[whatwg] no <noscript> proposal

Charles Iliya Krempeaux supercanadian at gmail.com
Mon May 30 11:46:40 PDT 2005


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/

More information about the whatwg mailing list