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: Thu, 26 Aug 2010 13:05:04 +0000
To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
Message-Id: <E1Ooc8e-0006C2-1K@jessica.w3.org>
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068





--- Comment #70 from Shelley Powers <shelleyp@burningbird.net>  2010-08-26 13:05:03 ---
(In reply to comment #68)
> (In reply to comment #59) 
> > There are very distinct differences between deprecating something and making
> > something immediately obsolete.
> 
> But these distinctions reflect general concerns about the HTML obsolescence
> track itself, rather than making a material difference in the case of
> "noscript" *in particular*, right?
> 
> > Deprecating noscript is saying that every instance of its use has an
> > alternative, better approach.
> 
> Indeed.
> 
> > I happen to believe this is true. Gez does also, as he stated when filing the bug.
> 
> I tried to describe an analytics use case for "noscript" in comment #43: record
> the maximum information available about a user or user interaction with a
> single HTTP request (trading the loss of information for a small proportion of
> users for performance and cost gains).
> 
> Nobody has given grounds for dismissing that use case, requested specific
> additional information, suggested any "better approach", or conceded that
> "noscript" is arguably appropriate for that use case. Would anyone who favours
> moving "noscript" along the obsolescence track care to comment one way or the
> other?

You sure about Google Analytics using noscript? I know that Google discourages
the use of noscript[1] because it has been so badly abused. I checked out the
code for Google Analytics, and I don't see the use of noscript. 


[1]
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/Webmasters/thread?tid=371b9ed951f93d9d&hl=en

-- 
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 Thursday, 26 August 2010 13:05:05 UTC

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