[whatwg] no <noscript> proposal

[Charles Iliya Krempeaux]

Hello,

On 5/30/05, Jim Ley <jim.ley at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 5/30/05, Charles Iliya Krempeaux <supercanadian at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Hello,> > I disagree. The <noscript> element is seldom used for anything else
> > > but "this page requires javascript to work".
> >
> > I (and others) have used the <noscript> tag quite a bit for displaying
> > (what alot of people seem to call) "rich media" (for some reason) and
> > having gracefull fall backs.  Basically, the code looks something like
> > this:
> >
> >    <script src="..." type="text/javascript"></script>
> >    <noscript>
> >        <iframe src="...">
> >            <a href="..."><img src="..." /></a>
> >        </iframe>
> >    </noscript>
> >
> > So,... at first we try and run the JavaScript code to display the
> > "rich media".  If that doesn't work, then we try and use the iframe.
> > If that doesn't work (because the browser is too old) then we try and
> > display the image.
> 
> this isn't what happens in the above case at all, if the script code
> doesn't work, then the fallback content is not displayed, it's only
> displayed if script is not supported at all, script capable user
> agents like Nokias internal browser will still execute your script,
> not manage to display any "rich media", yet the noscript will also not
> be displayed.

Please excuse the confusion.  When I said "doesn't work" (in that
case), I meant that JavaScript wasn't working.  I.e, that either the
browser didn't have JavaScript support, or that JavaScript support was
turned off (by the user or whoever).


See ya

-- 
     Charles Iliya Krempeaux, B.Sc.

     charles @ reptile.ca
     supercanadian @ gmail.com

     weblog: http://ChangeLog.ca/
___________________________________________________________________________
 Ask the toughest Linux System questions at...   http://linuxmanagers.org/