- From: Jukka K. Korpela <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi>
- Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 12:51:32 +0200 (EET)
- To: David Gatwood <dgatwood@mac.com>
- cc: www-validator@w3.org
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, David Gatwood wrote: > The problem is that it appears to be impossible, even in "loose", to legally > use a frameset and the NOSCRIPT tag in the same document, The NOFRAMES element may contain a NOSCRIPT element. This won't help here, of course. > which seriously > limits the ability to create client-side dynamic content that involves > frames.... (Some people say that anything that makes it more difficult to use frames makes things a little better...) I guess you could create a Frameset document, with the content that you wish to present when scripting is disabled, and with a scripted transfer to an address where you have the scripting-enabled version. The problem is that the latter might accidentally be accessed by scripting-disabled user agents, causing confusion, but this won't be very probable if you don't announce the address anywhere and don't link to it, so that the only normal way to get there is via scripting. > Looks like I'll just have to wait for a fixed version of > the spec before attempting compliance.... That would be a _long_ wait. -- Jukka "Yucca" Korpela, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
Received on Saturday, 25 February 2006 10:51:37 UTC