- From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 11:52:02 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
On 7/25/06, Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl> wrote:
> Orion Adrian schreef:
> >> <script type="text/javascript">
> >> function go() {
> >> if (document.XMLHttpRequest) {
> >> document.documentElement.className = 'noscript';
> >>
> >> document.body.appendChild(document.createElement('p').appendChild(document.createTextNode('This
> >>
> >> document has script')));
> >> }
> >> return true;
> >> }
> >> </script>
> >> </head>
> >> <body onload='go();'>
> >> <h1>A noscript alternative</h1>
> >> <p class="noscript">This document has no script</p>
> >> </body>
> >> </html>
> >>
> >> Then.
> >
> > This doesn't address my central point. <noscript> is a convenience.
> > The above may work, but it's not very clean or straightforward.
> >
>
> As said before, in reality whether or not the fallback content should be
> shown depends not only on whether JavaScript is enabled or not, but also
> on a lot of other factors such as (as I tried to illustrate in this
> example) whether XMLHttpRequest is supported.
>
> Simply checking whether JavaScript is enabled or not is really not
> sufficient anymore nowadays, that's where the mechanism is flawd and
> that's why it would add very little value to have such a tag.
I still find benefit in noscript as it tells you whether or not it's
on. The problem is when you assume you can do whatever you want once
it's on. But that's the problem with client script in all scenarios.
--
Orion Adrian
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 15:52:24 UTC