- From: Laurens Holst <lholst@students.cs.uu.nl>
- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 17:34:33 +0200
- To: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com>
- Cc: www-html@w3.org
- Message-ID: <44C63A09.8060100@students.cs.uu.nl>
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.
~Grauw
--
Ushiko-san! Kimi wa doushite, Ushiko-san nan da!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Laurens Holst, student, university of Utrecht, the Netherlands.
Website: www.grauw.nl. Backbase employee; www.backbase.com.
Received on Tuesday, 25 July 2006 16:06:51 UTC