Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript

"magick" <jasper.magick@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:44CB80C1.100@gmail.com...
> You still have not answered by questions.  Everytime I write to W3C, my 
> topic always gets hijacked and turns into a discussion about something 
> else, rather than address the original question, MY question.

It is not a support forum, if you want to get a specific anser to a specific 
question about a W3 specification, first you need to ensure that it is an 
issue, then you need to raise it through the correct channels, of course 
your question doesn't need that as it is trivial for anyone to find out if 
you can use it (you can't), you may want a reason why - although you've got 
them in the thread, but if you want an official answer, raise an official 
issue - you'll need to explain your problem clearly.

> And here is a very good example why you may want to use it:
>
> Let's say you have this
>
> <a href='javascript:history.go(-1)'>Go back to the page you just left</a>

You don't need a noscript element for this - since noscript does not have 
any correlation to the actual existence of something that will execute 
script in that way in the presence of a link - many browsers won't, and 
certainly there's little way of knowing what an XHTML 2 user agent might do.

> <script type='text/javascript'>
> <!--
> document.write ("<a href='javascript:history.go(-1)'>Go back to the page 
> you just left<\/a>")
> -->
> </script>

This isn't a valid script! it would do nothing but cause a script error 
(depending on what version of HTML you were using, it may just be a 
comment...)

> Now if someone has JS enabled, they'll see the link, if not they see 
> nothing.  It's the best of both worlds.

Nope, it's a cocked up mess by a poor scripter who doesn't really understand 
what they are doing.

Please be clear the W3 HTML mailing list is not a place for you to get 
support, it's a place to discuss the specification, you got the right answer 
straight away - Steven could've perhaps put it at a level you might have 
understood, but again this is not your support desk, it's a place for 
discussion, the fact that other people have taken the opportunity to discuss 
the topic triggered by your post.

Rather than moaning, you should be pleased that you got some extremely 
knowledgeable people willing to respond to you - you got Steven Pemberton to 
take time out to answer something you could've answered yourself in under a 
minute.

Jim.

Received on Saturday, 29 July 2006 16:10:49 UTC