- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:49:03 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
On 7/25/06, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:24:30 +0200, Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
> wrote:
>
> > I think, whether you need an alternative (noscript) for the scripting
> > depends on what is done in the script. If essential functionality is
> > added via scripting, a noscript alternative _is_ needed.
>
> Here is an example of how to do it without noscript (there are others).
> <noscript> is only needed when document.write is used.
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en" xml:lang="en">
> <head>
> <title>No script alternative</title>
> <style type="text/css">
> .secret {display: none}
> </style>
> <script type="text/javascript">
> function go() {
> document.getElementById('noscript').className="secret";
> document.getElementById('hasscript').className="public";;
> return true;
> }
> </script>
> </head>
> <body onload='go();'>
> <h1>A noscript alternative</h1>
> <p id='noscript'>This document has no script</p>
> <p id='hasscript' class='secret'>This document has script</p>
> </body>
> </html>
noscript is a convenience. That's all. While it's possible to do as
you suggest, noscript is much easier to read and much cleaner. It
produces a nicer output for search engines and it's a standard way of
saying what you just put there. It also doesn't rely on CSS which may
also not be supported.
--
Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 12:49:13 UTC