- From: Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 30 May 2005 11:46:40 -0700
Hello,
On 5/30/05, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Please excuse the confusion. When I said "doesn't work" (in that
case), I meant that JavaScript wasn't working. I.e, that either the
browser didn't have JavaScript support, or that JavaScript support was
turned off (by the user or whoever).
See ya
--
Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.
charles @ reptile.ca
supercanadian @ gmail.com
weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
Ask the toughest Linux System questions at... http://linuxmanagers.org/
Received on Monday, 30 May 2005 11:46:40 UTC