 |
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
[WWW-HTML Mailing List Archive Home] [Messages By Thread] [Messages By Date] Re: <link> vs. <script> for external scripts
From: Toby A Inkster <tobyink@goddamn.co.uk>
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:43:09 +0000 To: Lachlan Hunt <lhunt07@postoffice.csu.edu.au> Cc: www-html@w3.org Message-ID: <20031121114308.GA24730@ophelia.goddamn.co.uk> On Fri, Nov 21, 2003 at 01:45:18AM +1100, Lachlan Hunt wrote: | >>I'm not even entirely sure that we need <noscript/>. What about: | >> | >><body onload="document.getElementById('noscript').style.display='none';"> | >> <h1>Example</h1> | >> <p id="noscript">This paragraph acts more or less the same as a | >> <code><noscript/></code> element.</p> | >></body> | >> | That would not work if there were multiple noscript sections, since | they can't all have the same id. That's not really the point though, is it? | You would have to use the DOM to | manipulate the style sheet rule for the class "noscript" instead. Or use: document.getElementById('noscript1').style.display='none'; document.getElementById('noscript2').style.display='none'; document.getElementById('noscript3').style.display='none'; There are various ways of doing it, but the end result is the same. | >Good one! I Didn't think of that one. | >I absolutely agree. | > | >This is much nicer than the <noscript/> element and it eliminates the | >problems with the content model of <noscript/>. | > | This would lose all the semantic value that having a <noscript> | element provides. <noscript/> provides semantic value? Oh, I get it! It's a joke! Very funny. <noscript/> is all about processing and presentation, and none about semantics. -- Toby A Inkster BSc (Hons) ARCS Contact Me - http://www.goddamn.co.uk/tobyink/?page=132Received on Friday, 21 November 2003 06:43:21 GMT |
|
||||||||||||||||
