[Bug 10068] Suggest making noscript obsolete but conforming


--- Comment #66 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-08-25 19:27:40 ---
(In reply to comment #65)
> (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);
> Then the content will briefly appear on page load before disappearing.  You
> could solve this by something like
> <script>document.write("<style>.nojs { display: none }</style>");</script>
> and then use class="nojs", but <noscript> is easier and more standard, and has
> no disadvantages that I'm aware of.  The major use-case here is something like
> a game that can have no meaningful graceful degradation -- what's the point in
> forcing authors to roll their own <noscript> in that case?  As your code
> demonstrates, non-<noscript> ways to do this are likely to be buggy or flawed.

I turned off JS and tested about 20 or so games. None of them used noscript. If
you access the pages with no JS, the games just don't play. So I don't see that
the gaming community is going to tear its collective hair out if noscript is

JavaScript games are an edge case. Even for these edge cases, I provided a
solution that is more elegant--you provide a intro page that has rules,
requirements, etc and then include a link to the game. If people link directly
to the game, so what?

Seriously, so what? 

Oh my god, the web as we know is going to end because people access a
javascript game with JS turned off, and it doesn't play? Horrors!

Sorry, unbecoming sarcasm. I just don't think we should determine the course of
HTML based on edge cases, and JavaScript games ARE edge cases. 

People use JS all the time to change the appearance of the page after the page
is loaded. It is the basis of progressive enhancement, which really is
considered the preferable approach to JS development now. And yes, you could be
using an old Windows 98 machine that actually shows the change taking place,
but you know, I imagine the people using the Windows 98 machine have worst

Pages changing after loading? That's all you find on the web today, as twitter
boxes, and Google ads, and Digg this, and Reddit that slow up page loadings and
flip things around to the point where you can't even access the content until
two minutes have passed. I'd think a slight flicker on some older machines just
isn't that big a deal. And there's ways to even limit the flicker, and doing so
doesn't require uber JS skills. 

I have to ask: is this conversation going anywhere? I'm not going to speak for
Gez (who is more polite than me), but I'm not going to change my mind. The
editor has spoken, and an issue created. We could take this to an email list
and try to compromise, but this really isn't a compromise situation: either we
deprecate noscript, or we don't. There really isn't a lot of give. 

Should we not just move on to the Decision Process at this point?

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 19:27:43 UTC