🚀 go-pugleaf

Tony Morgan <tonym@atomor.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:a+WPDKA26Tp3Ewcp@atomor.demon.co.uk...
[snip]
> However:
>
> The contents of the NOSCRIPT tag are only displayed if the browser
> *doesn't* support scripting, or if the visitor has turned off scripting
> in his browser's preferences. But the NOSCRIPT tag will not help if the
> browser doesn't support the scripting language, or if there is a problem
> with the script. Bit of a contradiction here in the effect :-)

I haven't investigated this before, but are the above symptoms the same for
all browsers?  I certainly had been led to believe that if a script language
wasn't supported, that <NOSCRIPT> content should be displayed...

> Think about the above, and you'll realise that the NOSCRIPT tag is
> really nonesense and, IMHO, should never be used.

... but apart from rollovers, I only use JS in an "all or nothing" fashion,
so I hadn't really needed <NOSCRIPT> before anyway I suppose.

> Using commenting <!-- ... --> (best practice) instead is, IMHO, the
> better solution for what is intended by the NOSCRIPT tag.

I take that to mean inside the <SCRIPT> ... </SCRIPT> tags, and if so, I
believe they should always be used - even if you do go the <NOSCRIPT> route
as well.

> Further for rollovers, providing the application of the script is done
> in the right way, the 'button-off' image will automatically be used
> where a browser doesn't support scripting.
>
> All IMHO of course  :-)

I can agree to all that, it's just a shame that <NOSCRIPT> isn't implemented
as designed, as it should work quite nicely.

Regards,
Nick