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

[whatwg] no <noscript> proposal

From: Jim Ley <jim.ley@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 19:16:44 +0100
Message-ID: <851c8d3105053011164188ebcd@mail.gmail.com>
On 5/30/05, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello,> > 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.

this isn't what happens in the above case at all, if the script code
doesn't work, then the fallback content is not displayed, it's only
displayed if script is not supported at all, script capable user
agents like Nokias internal browser will still execute your script,
not manage to display any "rich media", yet the noscript will also not
be displayed.

As Kornel has said noscript is useless for fallback, as it only
fallbacks in the case of script/noscript, yet script capable user
agents are so varied that there's no way any non-trivial script is
going to successfully work in them all.

Removing noscript is an excellent idea.

Cheers,

Jim.
Received on Monday, 30 May 2005 11:16:44 UTC

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