http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #64 from Lee Kowalkowski <lee.kowalkowski@googlemail.com> 2010-08-25 12:01:38 --- (In reply to comment #63) > It's simple enough to provide fallback content that is removed with JavaScript > without the need for a noscript element: > Markup: > <div id="nojs"> > <h2>JavaScript Required</h2> > <p>Unfortunately, Javascript is required to use this application. > Alternatively, you can use the <a href="...">Flash version of XYZ</a> or <a > href="...">some other version</a> of the game we have lovingly prepared for > you.</p> > </div> > JavaScript: > var objRemove = document.getElementById('nojs'); > objRemove.parentElement.removeChild(objRemove); Hmm, or just use NOSCRIPT. I'd say NOSCRIPT was more semantically appropriate personally. I see no issue using NOSCRIPT unless the author is thinking of duplicating functionality within it, *then* use progressive enhancement instead. But that is an issue I have with maintainability, design and best practice, not against the NOSCRIPT element. -- 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 Wednesday, 25 August 2010 12:01:43 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 20:01:21 UTC