[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #43 from Benjamin Hawkes-Lewis <bhawkeslewis@googlemail.com>  2010-08-23 21:11:17 ---
(In reply to comment #0)
> I think the noscript element should be deprecated, as it's better practice for
> developers to design pages that work without JavaScript and progressively
> enhance them using JavaScript, than assume JavaScript is supported and then
> provide some fall back content if it isn't.

A common pattern in web analytics is to insert a tracking pixel gathering
information only available to JS (such as whether a browser has Flash
available) with a "script" element, but fall back to a less informative pixel
with "noscript". For example, Google Analytics uses this pattern.

Advertisements often use the same pattern, for example putting an image in
"noscript" and a rich media ad in "script".

This pattern only requires *one* HTTP request for tracking, but I think
progressive enhancement would require services to fire a second pixel with
additional information.

Progressive enhancement might be somewhat more robust, but suffering some
inaccuracy or loss of impressions introduced by corporate filters may be
preferable to increasing the number of HTTP requests - with associated
bandwidth costs to end-users, performance costs to publishers, and processing
costs to analytics/advertising services.

Can anyone proposing the deprecation of "noscript" suggest how such services
could avoid two HTTP requests for tracking?

In the absence of an alternative, I don't think I'd support deprecation, but I
do think web linters should provide advice about the tradeoffs involved with
"noscript".

-- 
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, 23 August 2010 21:11:21 UTC