsolete, without an interim
period to allow people time to remove the element/attribute. 

Deprecating noscript would encourage people to move towards progressive
enhancement and not rely on graceful degradation, which was the purpose of
noscript. The two examples where noscript could be used, provided earlier, does
not account for the fact that all instances of no script being supported
actually signal noscript to work. Depending on noscript means, then, that the
fallback functionality is not available. 

This will have to be pushed to an issue, then.

-- 
Configure bugmail: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
You are the QA contact for the bug.
Received on Monday, 16 August 2010 22:32:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:21 UTC