- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Tue, 17 Aug 2010 09:28:34 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #29 from Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com> 2010-08-17 09:28:32 --- (In reply to comment #26) > The two examples where noscript could be used, provided earlier, does > not account for the fact that [not?] all instances of no script being supported > actually signal noscript to work. Depending on noscript means, then, that the > fallback functionality is not available. I was asserting that noscript is useful when there is no fallback functionality. There's no point in using progressive enhancement if there's no functionality to gracefully degrade to. -- 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 Tuesday, 17 August 2010 09:28:35 UTC