- From: David Dorward <david@us-lot.org>
- Date: Mon, 30 Jan 2006 22:17:41 +0000
- To: w3c-wai-ig@w3.org
On Mon, 2006-01-30 at 22:00 +0000, David Woolley wrote:
> Jim was suggesting that <noscript> actually implies poor programming.
> I'd disagree, in part because it is quite likely to be be put in by an
> accessibility aware programmer when the client is insisting that the page
> should do things that rely on "Javascript" processing.
Poor programming because a client insists on doing it that way is still
poor programming.
> This relies on the no-scripting case being a don't care condition for the
> client so, whilst the programmer has exceeded their brief, with possible
> cost implications, the client will probably never know that the fallback exists.
The fallback should, and I suspect this was Jim's point, be *graceful*.
<noscript> assumes that there are only two possible outcomes, scripting
is unsupported, or the script will work. It can't take script failure
into account.
For example:
<script type="text/javascript">
doSomethingWith(document.getElementById('foo');
</script>
<noscript>
Something equivalent to doSomethingWith()
<noscript>
Netscape 4.x supports JavaScript. Assuming it is turned on, it will no
process the <noscript> element. However, it does not support
document.getElementById, so it will fail to process the <script>.
Other examples might work only in MSIE, or in browsers which support DOM 2.
--
David Dorward <http://dorward.me.uk/>
"Anybody remotely interesting is mad, in some way or another."
-- The Greatest Show in the Galaxy
Received on Monday, 30 January 2006 22:19:24 UTC