- From: Lachlan Hunt <lachlan.hunt@lachy.id.au>
- Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 00:46:05 +1000
- To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- CC: www-html@w3.org
Orion Adrian wrote:
> 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.
A major problem with noscript is that it doesn't distinguish between a
browser that fully supports the script and one that has script enabled
but doesn't implement the required features.
<script>
if (!document.getElementById) {
...
}
</script>
<noscript>
<p>Browsers with script enabled that don't pass that test will not see
the result of the script, nor this alternative content.
</noscript>
--
Lachlan Hunt
http://lachy.id.au/
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 14:46:29 UTC