- From: <bugzilla@jessica.w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:18:22 +0000
- To: public-html-bugzilla@w3.org
http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=10068 --- Comment #14 from Gez Lemon <gez.lemon@gmail.com> 2010-07-07 15:18:21 --- (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #7) > > Not only is progressive enhancement a much better technique for dealing with > > cases where scripts are not supported in the client, it also caters for the > > case where the browser does support scripting, but all scripts are removed by a > > proxy server. > > This is bad craftsmanship too, such crude proxy servers ought to be handling > noscript elements too. It is not the responsibility of the HTML author to > anticipate and mitigate this scenario. I agree it is a crude method, but it is a method that is used. In these environments, trusted scripts are allowed through the proxy, so not only is the browser capable of scripting, it is used to execute trusted scripts. The content of the noscript element is only rendered when a browser cannot execute scripts, so is not seen in these environments. The scenario can be avoided when authors avoid noscript and use progressive enhancement instead. -- 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, 7 July 2010 15:18:24 UTC