W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2005

[whatwg] no <noscript> proposal

From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 08:11:12 -0700
Message-ID: <84ce626f0505300811160128b4@mail.gmail.com>
Hello,

On 5/30/05, Mikko Rantalainen <mikko.rantalainen at peda.net> wrote:
> Anne van Kesteren wrote:
> > Christian Biesinger wrote:

[...]

> > He's correct for a bit though. If you have the following element:
> >
> >   <div id="noscript">
> >    <p>Foo bar, etc.</p>
> >   </div>
> >
> > You could easily remove that DIV from the flow using javascript. And
> > when javascript is disabled it would show up. Of course, compared to
> > NOSCRIPT this is suboptimal at best.
> 
> I disagree. The <noscript> element is seldom used for anything else
> but "this page requires javascript to work".

I (and others) have used the <noscript> tag quite a bit for displaying
(what alot of people seem to call) "rich media" (for some reason) and
having gracefull fall backs.  Basically, the code looks something like
this:

    <script src="..." type="text/javascript"></script>
    <noscript>
        <iframe src="...">
            <a href="..."><img src="..." /></a>
        </iframe>
    </noscript>

So,... at first we try and run the JavaScript code to display the
"rich media".  If that doesn't work, then we try and use the iframe. 
If that doesn't work (because the browser is too old) then we try and
display the image.

(It would probably be nice if there was a "noimage" tag, for text
browser... but there isn't.)


See ya

-- 
     Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

     charles @ reptile.ca
     supercanadian @ gmail.com
___________________________________________________________________________
 Wikibooks, Free Open-Content Books                  http://wikibooks.org/
Received on Monday, 30 May 2005 08:11:12 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 16:58:41 UTC