- From: Kornel Lesinski <kornel@geekhood.net>
- Date: Wed, 17 Jun 2009 00:29:09 +0100
On Tue, 16 Jun 2009 11:51:05 +0100, Aryeh Gregor
<Simetrical+w3c at gmail.com> wrote:
>> <noscript> is a very poor solution, and <nostyle> would be too. You
>> should use graceful degradation/progressive enhancement instead (in
>> both cases).
>
> Graceful degradation is not necessarily possible with JavaScript. For
> instance, consider a real-time game written in JavaScript.
True, but <noscript> doesn't allow implementation of games either.
What matters is cases where fallback is possible, and where <nostyle>
would improve it.
> Sometimes <noscript> can be used for graceful fallback, too. For
> instance, if a script normally generates an element dynamically when
> needed, the element might be placed statically inside <noscript> so
> that it always appears if script is disabled. (For instance, a
> "Nationality" form in a field that only appears if a radio control is
> changed from the default of "U.S. Citizen".) Without <noscript>, the
> only way I know of to allow graceful fallback is to do something like
> hide the element onload, which will make it briefly visible.
It doesn't have to be briefly visible. Don't use onload, but an inline
script:
<div id="hideme">
<script>document.getElementById('hideme').hidden = true</script>
(in)visible content?
</div>
If your page uses DHTML a lot, and has fallback in many places, there's
nice trick for it:
<head>
<script>document.documentElement.className += " script-supported"</script>
<style>.script-supported .dhtml-fallback {display:none}</style>
--
regards, Kornel Lesinski
Received on Tuesday, 16 June 2009 16:29:09 UTC