- From: Joris Huizer <joris_huizer@yahoo.com>
- Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 11:28:20 -0800 (PST)
- To: "Philip TAYLOR \[PC336/H-XP\]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk>
- Cc: kelvSYC <kelvsyc@shaw.ca>, Chris Mannall <chris.mannall@hecubagames.com>, W3 HTML Mailing List <www-html@w3.org>
What I meant was, <noscript> sections are typically used to give noscript browsers alternative text as some functionality provided in a script is missing - but with DOM support it's very easy to hide/extend/remove the noscript text - I'm not saying all modern browsers must support javascript :-) --- "Philip TAYLOR [PC336/H-XP]" <P.Taylor@Rhul.Ac.Uk> wrote: > > > Joris Huizer wrote: > > [snip] > > > Assuming DOM support, there is no real need for > > <noscript> - and only modern, future browsers will > > support XHTML 2 you may assume this > > I would respectfully strongly disagree; even using > the most > modern browser(s), I still operate with JavaScript > disabled > by default, and enable it only when (a) it is > essential to > the site being navigated, and (b) I am convinced > that the > site is trustworthy. Ditto Java, of course. > > Philip Taylor, RHBNC __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Received on Thursday, 23 January 2003 14:28:22 UTC