|
Posted by FreeCopywritingTips on January 24, 2008, 7:18 pm
Please log in for more thread options
Does anyone know how to get around the </noscript> issue, were my HTML
editor refuses to save this tag?
|
|
Posted by Rik Wasmus on January 24, 2008, 7:31 pm
Please log in for more thread options
On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:18:35 +0100, FreeCopywritingTips
> Does anyone know how to get around the </noscript> issue, were my HTML
> editor refuses to save this tag?
Any decent text editor will have no trouble with it... So at least mention
which editor you use, and probably ask in a group/forum related to that
editor, as people are more likely to know the ins and outs of that
particular tool.
--
Rik Wasmus
|
|
Posted by Jukka K. Korpela on January 24, 2008, 8:16 pm
Please log in for more thread options Scripsit Rik Wasmus:
> On Fri, 25 Jan 2008 01:18:35 +0100, FreeCopywritingTips
>> Does anyone know how to get around the </noscript> issue, were my
>> HTML editor refuses to save this tag?
>
> Any decent text editor will have no trouble with it...
Right.
> So at least
> mention which editor you use, and probably ask in a group/forum
> related to that editor, as people are more likely to know the ins and
> outs of that particular tool.
Indeed.
But the issue is very strange, if </noscript> is problematic and
<noscript> apparently isn't. I would bet on a user confusion.
Besides, the way to get around is to refrain from using the noscript
element. It's seldom useful. Mostly, a document that uses client-side
scripting should first be written and tested without scripting, and then
the scripting features would be added as extras with little or no need
for a separate noscript alternative.
--
Jukka K. Korpela ("Yucca")
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/
|
|
Posted by Steve Swift on January 25, 2008, 5:02 am
Please log in for more thread options Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> Besides, the way to get around is to refrain from using the noscript
> element. It's seldom useful. Mostly, a document that uses client-side
> scripting should first be written and tested without scripting, and then
> the scripting features would be added as extras with little or no need
> for a separate noscript alternative.
Wouldn't you add a:
<NOSCRIPT>This page works better with JavaScript enabled</NOSCRIPT>
though, when this was the case?
As you well know, my scripting is pathetic, so I use it only for little
flourishes that marginally improve the page's usability, so such a
statement is almost always true on my pages.
Incidentally, I work in a closed environment where scripting is on by
definition, and only off by the deviants.
I recently saw someone suggesting to add some script that determined if
JavaScript was disabled. I'm still trying to figure this one out.
--
Steve Swift
http://www.swiftys.org.uk/swifty.html
http://www.ringers.org.uk
|
|
Posted by David Dorward on January 25, 2008, 5:58 am
Please log in for more thread options Steve Swift wrote:
> Wouldn't you add a:
> <NOSCRIPT>This page works better with JavaScript enabled</NOSCRIPT>
> though, when this was the case?
No. If someone has decided to disable JS, or is using a client which doesn't
support it, then constant reminders about it are going to be irritating.
--
David Dorward
http://dorward.me.uk/
http://blog.dorward.me.uk/
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Robots.txt issue | January 13, 2005, 12:02 pm |
| help with design issue | May 31, 2005, 8:17 am |
| Frameset issue | October 28, 2006, 3:28 pm |
| help with firefox issue | February 25, 2008, 11:41 am |
| Accessibility issue - onKeyDown | November 15, 2004, 2:53 pm |
| Help with Firefox margin issue | August 30, 2005, 5:26 pm |
| mailto & display name issue | July 21, 2006, 10:48 am |
| Safari issue with self.close | February 28, 2007, 12:51 pm |
| Firefox/IE7 display issue | September 17, 2007, 4:53 pm |
| Positioning issue with min-width divs | January 30, 2008, 2:53 pm |
|
XML Sitemap