- From: magick <jasper.magick@gmail.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Jul 2006 23:26:33 -0400
- To: www-html@w3.org
Yes that is useful, and works quiet well. Uses less code, so looks
cleaner in the source. Thanks for that.
But when it comes to something like this, can you really say <noscript>
isn't needed? I think I have an example you'd have to agree with, that
<noscript> *is* needed here.
<script type='text/javascript'>
<!--
document.write("<p><a href='javascript:sword_enlarge()'><img
src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My Sword' /></a></p>");
//-->
</script>
<noscript><p><a href='sword.gif'><img src='thumb_sword.gif' alt='My
Sword' /></a></p></noscript>
Have the full sized image in a fixed pop-up window when JavaScript is
on, but oh my what ever shall we do if it's not on, simple. Call the
image in the same window with <noscript>
> On Sat, Jul 29, 2006 at 12:32:40PM -0400, magick wrote:
> > >Why do you need a noscript element here?
>
> > That was a bad example, try this one:
>
> > As opposed to just this:
> >
> > <p>[ <a href='javascript:scroll(0,0);'>Top of page</a> ]</p>
>
> > That's when <noscript> is useful. Still allowing fuctionality when JS
> > isn't enabled or supported
>
> And what is wrong with:
>
> <a href="#top" onclick="scroll(0,0); return false;">?
>
> --
> David Dorward
Received on Monday, 31 July 2006 03:26:51 UTC