Web Technologies

From: Orion Adrian <orion.adrian@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 25 Jul 2006 08:49:03 -0400 Message-ID: <abd6c8010607250549i3cde7a1bqf7a4d0c7c491ecf6@mail.gmail.com> To: www-html@w3.org

On 7/25/06, Steven Pemberton <steven.pemberton@cwi.nl> wrote:
>
> On Mon, 24 Jul 2006 19:24:30 +0200, Johannes Koch <koch@w3development.de>
> wrote:
>
> > I think, whether you need an alternative (noscript) for the scripting
> > depends on what is done in the script. If essential functionality is
> > added via scripting, a noscript alternative _is_ needed.
>
> Here is an example of how to do it without noscript (there are others).
> <noscript> is only needed when document.write is used.
>
> <?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN"
>     "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd ">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml " lang="en" xml:lang="en">
> <head>
>    <title>No script alternative</title>
>    <style type="text/css">
>      .secret {display: none}
>    </style>
>    <script type="text/javascript">
>      function go() {
>          document.getElementById('noscript').className="secret";
>          document.getElementById('hasscript').className="public";;
>          return true;
>      }
>    </script>
> </head>
> <body onload='go();'>
>    <h1>A noscript alternative</h1>
>    <p id='noscript'>This document has no script</p>
>    <p id='hasscript' class='secret'>This document has script</p>
> </body>
> </html>

noscript is a convenience. That's all. While it's possible to do as
you suggest, noscript is much easier to read and much cleaner. It
produces a nicer output for search engines and it's a standard way of
saying what you just put there. It also doesn't rely on CSS which may
also not be supported.

-- 

Orion Adrian

Web Technologies

Re: xhtml 2.0 noscript