

Re: validation of noscript

From: Jim Ley <jim@jibbering.com>
Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2004 01:31:06 +0100
To: www-validator@w3.org
Message-ID: <cd9s1v$vku$1@sea.gmane.org>

"Simon Anderson" <simon@slop.de> wrote in message 
> "The First friday of the month is always useful to everyone, you might as 
> well leave it there, and then add your calculated date."
> I could leave the description instead of the actual date but people seem 
> to prefer actually having the date and it seems a bit redundant to say 
> both.

So replace the text with the date, you don't have to have both, it's just 
slightly different script.

> I don't agree that noscript is "gross" or "a bad idea". I consider it a 
> useful accessibility feature.

Could you show us how you ensure your script executes with no errors at all, 
and exactly as you expect on all user agents, in all scenarios - that's the 
problem with NOSCRIPT, because you can't know what actually happens to your 
script, there's no point only having the fallback in the situation where the 
script wasn't attempted to be executed at all!

Received on Friday, 16 July 2004 20:32:02 GMT
